"Promising Future" might have a couple of bumps in it's path

By -
KELO is reporting tonight that a civil complaint has been filed against Roger Hunt's corporation "Promising Future" has had a civil complaint filed against it in order to determine the controversy over whether or not it has to disclose the source of it's funds:
According to state law, a "ballot question committee" consists of two or more people who raise money to influence a ballot issue. Now a judge will decide whether that definition includes Roger Hunt's corporation Promising Future.

Hunt sees the definition one way.

"A corporation basically, in many cases in our state laws and case law, is held to be one person. It's not divisible by all of its shareholders," he says.

But, Secretary of State Chris Nelson believes the corporation is one "person." The shareholder who donated all the money is another person, and the corporation's attorney Roger Hunt potentially is a third person.

Hunt points out he isn't being prosecuted for breaking the law, and he suggests Attorney General Larry Long doesn't totally agree with Nelson's interpretation of the law.
Read it all here.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Most likely, Long doesn't want to bring a prosecution at this point without having the law interpreted by a court first.

Hunt's interpretation of the law is flimsy at best, frivolous at worst. If I were an oddsmaker I would rate Hunt's odds of winning as a 20-1 longshot. Once a court determines that, Hunt will have to make both a legal and a political calculation.

Will he appeal an adverse circuit court determination to the SD Supreme Court where he will likely lose again? Or should he just accept the circuit court's ruling and disclose his donors? And how will the voters of district 10 react after he loses in circuit court if he continues on with an appeal and loses again? And when he loses, will he be prosecuted? What will the voters think of that? And what will the voters think of Hunt again costing taxpayer dollars for these suits that determine that his legal interpretation is wrong?

The Court will ultimately order Hunt to disclose his donors, and Hunt's political career is over with this term.
3:40 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A note from Benedict Ar... Sorry. A note from Stan Adelstein why he thinks you should vote Democrat this year.

By -
Image
(Click on letter to enlarge) And while it may not be printed at taxpayer expense, I don't see a disclaimer, either. When they hold the special session (supposedly at the end of November) , since he's left them already, I think his colleagues should expel him from the caucus. Sure. At that point it's only going to be symbolic. But since he's already said he's running again in the near future, sometimes symbolism is enough.
Read more

Corson County information on Klaudt Rape Charges

By -
Here's some of the information on the Corson County Charges: COUNT I That on or about December of 2005, in the County of Corson, State of South Dakota, Ted Alvin Klaudt did commit the public offense of SECOND DEGREE RAPE (SDCL 22-22-1(2)) in that he did accomplish an act of sexual penetration with his foster daughter, A.M., through the use of force or coercion; and as to COUNT II That on or about July or August of 2006, in the County of Corson, State of South Dakota, Ted Alvin Klaudt did commit the public offense of SECOND DEGREE RAPE (SDCL 22-22-1(2)) in that he did accomplish an act of sexual penetration with his foster daughter, A.M., through the use of force or coercion; and as to COUNT III That on or about July or August of 2006, in the County of Corson, State of South Dakota, Ted Alvin Klaudt did commit the public offense of SECOND DEGREE RAPE (SDCL 22-22-1(2)) in that he did accomplish an act of sexual penetration, separate and distinct from the act alleged in Count II, with...
Read more

It's about health, not potential promiscuity.

By -
As the only South Dakota blogger out with 5 daughters, I feel I need to weigh in on the whole discussion that's occurring with regards to the HPV vaccine, and Governor Rounds' proposal to make it available. My family (including my three oldest girls) watched my mom, their grandmother, succumb slowly and painfully to cancer which spread throughout her body. If a similar fate from a different type of cancer was preventable through a simple shot, why wouldn't anyone advocate for it? At the age most of my kids are going to be getting it, they're still playing with barbies, and negative influences such as most of the programming on MTV, and other assorted trashy television is verboten in my house. All they're going to know about this vaccination is that it's a shot, just like for teatnus or measles. They'll go "Ow, I don't want a shot," and that will be it. Just another mark on their vaccination record. One check box for DPT, one for HPV, and so on...
Read more