Having trouble getting through to state offices lately? It could be because the South Dakota Republican Party is sending out robocalls to remind our civil servants of who butters their bread.
...calling on behalf of the South Dakota Republican Party, South Dakota cannot afford to send a friend of Barack Obama to Washington. The only way to avoid sending a friend of Obama to Washington is by voting Republican. By not electing a Republican, South Dakota will be supporting Obamacare, a friend of Barack Obama, a Washington insider, and a bigger government. The Republicans have a chance to take back the Senate, and South Dakotans play a vital role. Please remember to vote Republican on November 4. This call is paid for by the South Dakota Republican Party, not authorized by the candidate or candidate's committee, 605-610-8879 [South Dakota Republican Party, robocall, recorded 2014.10.24].
My source found this message on the voicemail of my source's work phone in a state office. My source says my source's boss has received the same message at work. My source has also received two surveys from the national GOP.
I appreciate the SDGOP's effort to lighten our state employees' day with messages from breathless ladies, though I hope they have a hunky baritone version for the ladies who answer the state phones. But we could read this robocall as one more effort by the Republicans to keep government from getting its work done.
Either way, Republicans, how about we save the robocalls for folks not on the clock?
I'm surprised that's legal
Owen, as SD republicans have proven time and again, doesn't really matter if it's legal or not, they do what they want. If democrats had done this, you know the shit storm that would be going on right now.
Probably the same attorney who determined no conflict of interest, Owen.
Here's the first draft of that script Cory ;-)
'Hello. This is your Big Brother. Want to keep getting that paycheck? Well, you know what to do and when to do it. Have a nice, productive day. Now get back to work.'
I believe there are state laws prohibiting the use of lists being used to solicit state employees for political reasons. There is no reason under the sun why a phone number with the prefix 773- would be called for political reasons unless it was going to a political appointee. This is harassment by the Daugaard Overlords, as depicted in Bill's first draft.
If that happened where I work the bosses would not be happy. I agree with u Tim
Is Marty Jackley investigating this?
I can tell you another one was received by state employees over the weekend.
I can not believe this has happened. I was in the Executive Branch of South Dakota State Government for 12 years as the Division Director/Fire Chief if Wildland Fire Suppression. We were always told to remain neutral on political issues at work. I agree with Roger- Turn it over to Jackley.
This goes along with soliciting state employees to contribute to the Governors Club. You will find that most Cabinet members contributed , as well as some other employees. No wonder we constantly are at the bottom when it comes to transparency of government.
If Jackley says it is legal, then we need to introduce legislation that prohibits it.
This is just more of the same. We have rules , however they do not apply to the SDGOP or the administration. Last thought- were is the Governors Office . Why is he not putting a stop to this. I guess it is a rhetorical question.
republicans don't follow the law. they take their money and calculate how to beat democrats in the next two year or 4 year election cycle. the stakes get bigger each time.
bush v, gore, 2000.
citizens united et al.
spin facts (fox, climate denial, big tobacco)
Shelby county v. holder- The Roberts Court has set a trap for voters.
It paralyzed Section 5 of the VRA (voting rights act), taking away the federal government’s most potent weapon for stopping voting discrimination. Instead, it urged the Justice Department and civil rights groups to challenge discriminatory voting changes under Section 2 of the VRA, even though Justice Kennedy admitted in 2009 that “Section 2 cases are very expensive. They are very long. They are very inefficient.” Then, when a slew of lawsuits are filed under Section 2, the Supreme Court largely sides with those restricting voting rights. It seems like the Court’s conservative majority is planning to eviscerate every important part of the VRA.
The recent decisions show that Section 2 of the VRA is no replacement for Section 5. Earlier this year, members of Congress introduced a legislative fix for the VRA to resurrect Section 5 in states, incl. TX, with five voting rights violations in the past fifteen years. http://www.thenation.com/blog/183561/supreme-court-eviscerates-voting-rights-act-texas-voter-id-decision
Yeah, a gerrymandering lawsuit might fix it (NOT).
And another one just came in. Too bad I answered it and not let it got to voice mail.