Bob Mercer has done excellent work investigating the political contributions of shady Native American Telecom to various South Dakota politicians. Avon attorney Scott Swier, who is defending Native American Telecom before the Public Utilities Commission against Sprint's charges of "traffic pumping" or "access stimulation," formed the South Dakota Telecommunications PAC to contribute to candidates of both parties in South Dakota. The three Democrats who received that shady money—Senator Jason Frerichs, Senator Billie Sutton, and Rep. Scott Parsley—returned their South Dakota Telecommunications PAC money last week. There's been no word yet on Republicans returning this questionable money.
SDT-PAC beneficiary Senator Dan Lederman makes the incredible claim that "he doesn’t know why he was given the $1,000 contribution" by Swier's outfit. Dan runs a PAC of his own; he understands full well why PACs give folks money: access, influence... and thanks for a job well done:
Lederman helped defeat legislation in 2010 and 2011 that attempted to curb access stimulation in South Dakota [Bob Mercer, "State Investigates Donations in Telecom Case," Aberdeen American News, 2013.04.13].
Senator Lederman also wrote a letter to argue Native American Telecom's case before the PUC. But gee whiz, I can't imagine there could be any connection whatsoever between that letter and the money Native American Telecom's PAC put in his campaign coffer. Heavens forfend!
As the prime exhibit of the inescapable inbreeding in South Dakota politics, Scott Swier worked as an assistant attorney general for the state. The office he used to work for will have to investigate any campaign finance violations. The PUC will rule on Sprint's allegations against Native American Telecom. Two of the three members of the PUC received $500 contributions from Lederman's PAC... which just happens to equal the $1000 Lederman received from Swier's PAC.*
Update 16:10 MDT: I have revised that last sentence to correct my original statement that Swier's PAC had contributed directly to the PUC, per the correction submitted below by Mr. Mercer. I regret the error!
Of course, one could do what the "Johnson for Senate" did last year-not accept PAC contributions at all, good or bad. But expect to be outspent 12-1 when running against an incumbent. When us as candidates spend 10 times or more on campaigns then what the job pays or spend nearly in double figures for each vote received, then the question is asked-"Do we really have a citizen based legislature or do we have a legislature composed of good citizens but depends on artificial entities to operate?
Cory,
Two of the PUC members received contributions from Sen. Lederman's PAC. I didn't find any contributions to them from the Telecommunications PAC.
Thanks, Bob! I have corrected the above text... and I apologize for misreading your original report.
what is the big deal about this? I'm guessing things like this occur all the time. And probably with much more money, what makes this so special?
The big deal joeboo is that it's pay to politics, it's unethical, and it's bad government.
Shamrock's got it, Joe. This incident lays bare the sort of pay-to-play influence peddling that businesses use to keep the authorities on their side and off their backs. That makes it worth talking about.
There is a ton of pay-to-play in politics, what makes this one special? He gave 1 legislator X amount of money who in return gave money to 2 PUC members out of his PAC and who has a vote about it? I guess I'm not sure what is going on here. Its PAC money going to people, it happens.
Go look at all PUC donations over the past 4 years and tell me there aren't others? Know a few of the right corporation names, etc. and there is way bigger crimes. Why does the PUC continue to allow power companies to up rates but will not push them towards buying renewable energy even if it can be provided at much lower cost?
All what this is, is Gary Hanson doesn't like Swier, so he is dragging his name through the mud over this issue to try to make him look bad. There isn't anything illegal about it. Is it probably bad? yeah, but give me a few weeks and a reason too and I'm betting I can find others that look much worse then a couple of $500 donations that went through a PAC.
joeboo -- don't you think the right and moral thing to do would be to clean up not only the mess that Cory is talking about, but also the "others that look much worse then a couple of $500 donations that went through a PAC?" How can you find what Cory has explained, and what you allege, to be acceptable?
CH,
You have the facts wrong, get corrected, admit it. No problem. It happens.
But, you then make it worse by claiming by innuendo that there was a pass-through for you are making it a conspiracy. If Swier intended/wanted the money to go to the PUC candidates, he would have given it direct.
The "correction" doesn't make your point stronger but your use of innuendo makes me doubt your point.
Troy, with a case pending before that body, before those candidates, would it be appropriate for Swier to have given money directly to those candidates?
Joe, I give you your few weeks. Go find those examples. Send them to me. I'll publish them as part of a campaign to drive campaign finance reform.
Swier can give money to whoever he wants. People in office can choose to accept from whomever they choose.
Personally, I think the current limits are set sufficiently low such they are unlikely to "buy" anyone except the most base politicians (remember the joke/maxim, "we have established you are a whore. Now we just need to negotiate price"). I think neither Nelson, Fiegan, Nemec or McGovern are whores. But, even if I'm wrong, I am sure $500 isn't their price. Same with Lederman and $1,000.
I might have been strongly for Nelson and Fiegan because of policy. But, with regard to personal character, I had absolutely no doubts about those two or Nemec and McGovern.
Rather than getting in a debate about which money to take, I think candidates should take from whomever. The govt. takes tax money from gamblers, porn businesses, and adulterers. So does the local grocery store. The debate about money ends up ALWAYS distracting one from the real issues and policy questions.
Regarding the specifics of NATC/Sprint, I don't know the details. But, I do know the mechanism that provides a "market maker" opportunity to NATC is grounded in federal law to protect from monopolies and provide subsidy to rural access to telephone. This mechanism was promoted by the Nader-ite type organizations. The fact there ends up being disputes related to government attempts to distort the natural market should not surprise you and neither should you be too quick to condemn. It is the natural consequence of distortion. And, you haven't seen anything yet. Wait until we start dealing with real money related to Obamacare.
joeboo, most of the large utility increases came on the heels of our coal industry being destroyed in a short term. This forced power to build into the only available again short term natural gas power. Nat gas also being the most expensive power supply on the market next to the green you desire. All of this culd have happened over a time frame allowing a more regulated integration of these other technologies..
.
Hell yes we're in a depression, lets just kill coal and add another nail to the coffin.
.
Hanson along with our other commissioners doesn't like traffic pumping, Swier or not.
Les, we get it: you're just another earth hater making South Dakota a laughing stock.