South DaCola

Editorial Cartoonist from South Dakota

Roger Hunt

abortion Roger Hunt

It’s okay to launder money as long as you are saving babies?

l3wis 4Comments

Untitled-1

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.

1st Amendment Roger Hunt

South Dakotans prefer openness? Yah think?

l3wis 0Comments

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.

Roger Hunt

The State of SD lets Roger Hunt wipe his ass with the constitution

l3wis 4Comments

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.

abortion Roger Hunt

Another SD Republican gets off . . .

l3wis 8Comments

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.

Roger Hunt

Roger ‘Laundry’ Hunt’s lawyer is full of shit. Maybe he needs a good ‘wash’

l3wis 4Comments

Untitled-1

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.

« Previous Page — Next Page »

You Missed

Elections SF City Council Sioux Falls

Girl Power at Carnegie?

Elections Jamie Smith Redistricting Sioux Falls Sioux Falls

Is Jamie Smith running for Mayor of Sioux Falls?

Developers Development Downtown Sioux Falls Planning Commission SF City Council Sioux Falls TIFs

UPDATE: What’s going on with promised Apartment Complex behind 8th and Railroad?

Art Downtown Sioux Falls Public Utilities Public Works Sioux Falls Washington Pavilion

Nepotism run amuck at Sioux Falls City Hall