Monday, July 9, 2007

The Hunt stunt will not escape the Court of Public Opinion

By Gordon Garnos

AT ISSUE: The South Dakota Business Research Bureau is doing a survey to assist Attorney General Larry Long in his civil lawsuit against Rep. Roger Hunt, R-Brandon. Long and Secretary of State Chris Nelson contend that Hunt broke state campaign-finance laws when his one-person corporation, "Promising Future Inc.," gave a $750,000 donation from a person who wants to remain anonymous to the last election campaign in support of a ban on abortions. The bill was defeated at election time. The case is long and complicated, but needs to be resolved.

WAS THIS ANONYMOUS gift legal? There are also other questions about South Dakota¹s loose campaign-finance laws that need to be resolved as well, but as South Dakotans should know, the Legislature is in no big hurry to tighten those laws for a variety of reasons.

For some background, according to The Associated Press, "The 2006 Legislature passed a law that would have banned nearly all abortions, a measure aimed at prompting the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn its 1973 Roe vs. Wade ruling that legalized abortion in the nation. The ban was referred to a public vote. South Dakota voters rejected it 56 percent to 44 percent in November."

Getting back to the Hunt case, he contends such anonymous donations are legal, arguing that corporations are allowed under South Dakota law to make contributions in ballot measure campaigns. Hunt also claims the whole thing against him is for political purposes for Nelson.

THE OTHER SIDE of the coin is that Long and Nelson feel that Hunt's corporation, Promising Future Inc., was nothing more than a ballot measure committee and therefore must tell where that $750,000 gift came from. The case has been filed in circuit court in Minnehaha County.

I found it interesting that the business address for Promising Future Inc. is the same address as Hunt's law office and Hunt is the only shareholder and officer in the corporation. The corporation was set up last September, during a most heated campaign, I might add, and his corporation then made three $250,000 donations to an anti-abortion group. It appears that the only reason that the corporation was formed was to hide the identity of the donor.

THE SURVEY IS SET to include about 500 interviews and a report of that poll will be due Sept. 30.

In a later AP article, the new U.S. Supreme Court ruled on another case that could derail Long's and Nelson's efforts. The Supreme Court ruled in a Wisconsin case centering around an anti-abortion group having the right to free speech. The nation's high court's decision apparently weakens part of the campaign finance law passed by Congress in 2002.

"A Wisconsin anti-abortion group should have been allowed to air ads during the final two months before the 2004 elections. The law unreasonably limits speech and violates the group¹s First Amendment rights," the ruling said.

ANOTHER ARTICLE quoted Hunt's attorney, "At first blush it seems like it should end this case."

Not so, said the state¹s attorneys. In a recent written arguments, Hunt's lawyer was wrong in his interpretation of prior cases dealing with intent in campaign finance issues. They said those cases do not apply to the legal issues in the Hunt case.

An AP story explained the intent in the Hunt case does not deal with speech. It does instead deal with the intent of Hunt and the anonymous donor to avoid laws that require the identification of those who give substantial money to ballot issue campaigns.

WE DON'T KNOW who will win this case. Will it be Mr. Hunt, a strong anti-abortion advocate? Or will it be South Dakota's Attorney General and Secretary of State. In our way of thinking, any attempt to side-step the law doesn't smell right and when an attorney side-steps that law to hide a big contributor that smell intensifies.

The recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling may derail, or at least weaken the state's argument. Time will tell. But there is no way the case should be derailed when it goes before the Court of Public Opinion....

Gordon Garnos was long-time editor of the Watertown Public Opinion and recently retired after 39 years with that newspaper.  Garnos, a lifelong resident of South Dakota except for his military service in the U.S. Air Force, was born and raised in Presho.

Leave a comment about this article