Terrorizing Russ Olson is fine, but you have to put your name to it. So held a jury of my Lake County neighbors yesterday afternoon as they found Daniel Willard guilty of violating South Dakota election law by making effectively anonymous robocalls saying Olson and other prominent South Dakota Republicans voted against pro-veteran legislation.
The powers that be will revel in squashing a critic in their ranks. But will they hold their own folks accountable by the quote of the week from prosecutor and Assistant Attorney General Brent Kempema?
Prosecutors said that even though the charges are misdemeanors this case is important because when groups send out critical campaign information they need to be held accountable.
“We don’t want people just going out and attacking other people, not in South Dakota," Kempema told the jury during closing arguments. "If we have something we believe in we stand up and say this is what I believe in. This is who I am. You don’t go hit and run" [Ben Dunsmoor, "Willard Gets Fine and Suspended Jail Time for Robocalls," KELOLand.com, 2013.08.29].
Dakota War College says Willard gave up the chance to be an influential pol by being sneaky. DWC is the same blog that kept itself on life support for a year and a half with the sneakily pseudonymous "Bill Clay," and which trades on a comment section filled with political and personal attacks by people who reject Kempema's principle of putting your name to your words.
Willard's punishment for ill-advised anonymity (assuming he doesn't appeal): $1000, court costs, and four years probation, with a requirement that he put his name to any political communications he makes. Shall we slap the same probation on all of the South Dakota blogosphere?
Related Research: A case study of participatory budgeting in Gütersloh, Germany, leads researchers Michelle Anna Ruesch and Oliver Märker to conclude that the negative consequences of a real-name policy—"distraction from issue-related dialogue, violation of privacy rights, administrative problems causing high expenditure of time and costs, negative media and public attention, and usability problems that may result in a low rate of participation"—outweigh the positive consequences—"possibility to restrict access, prevention of offensive communication, and the strengthening of a transparent democracy."
The SD blogosphere would be a much better neighborhood if real names were attached to all posts and comments.
As I watched KELO news last night at 10PM, I was thinking about the irony of anonymous blog posts and blogs which do not actually indicate their funding source or actual political connections to officials or influentials. The John Thune campaign against Daschle was based on a lot of anonymous crap repeated endlessly by affliated blogs and bloggers.
And, Republicans of all stripes are benefiting from the Citizens United court ruling which allows big GOP money to remain anonymous. The TV ads which urge us to call some Republican thug or hack to let them know what kind of wonderful job they are doing or urge us to attack some evil Democrat by calling his office number, may have some nice respectable idyllic name, but were we able to track actual funding, we would probably not be a bit surprised to find they came from some beneficiary of GOP slop trough welfare for the very rich.
Jon Lauck's "Daschle v. Thune" blog in 2004 and the astroturf blog corps that sprang up around it bring up some interesting questions in the context of the Willard conviction. We knew Jon Lauck was writing the blog. He put his name to everything he wrote. He did not tell us that he was paid to blog by the Thune campaign. The relevant statute (SDCL 12-27-17) didn't exist in 2004, but it appears to say that such activity now would be illegal, if we could establish a clear connection between payment and publication.
Now consider this hypothetical: suppose the SDGOP or a candidate was paying Pat Powers to write his blog and attack specific political opponents. Would Powers be in violation of election law? Would the SDGOP or the paying candidate?
Cory, I agree. This gets murkier, especially in light of the Supreme Court stretch with Citizens United.
The more I think about it, the less sympathetic I am for Willard. If he had something to say, he should have used his name. When asked he should have begged forgiveness if he didn't understand the law. We need more transparency in lots of areas, like who contributes to our local economic development corporation, etc. Maybe every non-profit should have to make all their donors known.
It's too bad they couldn't punish them all....Willard was thrown under the bus.
It's so easy to criticize from the sidelines, and while I most certainty don't agree with many Republican policies, they are out there running for office, doing the work, and having a pubic life while too many people won't even put their name on a blog post. It's pathetic.
"It's too bad they couldn't punish them all....Willard was thrown under the bus."
I agree DB except Willard still should have and has been punished
Business and journalism do not mix well, add poltics and the mixture could be volitile (to say the least)
Some years ago a local televison station got a new advertisment account for a bank. A few weeks later during the last segment, they show that bank's sign with a obviously wrong temp. (200+) with in 10 minutes the bank pulled all ads and their money.
on the right sidebar of the South Dakota War College, there is an ad for Mike Rounds and his senate run. It is clear that through this ad Mr. Rounds is supporting the SDWC. in the postings Mr. Powers has made it very clear that he is not backing one candidate over another. If for some reason Pat or myself were to critize Mr. Rounds, would he be justified in pulling his ad and money from the SDWC?
This notion that people running a business can't say anything political because it will offend someone and harm their business is overstated. It's how it's done to some extent. If you're crazy, well then. If more people spoke their mind rather than be so Minnesota nice we would be more accustomed to hearing a variety of ideas and opinions rather than go in to cardiac arrest because someone has said something that doesn't affirm our own beliefs.
"I agree DB except Willard still should have and has been punished"
Never said he shouldn't have been.
ok. I stand corrected DB
Newspaper stories suggest every organization must register with the Secretary of State. Does this mean every PTA, every small business, etc must register, or just organizations labeled or defined as "political" or "partisan"?
Doesn't the Judge's call in the Willard case, that a blogger is a journalist (assuming the SCOSD goes along with this..) fit any blogger within the special class of exemptions under SDCL 12-27-17? I am no lawyer, but this liberal definition of journalism opens up a big can of worms as far as I am concerned about the effectiveness of this statute relevant to blog sites.
I'm tired of the Willard stuff. He shouldn't have done it but now it's time to leave him alone and move on. It's over and in the end I think there were a lot of things going on in 2012 that aren't typical (negative postcards, negative robo calls...). It's time to move on.
The negative postcards by groups no one knows anything about to this day had a bigger effect on legislative campaigns than any of these robo calls.
I think the damage has already been done. Invariably, the SD Democrats will eventually acquire the Governor's mansion, and when they do, it will all be linked back to this trial and the lethal divisions which resulted from it that caused the SD GOP to be politically weakened.
It is the true genius of our two party system. When one party no longer matters, the dominant party eventually divides as a result of the preeminence and abuse of power, thus offering an opening for the weaker party to come to power.
I think it is fun watching the Republicans push each other around. Real leadership being demonstrated there. It is the rock and glass house scenario. Makes for good stories during a slow time in our local news.
Most would love to move on but Willard wants to keep this alive by appealing to the Supreme Court.
This is all very Machiavellian. Because THEY think their cause is good, they don't have to follow the law.
Kinda Obama-esque if we go to war with Syria. :)
DWC is full of almost all anonymous comments, and not very meaningful I might add. Sibby made the most rational comment! He ain't too happy over there at SibbyOnLine. If you make crazy/extreme comments people are gonna think you're a nut, but we need civil discourse more than ever, and from where I'm sittin, this blog achieves that better than most.
John, for many people political views do matter on where they do business.
Maybe a certain amount of restraint is a good thing.
Hmmm... why do we have exemptions under SDCL 12-27-17? Why do we let some people in some venues make political statements without identifying themselves or their organization but penalize Willard for making robocalls without identifying himself or providing contact information for his organization?
John gets exactly how things should work. If we all spoke our minds, we'd realize that everyone we do business with has political views, and that we can find points of disagreement with everyone with whom we do business. We'd realize that only doing business with people who wholly share and reinforce our orthodoxy is an impossible fantasy. We could assuage the fear and the caution Michael advises and thus enhance liberty and get more people to participate in politics.
No one can argue that a certain amount of restraint is a good thing, but if we only talk to people who think like we do, only say things we calculate won't offend, where does that take us? Extreme people with extreme ideas are often attracted to politics, entirely willing to push their agenda while reasonable, but often overly restrained people sit by and watch crazy things happen. A place of business is probably not the right place to hold such discussions, but we are severely lacking in civil discourse in appropriate places. Some blame the congressional divide because they all fly home to raise money rather than socialize with one another as they once did. Face to face communication matters.
I know DeLon Mork is friends with Russ Olson and supports some Republican positions. I still buy Blizzards, and he still treats me as respectfully as he treats every other customer. Our restraint can come in how we state our disagreements, not in whether we discuss them at all.
What?! I am never steppin foot in that Dairy Queen ever again. And none of my kids neither. Or my grandkids!
I enjoyed Jonathon Ellis' column in today's (Sunday) paper. Worth the read. Like I had posted earlier, it is great fun watching the "family" fight. And Mr. Jones, Pres Obama will not pull a "Bush" trick... Bush/bush league / both Bushes did it.