More PAC wars out in Rapid City.
And I must have missed that note.
The Rapid City Journal is reporting this morning that there's a PAC war afoot in the mayor's race between Doug Hamilton and Stan Adelstein as the hours tick away before the election:
Hmph. You know, I seem to recall a comment under a post from Representative Hanks which stated:
What was the genesis of this? Alan had chided me as trying to make overt attempts to connect him to Stan because I had brought up that in the past, he had ran a PAC - the Rapid City Action Committee -
who's sole source of income was the same Adelstein PAC which donated to him in this mayoral campaign.
I wasn't trying to overtly make the connection, but it's in black and white filed with the state that "his" PAC's sole source of income was one of Stan's network of PAC's. So I thought it noteworthy to indicate.
Hence the assurances as posted on this website by Alan that if he was going to take PAC money from Stan, there would be full disclosure beyond what was in the financial report in the interest of being completely open and honest. And I think you all know that I would have printed it.
If a State Representative sends me something, it's at the top of my list, and I usually take pains to be fair and let them offer their opinion. For gosh's sakes, I even give Frank Kloucek space from time to time. I might not agree, but I do honor the office, and those guys are there, not me. And as much as I've chronicled Stan's PAC activity, it's a guarantee I would have made note of it.
Anyway, according to the Rapid City Journal this morning, yes, Alan did take campaign money from one of Stan's PAC's in this mayoral race. The very one that had funded his PAC in 2006.
Did he honor the promise he made to the people who read this website? All I can say is that in the past month, I haven't seen an e-mail of that nature. Not a blurb in my in-box on him deciding to accept the same PAC money he had eschewed earlier. In fact I double checked again this morning. And checked again after that. Nope. Nothing I can see.
That would seem to bring up a cliché about campaign promises, but I'm on the other side of the state, so whether they are honored or not in this instance doesn't matter to me. It's up to the people who assess the candidates for office to determine who is the most fit to be considered their leader.
So, I'll leave it up to the voters to decide. All I can provide at this point is an anecdote.
Shaw reported $70,499 in two payments from the Elect Better Government PAC, which is linked to businessman Doug Hamilton. Another $250 was received from the South Dakota Realtors PAC.Read the entire story here.
and...
Alan Hanks has raised about $22,000 including about $10,000 of his own money, $8,754 in individual contributions and $3,250 in PAC contributions, primarily $3,000 from the All South Dakota PAC funded by Stan Adelstein.
and...
Sam Kooiker raised about $20,800, including $14,128 from individuals, and $6,700 from PACs including $5,650 from the Committee for Open Government, $800 from the homebuilders PAC and $250 from the Realtors PAC. Kooiker reported $18,265 in campaign-related expenses, and he has about $2,800 remaining.
and...
All South Dakota PAC, whose only contribution was Stan Adelstein's $7,000, gave $1,000 to city council candidate Bob Hurlbut, $3,000 to mayoral candidate Alan Hanks, $1,000 to school board candidate Margie Rosario, $500 to city council candidate Deb Hadcock, and $1,000 to city council candidate Ron Kroeger.
Hmph. You know, I seem to recall a comment under a post from Representative Hanks which stated:
Rep. Alan Hanks said...Read that comment here under this post. I think Alan (who has advertised here in the past) is a nice guy, but I know that since he made this post on April 4th, my e-mail box hasn't said anything about him deciding that, yes, he would take PAC money from Stan Adelstein in the mayoral race.
Let me put a stop to all speculation right now.
If I win, Adelstein has already told folks including the Governors folks that he would not ask for or accept an appoint to the open House seat.
As for campaign donations from Adelstein, I have not accepted or been offered any.
If Adelstein offers to donate to my campaign, either as an individual or through any PAC, and if I accept any donation from Adelstein, I have promised PP to report it to him, even if it’s only $10, the day I receive it.
Rep. Alan Hanks
What was the genesis of this? Alan had chided me as trying to make overt attempts to connect him to Stan because I had brought up that in the past, he had ran a PAC - the Rapid City Action Committee -
who's sole source of income was the same Adelstein PAC which donated to him in this mayoral campaign.I wasn't trying to overtly make the connection, but it's in black and white filed with the state that "his" PAC's sole source of income was one of Stan's network of PAC's. So I thought it noteworthy to indicate.
Hence the assurances as posted on this website by Alan that if he was going to take PAC money from Stan, there would be full disclosure beyond what was in the financial report in the interest of being completely open and honest. And I think you all know that I would have printed it.
If a State Representative sends me something, it's at the top of my list, and I usually take pains to be fair and let them offer their opinion. For gosh's sakes, I even give Frank Kloucek space from time to time. I might not agree, but I do honor the office, and those guys are there, not me. And as much as I've chronicled Stan's PAC activity, it's a guarantee I would have made note of it.
Anyway, according to the Rapid City Journal this morning, yes, Alan did take campaign money from one of Stan's PAC's in this mayoral race. The very one that had funded his PAC in 2006.
Did he honor the promise he made to the people who read this website? All I can say is that in the past month, I haven't seen an e-mail of that nature. Not a blurb in my in-box on him deciding to accept the same PAC money he had eschewed earlier. In fact I double checked again this morning. And checked again after that. Nope. Nothing I can see.
That would seem to bring up a cliché about campaign promises, but I'm on the other side of the state, so whether they are honored or not in this instance doesn't matter to me. It's up to the people who assess the candidates for office to determine who is the most fit to be considered their leader.
So, I'll leave it up to the voters to decide. All I can provide at this point is an anecdote.
Comments
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x5cnduQ4V0
I don't think Stan wins any points with that stunt.
Be clear $70,000 to Shaw from someone who has a $30 Million!! yes Million pending compared to $3,000 from a fellow former legislator from their District 32.
Come on now - why did you ignore the endorsement against Hanks by your buddy Napoli?
Why must your blind hatred of me make you anxious to confuse?
Read Bishop Cupich's essay on Civil Discourse -- then read it again!
Stan Adelstein
Just what you keep trying to do to the Republican party you profess to be a loyal member of.
As I opined to a member of the current Senate Leadership about your activities this past election..."the rough estimates, NOT including his own race, Stan dropped about 216k last year into the elections.
As far as I can tell, in partisan races, (not including non partisan candidates Volk, and Hennies) he dropped about 22k into GOP Races, including the primary contests before he went over to the dark side for 100% Democrat causes such as the Majority Project (10k), Focus SD (about 116k total) Nix on 6 (set up as an abortion pac, but dropped all Stan's loot into Katus, Finch and Spry). "
So, grand total, we're talking about $150k+ you spent into trying to beat the Republican party you profess to care so much about.
Then there's the times when you've been openly critical of your fellow GOP Senators during session.
Hate you, not at all.
But do I find your self-obsessed, agenda-based, fair-weather-support of the GOP distasteful? Do I think you're a big crybaby who will flip/flop his party allegiance if he doesn't get his way?
Absolutely.
And I'll continue to call you on it, ad infinitum.
I don't see him trying to also profess himself as a loyal supporter of the Democratic party at the same time. Because the evidence of it this past election is crystal clear.
Stan shouldn't stab those he professes to support in the back, and then expect hugs and kisses from them when he wants something.
Because elephants never forget.
Your confusing, hard to read, poorly written post is just one reason (of many) that clearly tells me that you are not qualified to serve in the legislature. I have listened to you "testify" (preach) at committee hearings and wondered how such a poor communicator ever got elected - then I was told of your many dollars and your ability to use them in a way that insures that you always get your way.
It appears to me that it has been a long while since your read the SD Republican platform. You so seldom support it that it is hard to believe that you ever have supported a Republican point of view. I am sure that there are those in the party who are addicted to your dollars (Mike Rounds) who would be sad to see you go--but why don't you join a party whose platform more closely matches your beliefs?
Moderation culminates from reasoned thought, and Stan Adelstein is a moderate in the very truest and finest sense of the word.
The vituperative diatribes against him, that I've read on this blogsite (and others), are shameful.
In September 2006, former State Senator Adelstein was inducted into the South Dakota Hall of Fame for his decades of service in governmental affairs, not self-aggrandizement.
Were it not for him, who else would you have to pick on?
Are we no better than a pack of wolves?
On the other hand, you have to admire PP's ability to troll and troll and catch a whale like Stan.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with what democracy means... Has PP ever said Stan can't vote how he wants? This is Republican Party politics. You'd be hard pressed to say that Stan isn't trying to shift power away from conservative Republicans to moderates. PP (and quite a few others) don't want that to happen.
What's wrong with calling Stan on his claimed unwavering support for the Republican Party when he gives piles of money to Democrats? He gets on TV and talks about he's the most Ronald Reagan of any Republican, and he breaks - no obliterates - the 11th commandment. This is a dispute over several things, including the party platform. This is democracy.
Sounds to me like the kind of sour grapes that probably led Stan, completely within his every right, to support whoever he wanted to. Because Pat certainly has every right to post what he wants.
Party be damned, Pat. Party be damned.
And in regard to the partisan political party issue, I was a registered Democrat for 25 years. Currently I am a registered Republican, but the most important thing for me is not Republicans. The most important thing for me is the truth. And I think PP is on the same page here with that. But the problem I have with Adelstein is not that he is bad for the Republicans. The problem I have with Adelstein is that he is wrong and bad for America. And Kati Jenkins is also wrong to refer to Adelstein as a “moderate”. Stan Adelstein is just as extreme as the secular far-left of the Democrat Party. These extremists trash morality as their god is money. The “moderate” and “mainstream” labels are lies. If you want a true non-partisan moderate, then take a former Democrat who has joined the Republicans but still holds the Country Club and secular wings of the Republican Party accountable for being outside and away from traditional American principles. Its time to change the dialogue so that moderate means American.
is that what you're worth?
--lexrex
1. Isn't it ironic that Hanks said he would not take PAC money, if every other canidate swears against it, but yet he is accepting PAC money?
2. Two of the richest people in Rapid City sure show where they want the city to go, wether it be Hanks or Shaw, it shows who wants who in city hall becuase they think they will vote for things that benifit them.
Not only is it prevalant in the mayor race, but also city council, take a look at the report.
Oh, that's rich, Steve. Good one.
We'll never know for sure, and the voters won't care that Hanks lied about that.