Another SD Republican gets off . . .

Untitled-1

. . . 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.



8 comments ↓

#1 Plaintiff Guy on 11.10.09 at 10:56 am

This matter can be concluded. The benefactor burned 750K and lost. Roger Hunt is permanently scarred professionally. Political contributions law became amended. Grinding this out any further would be unproductive and a waste relative to the time and distance through the courts.

#2 John2 on 11.10.09 at 3:41 pm

You mean to write that Hunt’s phantom is tired of spending money on attorney fees. Tough. Be careful what one wishes for.

#3 l3wis on 11.10.09 at 4:41 pm

Trust me, if it is who people say it is, they can shit attorney fees.

#4 Ghost of Dude on 11.10.09 at 5:37 pm

The last thing I ever want to think about is Roger Hunt getting off.

#5 l3wis on 11.10.09 at 5:45 pm

Here yah go;

http://media.photobucket.com/image/humpty%20dumpty%20images/gte955v/humpty.jpg

#6 Dan Boyum on 11.10.09 at 6:58 pm

The matter SHOULD be concluded because it IS concluded. The identity of the donor was not required to be disclosed under the law AT THE TIME. It’s called a loophole. Now it’s been closed. The law has been changed but that doens’t mean you get to go back and reinforce it retroactively. Also, if you and other so-call in-the-know people are so damn smart why don’t you just make a wild speculation on who it is and say it? It isn’t Voldemort is it? I mean, it isn’t a name that you are afraid to speak? If you know it, just say it you candy-asses

#7 Dan Boyum on 11.10.09 at 6:59 pm

Sorry about the typos

#8 l3wis on 11.10.09 at 8:34 pm

Dan, Dan, Dan, how is it hanging? Do you still have that classic TA convertible? Cool car.

The reason I don’t go spouting about the donor is because it isn’t my job to say, even though I have done several toons about it, to no avail. You are right, it doesn’t really matter, unless of course you care about the 1st Amendment and the US Constitution.

Free speech is often related to monetary donations to candidates. If you have the gonads to speak out on an issue, you should have them when you give money. I’m just saying.