Breaking News:
Kooiker cries foul at Hamilton financial filing claiming Schumacher was paid to help him

The Rapid City Mayoral race is heating up tonight.

As I understand it, after Sam Kooiker openly refused to take money offered to him by Rapid City businessman Doug Hamilton, an amendment was filed to Hamilton's PAC report (6 months after the fact) claiming that Mike Schumacher was paid over $7,000 to help Sam campaign. Check out this release from the Kooiker campaign:
On March 22, 2007, Sam Kooiker was quoted in the Rapid City Weekly News
declaring that he had no intention of taking any of Rapid City businessman Doug Hamilton’s money. On the same day, Mr. Hamilton filed with the Secretary of State an amendment to his 11/01/2006 Elect Better Government 2005 PAC financial report. The amendment states that Kooiker was the beneficiary of a $7,700 campaign contribution to Michael Schumacher in 2006.

(See Elect Better Government 2005.)

“This is a deliberate attempt to smear my good name,” Kooiker said. “The fact that the amendment was filed on the same day that my statement declaring I didn’t want Mr. Hamilton’s money appeared in the local press, demonstrates how utterly contrived and transparent this is.”

“I can only assume that this amendment was filed for the specific reason of revealing it at some key point in the upcoming election. Furthermore, I have already spoken with the Secretary of State’s office about this report and I will pursue this issue to its rightful conclusion.”

“I have freely acknowledged a past direct contribution of $2000 from the ‘Elect Better Government 2005’ PAC, which was reported in my 2006 campaign finance report (Check #5509). For the record, if indeed Mr. Hamilton was paying Mr. Schumacher to assist me in my 2006 Ward 2 council race, I did not become aware of any payment(s) until Thursday, April 12, 2007---and, as such I would have no way to know to include it on my own campaign finance report.”

“I have known Mike since our college days in Vermillion in the 1990’s. He indeed encouraged me to run for public office in 2002 and has assisted me in all three of my City Council elections. My payment to him consisted of a friendship and a bunch of free meals.”

“My campaign for Mayor is about open and honest government. I have no strings attached. It is unclear at this point what Mr. Schumacher and Mr. Hamilton are doing for any mayoral candidates in the upcoming election. Mr. Shaw has said repeatedly in recent weeks that he’s not interested in Mr. Hamilton or Mr. Schumacher’s help with his campaign. I’m taking him at his word and I sincerely hope he’s not involved in this attempt to call my integrity into question.”
I had to go check this out for myself.... Here's a copy of the documents in question from the Secretary of State's website.
Click on either of them to enlarge:

Click on either of them to enlarge:

The plot thickens. And I'm not sure what to think on this. Is it truth? Is it B.S.? I think I'd like to see some proof. When I first reviewed this financial report, it was my thought that this was for Schumacher's management of Judge Pete Fuller's campaign. Does this mean that the Fuller campaign was a freebie?

At the least, I'd like to see a copy of the check payment front and back. And maybe Mike's income tax return. (I know we can't ask for his sales tax reports, since from checking previously, Mike doesn't have a sales tax license.)

Stay tuned for more on this.

Comments

Anonymous said…
I think this whole discussion might be a lot of nothing. It doesn't appear that the PAC was trying to disparage Mr. Kooiker, but merely clarifying errors (which may have come to their attention through this blog). It also doesn't seem that Mr. Kooiker is guilty of anything more than miscommunication. If elected officials and those who take part in the political process are consistently attacked when trying to remedy errors, then what is the upside for being forthright? Let this campaign be on the issues and go from there.
Lee said…
so this is what Hamilton and Schumacher were up to...It won't work. We got your number.
Anonymous said…
I wonder what hamilton paid schumacher to change his story. They must really be scared of Kooiker. Hamilton must really want that tax increment district for wal-mart. Shaw loves tax give aways.
Anonymous said…
I'm starting to think that Kooiker may not be the angel pp has led us to believe. Maybe he wanted the benefit of Hamilton's money last June, but didn't want the stigma associated with it. Now, after his public proclamations of campaign virtue, maybe the bloom is off the rose. Also, I believe it was Barker & Little (Hamilton's company) that paid for the ads for Kooiker's "Task Force." pp, the plot truly thickens.
Anonymous said…
So, in his press release, Kooiker said his payment to Schumacher consisted of "friendship?" This doesn't sound like someone who should then be broken up over Schumacher defecting to Shaw, it sounds like this "friendship" was merely for Kooiker's political benefit.
Anonymous said…
Kooiker says it appears contrived because it was on the same day his comments appeared in the paper, but I do not see evidence of this being faxed, so if it was received on the same day, then it was sent PRIOR to Kooiker's comments being in the paper.
Anonymous said…
Friendship in exchange for a bunch of free meals.

I think we may have finally gotten to the bottom of this one.
Anonymous said…
Has this been turned over to the Attorney General? Although some may argue that would be a waste of time and effort.
Anonymous said…
Note the date of the supposed contract - 5-31-06. Schumacher was going to do 350 hours of work for $20 per hour? Hmmm. At the time Hamilton and Schumacher reached this "agreement" there were only 144 hours left before the election.

I smell two rats.
Anonymous said…
I also smell two rats. Kooiker and Powers. It was pretty well known around RC that Schumacher was getting paid to help Kooiker. That is why there were fairly regular meetings between Hamilton, Kooiker, and Schumacher. Also, the contract may have been written well in advance of this date as a proposal and, in order to make sure things were in writing and finalized, it was signed later. PP will do anything to ignore Occam's Razor. Maybe Kooiker thought he could get by with something, but now that he has professed his purity, he cannot just come out and say he was a political flirt.
Anonymous said…
If PP's a rat in this, how does he benefit?

It sounds to me that someone is posting anonymously to cover his tracks.

There are just too many things that don't add up.
Anonymous said…
A rat doesn't have to benefit, they just have to be disingenuous. Because of his obvious support of Kooiker, he isn't being honest with himself. It is unclear if his bias is intentional, but it is clear that isn't trying to look at all the angles. When the $7700 was first discussed, people mentioned that it could be for Kooiker's campaign, but PP insisted that it had to be for Fuller. Why? Because Fuller was the opponent of Lance Russell; who just happens to be PP's other political man crush. Now, if it wasn't for Fuller, that doesn't help Russell. If it was for Kooiker, then that doesn't help Kooiker and it means he wasn't exactly being honest in his RCWeekly article. A bit Clintonian, if you ask me.
Anonymous said…
Where's the Fuller contract?
Anonymous said…
Fuller contract for what? It doesn't appear the PAC paid for anything with the Fuller campaign other than a direct contribution. Let's not spin this into something more than it truly is: Kooiker didn't do his due diligence when reporting and is now trying to cover his tracks. That is why he is pre-empting an issue that isn't an issue.
Anonymous said…
Mike must not have a day job since he's spending so much time this afternoon trying to spin it his way (anonymously, of course).
Anonymous said…
Schumacher is a snake. It's perfect that he's in cahoots with Hamilton. Birds of a feather they say...

The two big issues are first, what sort of tax does Mike Schumacher owe the state and/or federal government for these payments?

Second, the really BIG issue is all those free meals. Probably should have skipped a couple of those.
Anonymous said…
Hamilton contracted with Schumacher right before the June primary, but the PAC didn't report the payment to Schumacher until the end of the year report. Why? Because the payments were for Schumacher's work on the Fuller's general election campaign.

Fuller could only take $1,000 from Hamilton's PAC because of Judicial ethical rules. Therefore, this was done to cover Fuller's tracks . . . another campaign finance and judicial ethical violation by Fuller. Schumacher's attempt to smear Kookier in order to keep the judicial ethics committee away from Fuller is laughable.

An unethical judge, an unethical city councilman and an unethical businessman trying to smear Kookier with their radioactiveness. What is the benefit to Hamilton in the election of Judge Fuller? Is it just the fact that they both like strip clubs or has Hamilton's business interests benefitted from Fuller's rulings? How has and will Hamilton benefit from Shaw's reelection? I'm sure someone knows the answers to these questions.
Anonymous said…
Why is Schumacher getting blamed for any of this? Did he file the intitial report? Did he file the amended report? I think people are looking for shadows around corners. Kooiker seems to be trying to spin this away from him because he knows it could be damaging, but it seems to be just an amended filing.
Anonymous said…
After looking at other PAC reports, Kooiker may have thought it would just be reported as a generic "consulting" amount, rather than being directly attributed to him. That seems to be fairly common on some of the reports. If that is the case, he should just come forward and file an amended report. Just seems like miscommunication, not the grand conspiracy anyone is trying make it.
Anonymous said…
10:32 PM (Lance) needs to stop watching "24." The contract was prior to the June election, but if payments weren't made until after the reporting date, they wouldn't show up until the next report. To try to pin this on Fuller is nothing short of desparate and pathetic.
Anonymous said…
From the content of the comments after 1am, it looks like Scumaker is hopelessly devoted to this website.
Anonymous said…
What a flock of turkeys. None of you are fit to tie Pete Fuller's shoes. What a bunch of chickenshit candyassed gossiping beyotchez! You should all be ashamed of yourselves. A herd of monkey spanking weeneie boyz. Pathetic.
not lance said…
So, then, schumacher worked on fuller's campaign for free...I see...
Anonymous said…
If anyone is actually trying to find a conclusion, rather than finding an explanation for their predetermined conclusion, please get your facts. If you look at Fuller's campaign reports, there is a 2000 dollar listing for consulting, could that have been for Schumacher? Why would a payment for Schumacher's work for Fuller be on the PAC's site? That is an illogical conclusion, especially when considering the campaign finance implications involved with that race, but Kooiker's race would have had no campaign finance implications with this, except for the fact that Kooiker was hoping to avoid the stain of taking so much assistance from Hamilton, when some of his supporters were criticizing Hennies for taking so much of Adelstein's money. Kooiker was also smart enough to realize that if he could avoid this, then it wouldn't hurt him when he ran for Mayor. The logical conclusion leads us to the fact that Kooiker didn't report the contribution properly. Whether this was intentional, or not, is up to the beholder.
Anonymous said…
If the money did not go through the candidate, ie, from pac to schumacher, why would it need to be reflected on Kooikers or Fullers report ?

I can buy a radio ad or a billboard with my money and report to no one, if I understand the law correctly. It is not neccessary to report what I spend to support a friend is it ?
Anonymous said…
I believe you could spend personal money on issue ads. A good example of this would be the ad Jerry Apa ran against Tom Hennies during his race with Sam Kooiker last year. If I remember correctly, it criticized Hennies for being so heavily funded by Adelstein, but didn't explicitly say to vote for Kooiker. If something is done explicitly on a candidate's behalf, it should be reported as an in-kind contribution. That is why the basics of this situation are really not that heinous. Kooiker may not have known the amount of payment to the penny, so he has a point, but if he knew about the agreement, then he had an obligation to report it. Otherwise, the contribution limit is a moot point, because instead of contributing $250 to a campaign and maxing out, they could have just paid a printer $1000 towards a candidate's printing cost. Campaign finance is a piece of Swiss cheese with all its loopholes, but there are some basic guidelines. If Kooiker knew about it and didn't report it; is that wrong? Yes, but not the worst thing in the world, just cause for confusion. If Kooiker knew about it, didn't report it, and is now trying to mislead the public? Now that elevates the issue in my mind.
Anonymous said…
10:45:

What if Fuller knew Hamilton's PAC was paying for Schumacher's services for his campaign and did not report as an in-kind contribution on his report? Could it be because he could not take over $1000 from Hamilton's PAC?

It looks more like a cover up for Fuller than Kookier. Schumacher and Hamilton are just trying to pin themselves to Kookier in order to politically harm him and keep the judicial ethics committee away from their true friend and partner Fuller.

Obviously, even Schumacher and Hamilton knows how harmful their association with anyone is right now. And they just keep scheming away.
scimitar said…
Feud in the Hills!

Man is there alot of nastiness and backbiting in Rapid City politics. And it's all in the GOP family. The repubs in RC are far more vicious to each other than Dems have ever been to them.

When the McCoys (GOP) finish shooting each other in the back the Hatfields (Democrats) will take over.
Anonymous said…
Maybe I am being naieve, but if the money did not go through the candidates treasurer and/or checking account; how can the candidate be held responsible for reporting the amount of money? If I go and buy a couple of magnetic car signs for my car supporting a candidate, thats my perogative, I dont need a permit or need to file any report, nor should the candidate be criticized for not reporting what I spent.
Anonymous said…
7:17 -- If the candidate did know, he is obligated to report it. Especially if he was involved in the coordination.
Anonymous said…
8:39 AM

OK, I will assume you are right, but I would fell better if you had a reference to the law, or, the chapter and I will read for myself.
Anonymous said…
I will try to find that. That is just the way the people I know have operated, because they have been under the same impression.
Anonymous said…
"Much ado about nothing!"

Popular posts from this blog

That didn't take long

State to UFWS: It's over