Another letter writer says ’screw the law’ as long as we are ’saving babies.’

I am appalled by the Argus Leader’s continued harassment of state Rep. Roger Hunt to divulge the name of his client who generously gave money to protect unborn babies in South Dakota.

Harrasment? It’s called reporting the news. If anything, the Gargoyle isn’t covering this story enough.

Most of us in South Dakota do not think it is OK to kill babies.

I would think 100% think it is not OK to kill babies, that’s my guess. However, a majority of South Dakotans have voted twice to give women the choice on whether to end a pregnancy. I have said that South Dakotans sometimes vote pro-choice because they are sick of the secrets and lying from the pro-life movement. Maybe if you movement practiced a little honesty and openness, like revealing donor names, more people would take up your cause. I’m just saying.

I hope judge Caldwell and Roger Hunt take a good hard look at this survey;

By a 3-to-1 ratio, South Dakotans say campaign finance disclosure laws, such as the one state Rep. Roger Hunt skirted in 2006, provide valuable information for voters. The minority say those laws violate a donor’s right to free speech.

The problem I have with the Hunt case is that it wasn’t about ‘free speech’. What I do on this blog is considered ‘free speech’ what Hunt did is considered ‘money laundering’. I still think he got away with a crime. If you feel passionately enough about an issue to give $750,000 to it, the voters have the right to know who gave that money. That is what I consider ‘free speech’.

In one question, 75.4 percent agreed or strongly agreed that disclosure laws provide valuable information for voters, while 20.2 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed.

In another, participants were asked which view was closer to their own position on the effect of disclosure laws: that they provide valuable information or they violate free speech. Valuable information won 72.4 percent to 22.8 percent.

I think this was worded incorrectly. Like I said above, I don’t think providing your name when you donate to a political cause is violating your free speech rights. You have a choice, you can remain anon and not give the money, no one is forcing you to give up your name, unless you donate the money. Voters have a right to know, in all fairness, who is donating to these causes. I always find it ironic that neo-cons never mention free speech rights when they are being publicly protested, only when it is helping their cause.

Go figure, money talks;

South Dakota officials have reached an agreement that ends a legal dispute on whether a state lawmaker had to make public the name of an anonymous donor who gave $750,000 to an unsuccessful campaign supporting a proposed abortion ban in 2006.

Attorney General Marty Jackley, Secretary of State Chris Nelson and state Rep. Roger Hunt of Brandon announced the agreement, which provides that no further appeals or claims will be filed in the case. The agreement means the name of the anonymous donor will not be released.

Circuit Judge Kathleen Caldwell of Sioux Falls ruled earlier this month that the secretary of state could not require disclosure under the law in effect in 2006 and the definition of a ballot question committee was unconstitutional.

. . . but not in the way you would think.

Minnehaha County Circuit Judge Kathleen Caldwell said the state had no authority to file a lawsuit against Rep. Roger Hunt, R-Brandon, and Promising Future Inc. in an attempt to get him to name the donor.

While many of us in the ‘Political Know’ know who the secret donor is, it would still be nice to have that person revealed to the public. But, hey, when you are as rich as they are, you can buy just about anything, including, silence. I’m not saying that is what happened, but you never know in this fricking state when it comes to politics, Republicans and money. As a big First Amendment supporter, I don’t have a problem with someone donating thousands of dollars to something they believe in, but they should at least have the gonads (or vagina) to own up to their convictions. If you truly believe abortion is ‘murder’ you would think you would be standing on a street corner telling everyone instead of sitting in a dark room cutting checks. What a coward and a hypocrite.

I found this quote from the continuing saga pretty funny;

In court on Monday, Hallem let out an exasperated chuckle as he reflected upon Sanford’s (Roger’s lawyer) many and varied legal arguments in defense of Hunt’s actions.

 

“A reasonable person would look at it and say there’s no other reason” for creating the corporation than to hide the donor’s identity, Hallem said. “This isn’t a complicated case (but) it became a very complicated case by very able counsel.

I hope the money laundering lawyer from Brandon has to reveal he name of the secret donor, though most of us already have a hunch who that person is.

The South Dakota secretary of state will go to court next month and ask a judge to force state Rep. Roger Hunt to reveal several key details about a corporation he created in the midst of a heated battle over abortion.

The corporation gave $750,000 to a group campaigning to ban abortion but refused to reveal who was behind the donations.

Hunt has said that he set up the corporation because the donor, whom he described as a South Dakota resident, feared violence if his or her identity were known.

Like I said above, it wouldn’t be to hard to figure out who that person is, if you really wanted to attack them. I’m assuming if they have $750,000 to throw at a wasted political effort, they have money to hire a bodyguard. Maybe they could hire the same one Leslee did (to protect her from extreme pro-lifers that were mad at her that her ban did not go far enough. I still find that ironically humorous.)

“I think it’s very important to understand that just because one side of this issue has drug this out as long as it has shouldn’t allow them to simply avoid complying with what the law was because they’re able to delay it for so long,” Nelson said Wednesday.

It seems Roger Hunt was hoping that it would just go away. You’d think a lawyer would know better.

But Steven Sanford, a Sioux Falls lawyer who represents Hunt, said in his view, the state’s pursuit of the donor’s identity “is of questionable value to anybody, but the state has its own interests, and the secretary of state seems to think it’s pretty important.”

Are you talking about the same state that Roger works for as a legislator in the same party that Nelson belongs to and has a majority in the state? Or maybe this is about soemthing else? The LAW perhaps?

Hunt referred questions about the case to his lawyer but said he’s surprised it has gone on this long.

“I, to be honest, am surprised that since this case deals with a statute that was repealed by the Legislature at the request of the secretary of state, that this case is still in the system.”

Yes, Roger, it is amazing that this day and age that courts are still trying to prosecute lawmakers of money laundering – the shame!

The state house has rejected a bill that would have allowed home births to be conducted by certified midwives. Despite a good record from the 24 states that allow the practice, it seems it just won’t cut it here.

The first comment on the Argus Leader article about the bill says it best.  In a state where a large percentage of the population lives in the middle of nowhere, it makes sense to have certified midwives who can deliver babies at home. It’s perfectly reasonable to do so, and the hundred or so baby books I’ve read lately all sing the praises of midwives and home birth – just have lots of towels.

One wonders about how the two largest health care systems in the state may have influenced this vote as well…

From Kelo-TV

Lawsuit Revived To Identify Abortion Vote Donor

The South Dakota Supreme Court has revived a state lawsuit that seeks to identify the secret donor who gave $750,000 to the failed 2006 effort to outlaw most abortions in the state.

A corporation set up by state Representative Roger Hunt of Brandon made the donation without revealing the contributor’s name.

Secretary of State Chris Nelson went to court to make the donor’s name public, but a circuit judge threw out the lawsuit.

The Supreme Court says a trial should be held to determine if Hunt’s corporation meets the definition of a ballot question committee that must report a donor’s identity.

I’ll give them credit for covering this, but it should have never gotten to the Supreme Court. It is blantantly obvious that Roger Hunt setup a shell corporation to hide a secret donor’s name, some would call that money laundering. I have a feeling we will never know (but I have some pretty good guesses).