When the going gets tough, the tough get weird.

I got a copy of the big full page anti-Kooiker ad that was placed by Doug Hamilton and Mike Schumacher's PAC, the Elect Better Government PAC that donated Tens of thousands to Mayor Shaw's campaign this election.

And it seems little more than a re-hashing of some of the old nonsense that's been surrounding this mystery contract since day 1.

(Click to enlarge)

There's three checks listed at the top of the ad from Doug Hamilton to Mike Schumacher. And, well, ok. I don't think that's any shock. But supposedly they're supposed to tie into this mysterious contract that was filed with the Secretary of State. And the ad demands that Sam supposedly come clean about all of this.

But absent any evidence to the contrary, I'd say it still hangs on the other side of believability.

I see evidence where Mike likely knew about the checks. And where Doug knew about them, but nary a signature from Sam can be found.

And then there's the contract which I contended some time ago was completely unbelievable. To summarize some of the suspicion surrounding the contract....

#1 - The contract was filed with the Secretary of State (the same day) that Kooiker announced for Mayor.

#2 - The contract was signed for 350 hours of work, on a date which would have left fewer hours until the election than were in the contract - by less than half.

#3 - The contract was filed with the Secretary of State, period. Anecdotally, I'd note that nobody, and I mean nobody does this. It's not a requirement in state law - the only thing that's required is a report of expenditures. Which begs the question, why? It makes no sense.

Then there's this ad itself. Politically, I'm not sure what the purpose is. There's nothing on it calling him unfit for office because of it. It just has a bunch of checks to Mike Schumacher from Doug Hamilton, and the goofy contract. And that's it.

It makes no sense. But then again look at the track record of the people involved.

One said that he had taken Hamilton money in the past, and he no longer intended to do so. The same one pointed out this questionable filing with the Secretary of State's office, despite the fact doing so was not a benefit to him.

Then there's the other person involved...

The other one's noteworthy accomplishments include admittedly abandoning his friend for money. As per the Rapid City Weekly -

Schumacher said he was talking about helping Councilman Sam Kooiker get into the mayor’s chair, but a better offer came along.

How much Schumacher will be paid has yet to be determined, as the contract is not yet complete, he said.

Read that all here. As well as abandoning his City Commission seat as this came out:

I gave them the option, at this point, to apologize to the citizens of Rapid City and this council and I’m disappointed that he hasn’t yet. Councilman Schumacher has written fictitious e-mails with a fictitious name on it.”

The false e-mails, with a clearly false and somewhat obscene name, were sent to the Rapid City Council members in June. More were sent to council members in December 2006, Hadcock said Tuesday afternoon. False letters to the editor have been sent since 2002, she claimed.

Read that here in the same newspaper. To me, all of that seems about as smart as printing unredacted checks in the newspaper with all the financial routing numbers on them to allow an incredible amount of financial theft to occur. (Bank routing and checking account numbers? Duh.)

Anyway, now as in the beginning, we have two men and two stories. It's up to us to choose who to believe.

Sam Kooiker who seems to have a track record of telling the truth, whether it has benefited him or not.

And then there's Mike Schumacher, who is on record as abandoning his former best friend for money. And declined to run for office again as he was outed by a fellow city commissioner for dirty tricks such as sending false e-mails.

Two people telling their sides of a tale. It's simply up to us who to choose the version of the truth to believe.

---

BTW, what's with the dates of the checks? The contract was "supposedly" written 5/31. The first check was written 6/21, less than a month after the election. But then the following two were at the beginning and the end of August, nearly two months later?

Having done consulting work of this nature, That invoice/billing system makes no sense in light of the contract. Even fishier.