As South DaCola has reported in the past, Lawrence and Schiller has had their fair share of handouts from SD Republicans in the form of our taxdollars;
No bid contracts for campaign buddies, including the exclusive no-bid contract for $11 million to Lawrence & Schiller; (We also learned that Daugaard’s daughter worked for L&S while the public learned of the under-the-table wheeling and dealing in the Governor’s office.)
Well, it seems the gift’s keep coming (Argusleader);
Gov. Dennis Daugaard has asked a former advertising executive in Sioux Falls to lead the state Republican Party through the 2014 election cycle.
Craig Lawrence is a co-founder of the advertising firm, Lawrence & Schiller.
I guess after years of sucking off the taxpayer’s tit in the form of no-bid contracts, it is time to reward Craig with a job where he can really go out and turn the spin up a notch. Denny Doogard is going to get the ball rolling;
“Right now, our party needs to reinforce the rightness and relevancy of its principles and the record of its performance to new generations of voters,” Daugaard said in a release.
You mean the 35 year iron grip you have had on South Dakotans due to closed government and lack of transparency you have been so good at maintaining? But it doesn’t stop Lawrence from claiming something else;
Lawrence said he hopes comunicate Republican principles of smaller government in a “compelling and alluring” way to both Republicans and independents.
 . . . trying . . . to . . . catch my breath.
Lawrence was receiving some of the largest no-bid advertising contracts in the history of our state from governor Rounds during his administration. Rounds actually expanded government and paid back the people who helped get him elected (Lawrence) with numerous lucrative no-bid contracts. I’m not sure what ‘smaller government’ Lawrence is talking about, but it certainly isn’t the one ran by our state Republicans.
Oh come on now – it’;s the “message” he’s talking about – not the facts. Advertising doesn’t deal in facts – it only deals in “messaging”.
Good grief – and here I thought you had professional experience 🙂
Let’s see, imagine over policy? Now what political party does that remind us of? Oh yeah… yeah…
“image”
“I ended by saying if elected officials do not like petitions, they should do a better job as elected officials.” Great line. They should do a better job. The odor of mendacity never leaves.
This is a disgusting practice and if you think this a republican only problem, your retarded. Our elected reps are able to stop this bullshit with a no-bid contract bill. Just more money laundering in our government. Just about everyone out there is looking to stick there head in the tax trough and fill there guts.
LJL, that is why the SD GOP has been able to have a chokehold on SD for 35 years, they control the message, they are good at that.
“your retarded”
What about my retarded?
Yeah, no real surprise here. There are many “prominent” citizens who are the recipients of state largesse – lobbyists and former/current state legislators included (of course there’s no conflict of interest…uh-huh, right). The information is out there and available, but the majority of folks in this state are so conditioned to the “go along to get along” mentality. And the “media”? Minimum wage reporters controlled by the advertising department? Not gonna expect any Woodward/Bernstein action there…(to be fair, there are a few good reporters out there, but few editors/news directors have the onions to run the stories)
When did Republicans ever practice “smaller government” when they were in power?
On any level, from local to national?
I’m serious, can anyone give any examples of Republicans shrinking rather than expanding government when THEY were in charge?
last i knew, the governor’s older daughter worked for lawrence and schiller. coincidence?
Randall, I know. They do a lot of talking about smaller government, but not a lot of doing.
Take mayor Munson for instance. All of the departments grew under him and he broke a record for spending and debt.
I must comment on “no bid” references. In 1978,
I first secured the state tourism contract in competition
against Bozell & Jacobs, Campbell Mithuun, and others.
Then, and now, there has always been a selection panel
comprised of tourism industry folks. The first selection
panel that I faced consisted of Kay Riordan, Kip Larson,
Dave Geisler, and others. It was never a “no bid.” It
was tough competition and they kept us on our toes.
Re-winning that contract was tougher as other firms
in the state gained momentum. We never discussed
the competition for the agency, ever, with Bill Janklow
or George Mickelson, under whom we met the goal of
doubling industry receipts. Nor have I ever, ever
talked with Mike Rounds about the contracts.
As of about 10 years ago I
no longer participated in the “pitches” to regain the
business, as I was doing ministry work in Orlando. Most recently (in 2012) the state received
presentations once again and you’ll note Lawrence &
Schiller lost the digital portion of the contract to an
out of state firm from Kansas. I know firsthand that
our team never discussed the competition with the
governor, and that he did not intervene in any way,
either for or against us.
I would also like to add about this GOP Chairman’s
job: Do you think that’s some kind of plum? Something to be relished? It’s a job consisting of hard
work, no pay, pay your own expenses, windshield time,
and working long hours. Thanks for letting me blog
back to speak to the issue of “no bid.”
Craig, you do understand what ‘no bid’ means? Don’t you? It means the state can pick whoever they want, which is still legal. But I don’t want to get into a long debate about that.
As for the GOP chairmanship, not sure why someone who has done ‘ministry’ work would be interested in promoting a state party that has kept SD in the stone age for over 35 years. While half of SF school kids are on free and reduced lunches the state has almost 14,000 millionaires. 4.3% of the state population. The only thing the SD GOP has done for South Dakotans is spread the gap between the rich and the poor and if you want to eat that plum, go for it.