To disclose, or not to disclose - that is the question

KELOland is reporting tonight that tomorrow will bring the hearing where State of SD attorneys and Representative Roger Hunt will argue whether or not Roger creatively found a loophole, or improperly avoided state law on donor reporting:
Hunt, a long-time anti-abortion activist, has said the person is a South Dakota resident who wants to remain anonymous out of fear of possible violence.


The state says Hunt's corporation must identify the person, but Hunt argues it's not a ballot question committee and is not required to file campaign finance reports.
Read it all here.

Not passing judgment on the morality of it, but given the state of South Dakota's previous campaign finance laws, I think it is entirely possible that Roger was within the law to do it in the manner he did.


Anonymous said…
It should be noted that the only people demonstrating violence in the abortion issue are the pro-life gangsters. So Hunt’s donor is probably talking about YOU!
Anonymous said…
Of course PP sides with Hunt in this, like a dutiful donkey pulling a cart...
PP said…
7:46, I didn't say it was right or wrong. I said that under previous laws (you know, the ones I railed on about needing to be changed) it was very possibly legal.
Anonymous said…
Legal or illegal, it shows Hunt has no integrity.
Anonymous said…
I would not jump to any conclusions just yet. Depending on a few factors this could all be on the up and up.
I need to try and remember the whole setup of the corp. Not that i know all of that, that is why lawyers are used. There are many different types of corporations.
Anonymous said…
Business as usual in Gulag South Dakota.
Anonymous said…
Hmmm, how do I sneak a $750,000 contribution into this campaign so that I can steal the election?

According to Roger Hunt and the rest of the GOP boobs in Pierre, campaign finance laws are reformed only to increase the difficulty for Democrats to get elected. Public accountability be damned.
Anonymous said…
The best thing about all this is that he wasted his $750k. Ha!
Anonymous said…
This whole thing is making Hunt sweat - not that he needs a reason.

Is Hunt's lawyer one of the Kirbys? That would be appropriate, wouldn't it?
Haggs said…
I think it's funny that Nelson and Long, both Republicans, are saying Hunt is in the wrong.
RealFakeNews said…
anon 7:48 a.m.

Elephant, not donkey. You know, that whole political symbolism thing.

Pat, you know I kid because I love.

Anonymous said…
as much as i respect rep. hunt, i gotta admit that long's and nelson's arguments sound pretty strong.

Anonymous said…
As far as Long and Nelson are concerned, they both do a hell of a job in their respective elected positions. As this shows, they consider one thing while doing their job--the law.

At the same time, please recall that Long's office is defending the state in the Argus Leader Pheasant Hunt case.
James said…
What laws have been broken?

You can discuss ethical or integrity, but one thing is certain that a law has not been broken.

Even the prosecuting attorney today admitted that the loophole had to be fixed this past session. If there was a loophole that was found there is no law broken.

Ethical? Moral? That can be discussed, but whether or not the law was broken has already been decided and that is a NO!

I'm also curious, but what are the laws regarding confidentiality of clients? Since we know that there is only one donor isn't there some kind of law in place that protects the clients privacy?
Does anyone know?
Anonymous said…

You might want to go back to preschool and refresh those counting skills. The law says two or more people contributing to a ballot measure are a ballot question committee. And ballot question committees are required to say who donated how much.

Roger tried to get around that law by creating a one-person corporation. But that money still came from somewhere. Hunt and the donor are two people so that means they broke the law.

Why do you want the good people of this state to remain in the dark on the people involved in issues that will impact their lives?
James said…
anon 10:00pm

I'm not wanting anyone to be in the dark, but call it what it is.

I asked what law was broken and you falsely accused there of being 2 people. Roger is representing his client, which is ONE person. You even said in your post it was THE donor, which means there was only ONE person giving the money.

Here is what I saw in regards to this one another blog this morning.

"He (Roger) acted in the matter of the donation as a lawyer for a client. He is required to keep his client's confidentiality unless the client is breaking the law. The nub of this issue is whether the client broke the law. Until that is decided, Hunt can reveal nothing his client does not authorize him to."
This also answers my previous question of whether or not Roger is even allowed to release the name of his client.

Like I said previously, you can talk about ethics and morals all you want. I'm not saying this should or shouldn't have been done, but this case is whether or not a law was broken.

I guess we are just going to have to wait for the judge. :)
Anonymous said…
Leslee Unruh should run against Chris Nelson for Secretary of State.
Anonymous said…
James, a corporation is a "person" under the law. So you have AT LEAST one donor plus you have a corporation so there you have at least two persons getting together to affect a ballot issue - even if Hunt claims attorney/client privilege.

But can Hunt claim attorney/client privilege? I doubt it. Who is Hunt's client? The corporation, or the donor(s), or himself as president of the corporation? I don't believe he can be the president of the corporation, the corporation's attorney, and also the donor(s) attorney and claim privilege for everything. The court will sort that out, but I don't even think Hunt is making that ridiculous argument.

Hunt violated the law, and will have to disclose the donors.

Popular posts from this blog

Breaking News: Frederick not in SDGOP Chair Race

A strategic move by Sutton. Good for him, bad for Dems.