Is Gant competent or just another ‘TOOL’?
First an overview of some organizations that are behind some this;
YOU MAY HAVE HEARD ABOUT the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which helps Republicans draft bills in statehouses. (We reported on the group last month.) But you’ve probably not heard of the Republican State Leadership Committee, which gets them elected in the first place.
Able to raise unlimited funds, the Republican State Leadership Committee is a stalking horse for corporate America. Top contributors to the group include Altria (formerly Philip Morris), Anheuser-Busch, Citigroup, Comcast Cable, Exxon Mobil, Home Depot, Monsanto, PhRMA, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Verizon, and WellPoint.
Guest Poster contributed to this;
There was an organization formed to takeover state legislatures starting in 2002. The group managers make their organization look like they are loosely banded together citizens with a simple public mission to be conservative. The mission is to make all US state legislatures their version of conservative. Their version of conservatism is based in pre 1965 southern white state’s rights principles, where only certain land owners should be able to vote. As these managers continue to assume more power they want someone to make their actions appear legal…  I am sorry, they not only want they MUST have someone to make the actions legal. What group am I talking about? A little known group based out of Virginia, the Republican State Leadership Committee (RSLC). (mentioned above).
Why does this affect us in South Dakota? Why do I bring this up and why should you care?  In the 2010 Pre-General Election Financial Reports available on the Secretary of State’s website, we find the RSLC has given two of our senior elected officials in South Dakota $25,000.00 each for their 2010 campaigns. These organizations do not give this kind of money out of the goodness of the heart. They expect something in return. In a small state like South Dakota, $50,000.00 can make a difference. Who are our owned or rented officials? Well SOS Jason Gant and Attorney General Marty Jackley.
COMPLETE DOCUMENT: Jackley 2010 Campaign Report
You remember them, Gant of the shoddy SOS office and his legal savior when questions arose recently. You might also remember the legal eagle AG decision made within hours of being given instructions on how to investigate potential computer / business / public ethics issues.
Is the SD Republican Party protecting Gant because he is an ‘investment’?
Click on image to enlarge. See more here.
Again, why should we care? The RSLC wants our SOS office to control all our voters and local elections from Pierre. This group is part of ALEC. The mission of RSLC is to elect future members for ALEC.  We currently have several dozen GOP members of our legislature who are subsidized by ALEC. They will be pushing for more Real ID laws, use of unverifiable voting equipment, rules to block citizens from voting and limitations on the citizens right to redress their grievances before their elected officials. Once you know what ALEC is, you see how bad both RSLC and ALEC are for South Dakota.
So how does this work with ALEC, RSLC, Gant and Jackley? RSLC finances campaigns of ambitious politicians, usually people with no principles.  ALEC needs their legislation passed in Pierre, RSLC backed officeholders write SOS rules. These new laws and rules are implemented by SOS offices and the Attorney General is necessary to defend the actions in court plus write ballot explanations to confuse.
After the recent Attorney General’s financial “question not asked†opinion I had to look harder at the data we have available to find reasons for the strange official responses received and NOT received. There are more figures which do not add up and puzzle pieces still falling into place. There will be more to come in this matter.
I originally started to look into this trying to answer the questions:
“Is the AG and the SD Republican party protecting Gant because he was such a huge investment in the 2010 campaign cycle and still owes a good chunk of change?â€
“Did the SD Republican party give Gant such a large donation because they had confidence that he was qualified to be SOS?â€
“or… or he could be easily manipulated by the party and his benefactors to do their dirty work?â€
His repeated incompetence certainly shows he is not qualified for the job, so one would assume the SD Republican party was looking for a ‘tool’. Is Jackley there to keep him “legalâ€?
An ANON email I received;
It was Gant who tried to rally all the constitutional officers like Satgast and Jarrond to go against the sweeping cuts demanded a couple years ago and then sent Jarrod Johnson up as the first guinea pig to test it and then when he got slaughtered the rest of them chicked and toed base. Gant is completely dishonest and it seems like everybody in Pierre knows it.
It sounds like they overpaid for him.
It appears our SOS went To Yankton County Commission the other day to spread his mission to another county. The one are we Americans should NEVER be concerned about is what it cost per voter to run an election. If we have a problem with the cost of the election we should just declare a change of government and forget about voting.
Our job is to vote for qualified people to run our government and not bumbling idiots who do their job based on the interest group who is sending them money.
Voting centers are the basis for restricting our right to vote and have our votes counted
There is no groundswell pushing for voting centers from anyone other than ALEC, the supporting companies, and their rented politicians like Gant.
“The one are” should say “The one area”
ALEC has been busy working in SD through Manny, Orly’s best buddy and Wick. Manny has been a good little soldier getting ALEC’s bills to Pierre.
ALEC has been around for so long and only just recently have they finally gotten the attention they deserve.
And we will put the pressure on, this is not going to die. We have plenty more information to pass on.
I will repeat something I said to Guest Poster the other day. Politicians don’t always do things for money, power is more important. I see this with our governor, AG, SOS and mayor and some councilors. They want people to ‘think’ this is about money, that is why the AG came up with false charges that he knew Gant was innocent of. That is what the working class of SD think about all the time, money. Why? Because they don’t have it. So in their small frame of mind, they automatically think if someone is doing something wrong in government, it must be because of money. And it does, but not in the way they are thinking (stealing, golden parachutes, etc.) it has to do with the ruling party making the rules, and once they make the rules and leave us working stiffs out of the equation, they can make all kinds of money. And they don’t have to steal it or take it in contributions from corporations, they just change the laws to make it easier to give the rest of us less pay, less healthcare, lower interest rates, heck they are probably even going to use this draught to gouge us on food prices. The media has already been singing that tune. Our disadvantage is their advantage. They truly are the wormy carp of the Jim River.
I asked PP if he remembers his SOS oath as required of deputies by statute. He told me I didn’t know what I was talking about. When I showed him I did in fact know what I was talking about, and showed him the statutes in black and white, he says he was not a deputy. I seem to recall him being identified as deputy of operations, or deputy of something. So I guess according to him, he had the title of deputy but wasn’t actually a deputy? If he was a deputy and was required to take oath and file it as it appears, and didn’t do so – each act he made in his official capacity was a class II. This is where the AG should have sniffed around. But hey, he didn’t steal anything so no biggie right? Let’s say he wasn’t a deputy. Statute applies to “assistants” as well.
In case you’re interested, this is my comment from August 9 at the Snore College that drew an extended silence from the former non-deputy:
In regard to his employment with the SOS, PP wonders: “I took some sort of mystic oath?â€
Well apparently not, and apparently contrary to statute. Pat, we have laws in South Dakota and they can be found in those tan and red books decorating a wall somewhere in Gant’s office. They also can be found online. Let’s call today’s lesson Statutory Funtime with Jason and Pat:
3-1-5. Oath of office for civil officers–Bond. Every person elected or appointed to any civil office shall, before entering upon the duties thereof, qualify by taking an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution of the United States and of this state, and faithfully to discharge the duties of his office, naming it; and by giving a bond, when one is required, conditioned that he will faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of his office, naming it, and render a true account of all money, credits, accounts, and public personal property requiring inventory, as defined in rules issued by the commissioner of the bureau of administration, that shall come into his hands as such officer, and pay over and deliver the same according to law.
(Above would apply to Jason, below would apply to Pat)
Just for fun, here is another one:
3-2-3. Oath required of deputies and assistants. Each deputy or assistant shall take and subscribe the same oath as his or her principal, naming the deputyship. The oath shall be endorsed upon and filed with the deputy’s or assistant’s certificate of appointment.
Pat you were a deputy correct? And had no idea an oath was required? Well at least that doesn’t appear to be an intentional act under 3-16-1.
But wait kids, Statutory Funtime is not over:
3-1-8. Acting as officer without qualifying as misdemeanor–Validity of acts of de facto officer. Every person who executes any of the functions of a public office without having taken and duly filed the required oath of office, or without having executed and duly filed the required security, is guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor; and in addition to the punishment prescribed therefor, he forfeits his right to the office. Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the validity of acts done by a person exercising the functions of a public office in fact, where other persons than himself are interested in maintaining the validity of such acts.
So Pat, you didn’t take your deputies’ oath as required by law, and got a free pass on it from Marty. Did Jason take and file his oath as your principal? You naughty, naughty boys.
For our last segment, in case you are wondering who this stuff applies to:
3-1-10. Definitions. The terms “office,†“officer,†“executive,†and “administrative,†when used in § 3-1-8 or 3-1-9 mean and apply to any executive or administrative officer of the state; to any county, municipality, township, or school district; and to any district, board, bureau, commission, department, or other body or office, exercising executive or administrative powers as part of the government, or any arm of the government, of the state. The terms “executive†and “administrative†apply interchangeably to any or all of said offices.
Pat, I’m not making this stuff up. These are actually laws in South Dakota. The fact that you had no idea an oath was required of SOS deputies is concerning.
Maybe you’re right and I have no idea what I’m talking about, as you claimed above. In my defense, I did used to test pretty well in reading comprehension. If you would like, call Jason and ask him if he would like “Statutory Funtime†to be a regular feature on the SOS website.
Anoon – You are my hero today. The crazy part is that Pat truly is only a wormy Jim River carp in this matter, the big Asian Carp in this is Gant. Guest Poster and I have a post coming up soon we have been working on for about a week. Your head will spin when you see all the money flowing into Gant.
Anoon is correct. When I was a lowly staffer once upon a time in Pierre, I had to take an oath as stated. All employees of the state just like the feds take an oath.
I agree that Gant drives the clown car. Pat “I wasn’t a deputy” Powers not knowing an oath is required only reinforces the notion of Gant’s incompetence.
I said from the start that Pat was a bad hire and would be unable to check his partisian ideology at the door. Some people probably think both deserve a bit of comeuppance due to their smug arrogance alone.
Maybe Gant did not bring his new hires in to the chamber for the giving of the oath? As such they ‘don’t’ have to comply?
That would be a good question for Marty. The acts of a deputy are not invalidated bc didn’t take oath, but not much beyond that. If Gant didn’t require the oath of his deputies and assistants, and did so intentionally, that would be a class II under SDCL 3-16-1. Probably tough to show that he would have done so intentionally. He would probably claim he didn’t know he had to do so, which circles us back to the issue of his competency. Either way, the legislature probably wouldn’t get to excited about it. However, the compounded effect of all his buffoonery I don’t think is as easily dismissed.
Pingback: Larry Long’s promotion — South DaCola