AG Long and Roger Hunt are going toe to toe on the $750,000 donation to Yes on 6
Today in the Rapid City Journal, the Associated Press has the tale of how Attorney General Larry Long believes Roger violated campaign finance laws in not disclosing the name of the donor. Of course, Roger disagrees:
State Rep. Roger Hunt, R-Brandon, violated campaign finance laws by not identifying the person who gave $750,000 to a group supporting the recently defeated abortion ban, Attorney General Larry Long said.Long said in a story in Sunday's Argus Leader that he is investigating his options but would not say what step he will take next.
"That disagreement is going to have to be resolved," Long told the Sioux Falls newspaper.
and...Long could negotiate with Hunt, prosecute him for failing to comply with campaign finance laws or ask a judge to decide whether he must identify the donor. Failure to comply with campaign finance laws is a misdemeanor punishable by as much as 30 days in jail and a $200 fine.
State Sen. Tom Dempster, R-Sioux Falls, and Sen. Scott Heidempriem, D-Sioux Falls, said Hunt should reveal the donor.
"Roger has an obligation to disclose that information, and I think it's embarrassing that he hasn't done it," Heidempriem, the state Senate's Democratic leader, said.
Hunt did not talk at length about the donation but said he is following state laws and will stand his ground.
He questions whether a corporation, which is legally considered a person, meets the definition of a ballot question committee.
Read it all here. And that's a good question - how does a corporation fit into this? Depending on your point of view, either it was a master stroke of maneuvering, or such a blatant dodge of the laws that the AG can't allow it to stand.
I'm just going to stand back now. Please keep it civil.
Comments
Also, Hunt has serious conflicts of interest as well. Who does he represent? The corporation that he is president of, or the donor? Given the problems with the reporting obligations, I don't think he can represent both. It appears that, by hiding the identity of the donor, he is representing the donor, all to the detriment of the corporation.
Hunt, therefore, may have other important questions he needs to answer.
* Setting up a dummy corporation for the sole purpose of laundering campaign money.
* Establishing the pretense of attorney-client privilege as part of the set-up with the dummy corporation to cover up financial activities and participants.
* Offering the use of the corporation to others as a vehicle to break laws.
* Completing the act of laundering money to make illegal contributions.
* Refusing to comply with orders of law enforcement authorities seeking to make the campaign contributions transparent.
It looks like racketeering and conspiracy to me. What about you? Long should be throwing the book at Hunt.
I just hope this isn't Hunt's way of becoming a religious/political martyr, because rational people won't see it that way. They'll think of him as a kook and a crook. I hope he backs off of this now before Long and the IRS have to be considering felonies instead of a hand-spanking class 2 misdemeanor.
If Leslee or other third parties are involved, they better come clean right away or get trapped in the same net. When the House meets to reprimand Hunt in special session, could Leslee and other possible conspirators be put under oath and will the testimony be public?
12:54, news reports have consistently pointed out that both democrats and republicans called for the Sutton special session.
The two of you should get together. Misery loves company.
Hunt Gate.
Oh, there are sooo original over there.
Thanks PP for letting everyone voice their opinions.
Just because we would all like to know who the donor is or are doesn't mean Roger broke the law
Anon 6:00 Your real name must be Tom DeLay.
Roger needs to come clean on this one.
I do think Hunt needs to come clean. It is funny how he talks to the media and tells them the corporation was created to financially support his cause. He should've invoked attorney-client privilege with that questin!
Whether Sutton broke any laws or not he may well have broken rules governing the SD Senate. They are two different things. That line continually seems to get forgotten or blurred.
What lies beneath?
Is it sumo wrestling? Put your money on Hunt.
Is it a gunfight? The smart money is on Long.
Is it a cockfight? Neither one of them has a rooster.
I predict detente. Long won't do anything with it. Then later he can put the cold case unit to work.
It's complete crap that planned parenthood can give a huge amount and the Argus doesn't say a word about it. Let's see the Argus pull a story about them shall we???
BTW, does the Argus really have nothing better to write about?
Are they that hard up for news?
Sounds like the Argus should get a better staff that can come up with more than 3 news articles in 4 months time.
The Argus continues to lose more credibility with every article.