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:
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.


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.


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.


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.
Read the entire story here.

Hmph. You know, I seem to recall a comment under a post from Representative Hanks which stated:
Rep. Alan Hanks said...

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
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.

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.


James said…
Adelstein taking the open house seat? May I remind everyone of a little clip that was taken last year?

I don't think Stan wins any points with that stunt.
Anonymous said…
Maybe he doesn't know Adelstein is behind the All South Dakota PAC.
Anonymous said…
What are you trying to say by mixing past legislative support to a Mayor's race? Why bother to obfuscate?

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
PP said…
Stan, I don't hate you at all.

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?


And I'll continue to call you on it, ad infinitum.
Anonymous said…
PP's post on 11:42 is the correct way to handle the sore looser Adelstein. His money has not brought him any love.
Anonymous said…
I have a question for PP and all the partisans. Why is the fact that Stan can see past a party label a negative? I have a lot more respect for someone who bothers to learn about candidates and then base his support on their views then someone who only needs to look at the letter behind a candidate’s name. A trained monkey could vote a straight ticket. It takes someone with considerable critical thinking skills to find and support candidates you like from both parties.
PP said…
Then he shouldn't portray himself as a loyal party member and a strong supporter of the GOP.

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.
Anonymous said…
Wow. Now that's Democracy huh? Whatever happened to the idea that a person can vote for and support anyone they want? Maybe that's why we still have Democrats.
Anonymous said…
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?
Anonymous said…
If Hanks won the mayoral race, wouldn't it be up to the Governor to appoint his successor? It would make good political sense to appoint a primary election winner, so has Ellie Schwiesow indicated she would serve?
Anonymous said…
Stan would have a heart attack!
Anonymous said…
Blind, extreme obedience to any political party wreaks of fascism.

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?
Anonymous said…
Attention: Stan's employee and PAC administrator Kati Jenkins has now spoken.
Anonymous said…
On one hand, you have to laugh at PP for thinking Hanks would announce his PAC contributions to PP, an individual who happens to run a gossip internet site.

On the other hand, you have to admire PP's ability to troll and troll and catch a whale like Stan.
Anonymous said…
"Now that's Democracy huh? Whatever happened to the idea that a person can vote for and support anyone they want?"

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.
Anonymous said…
6:24pm: Kinda like PP using his tremendous celebrity to accuse a fellow Republican (Hanks) of being essentially a liar at least, or at best publicly pointing out that Hanks didn't follow up on the "promise" in his post?

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.
Anonymous said…
Wow, what an interesting thread. Great job by PP to uncover the truth and report it. And then the truth angers the left to the point that their true feelings come out. And then Bill Fleming steps in with his con troll-like comments in an attempt to move the discussion away from the truth. He does that time and time again at Mount Blogmore.

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.
Anonymous said…
Maybe Alan Hanks is just too busy running a campaign and forgot some message he posted on a random internet web page.
Anonymous said…
dont worry, we can all file an amended report in 6-9 months, send in trumped up supporting documents, switch around who got what and who donated what and all will be good in whoville.
Anonymous said…
stan, what did you mean when you said you have "a $30 million!! yes Million pending ...."?

is that what you're worth?

Anonymous said…
Now it get's fun...Sibby endorsing our own PP. Is this a match made in heaven or just a one night stand?
Anonymous said…
Truth and Honesty with good values and morals with self responsibility is where I want things!!
Anonymous said…
PACs are not a bad thing. I've belonged and donated to many over the years. Rather, consider them like blogs...they are defined by their content and substance. PACs, like blogs make it easier to have a voice in an election and shouldn't be defined by who comments the most or the loudest.
Anonymous said…
Two things:
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.
Anonymous said…
"The most important thing for me is the truth. And I think PP is on the same page here with that."

Oh, that's rich, Steve. Good one.
Anonymous said…
lexrex, I think what Stan was referring to was Doug Hamilton's pending 30 million dollar tif for the westside WalMart project. Hamilton has given Shaw in excess of 60k for his race. We are for sale in RC to the highest bidder, and right now that is Hamilton, not Stan.
Anonymous said…
Actually about 50K of Shaw's campaign money came from the close to 400 people who attended the fundraiser for him when he ran uncontested.
Anonymous said…
Pretty stupid of Hanks to offer up that he'd report Adelstein contributions to SDWC. Or was it really Hanks posting using his name - or somebody else?

We'll never know for sure, and the voters won't care that Hanks lied about that.
Anonymous said…
Can anyone out there answer the following: It is rumored that Mike Schumacher left Rapid City, moved east and plans to run for a seat? Any validity to this?
Anonymous said…
Yep, it's true, Jabba da Schumacher fled Rapid City for points east. As for running for an office, he might. But he just isn't ready yet. Maybe in a couple of years....
Anonymous said…
Running and Schumacher are not terms that I'd use in the same sentence.

Popular posts from this blog

Breaking News: Frederick not in SDGOP Chair Race

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