Who Is the $750,000 Man (Or Woman)?
As I made my rounds to a half-dozen or so bars last night, politics was obviously the topic of the evening. The question raised most often was the identity of the person who conspired with Roger Hunt to create a sham company to funnel money to Unruh's anti-abortion crusade.
The surprising choice of the night involved Mike Rounds or members of his family. I don't see this as the case. Rounds has shown himself to be reluctant participant in the abortion debate, and I think his family is too smart to get involved in anything this controversial in an election year. Of course, that didn't stop them from routing a bill through the legislature that allowed them to have a monopoly on brewing (is that the right term?) vodka.
Another name that frequently came up was Sioux Falls banker and philanthropist T. Denny Sanford. While he's certainly known to throw tens of millions around to various organizations, he tends to donate to organizations that will name buildings after him. Plus, a few hundred thousand bucks is chump change to him. If he was involved the numbers would be much higher. (Plus, does anybody really know which side of the abortion debate he sides with?)
The name that I gave the most creedence to, however, was Steve Kirby. This just seems like the kind of hair-brained scheme that he would enthusiastically endorse. He's also been linked to this issue.
Regardless of who is the mystery donor, this is a very sad commentary on South Dakota politics. Some of the same people who complain about "activist judges" releasing "criminals" due to procedural technicalities are attempting to pull off this scam by using what they see as technicalities in our state's campaign financing laws.
What angers me the most, however, is Roger Hunt's comments that the donor wishes to be annonymous to protect his family from violence. Excuse me? Which side of this debate has leaders that promote the bombing of clinics and/or the murder of doctors? Which side takes down license plate numbers and harasses people who visit Planned Parenthood? Which side condemns anybody who doesn't follow their beliefs? It's not the pro-choice crowd.
The surprising choice of the night involved Mike Rounds or members of his family. I don't see this as the case. Rounds has shown himself to be reluctant participant in the abortion debate, and I think his family is too smart to get involved in anything this controversial in an election year. Of course, that didn't stop them from routing a bill through the legislature that allowed them to have a monopoly on brewing (is that the right term?) vodka.
Another name that frequently came up was Sioux Falls banker and philanthropist T. Denny Sanford. While he's certainly known to throw tens of millions around to various organizations, he tends to donate to organizations that will name buildings after him. Plus, a few hundred thousand bucks is chump change to him. If he was involved the numbers would be much higher. (Plus, does anybody really know which side of the abortion debate he sides with?)
The name that I gave the most creedence to, however, was Steve Kirby. This just seems like the kind of hair-brained scheme that he would enthusiastically endorse. He's also been linked to this issue.
Regardless of who is the mystery donor, this is a very sad commentary on South Dakota politics. Some of the same people who complain about "activist judges" releasing "criminals" due to procedural technicalities are attempting to pull off this scam by using what they see as technicalities in our state's campaign financing laws.
What angers me the most, however, is Roger Hunt's comments that the donor wishes to be annonymous to protect his family from violence. Excuse me? Which side of this debate has leaders that promote the bombing of clinics and/or the murder of doctors? Which side takes down license plate numbers and harasses people who visit Planned Parenthood? Which side condemns anybody who doesn't follow their beliefs? It's not the pro-choice crowd.
Comments
I as well think it is ironic that the same people that say that "you cannot kill this child", even though it cannot live on its own, and is not concidered a child until birth. [I hate to say it, but "birth" means it has to be able to live on its own as a self sustaining life form].
But as a majority these same people also support capitol punishment. So they have issues with termination before birth. BUT GOD SO HELP US ALL IF THEY SCREW UP LATER, STRAP 'EM DOWN & THROW THE SWITCH!
Who cares about the poor woman that might have to face her own fears because of a rape, incest, or another type of an attack. The kid is ok, the mother however died. Or We have yet another child 'blessed to be with us', but the mother is in the insane ward due to mental anguish. And all this time I know Roger Hunt & his cronies will NEVER take in an adopted child. More or less babysit a child that is here because the mother had to birth it. Or offer console to ANY WOMAN THAT HAD BEEN RAPED, and has to see the face of her attacker every time she looks at the child the a-center was supposed to sell off to a family until they found out it was not a "healthy white kid", then got left as a single unwed mother with $3k+ in bills.
Sorry 'bout the rant. I just wanted to say I thought your post made a good point.
Blessed Be
Its too bad that Hunt and Unruh use this abortion issue for self promotion and some financial gains.