Last updated on 2014.10.23
Rereading background on the Dan Willard robocall trial reminds me of some legal housekeeping our Legislature did for the Governor last winter. You will recall that, when Governor Dennis Daugaard started banging the drum for an investigation of the spate of anonymous robocalls targeting various Republican leaders in the summer of 2012, Rep. Stace Nelson (R-19/Fulton) responded with a demand that Attorney General Marty Jackley investigate the disclaimerless push-polling the Governor had paid for before the June primary. That push-polling targeted five hotly contested Republican primary races, unlike the summer robocalls, which fecklessly targeted a number of Republicans who faced no November challengers. Despite the arguably greater impact of the Daugaard push-polling, the Attorney General declined to investigate.
To make sure such gubernatorial behavior goes uninvestigated in the future, the 2013 Legislature passed Senate Bill 200, which amended campaign finance law to include this exception to the political communications requiring a disclosure filing with the Secretary of State:
Any communication used for the purpose of polling if the poll questions do not expressly advocate for or against a candidate, public office holder, ballot question... [Senate Bill 200, Section 2, 2013 Legislature].
See? It's just like Tony Venhuizen said: "A poll makes no communication of any idea or statement at all - it simply asks questions."
Interestingly, Rep. Stace Nelson agrees: he voted for SB 200, along with 60 of his House colleagues.
Next time, Dan, send out your robocalls in the form of a push-poll: "Would knowing that Russ Olson calls criticism of his voting record terrorism make you less likely to vote for him?"
1. Do you believe rumors that Gov. Daugaard is demented?
2. Has corruption in GOP-controlled Pierre reached levels that make you want to vomit?
3. Do you like paying extra taxes so SD Republicans can provide welfare to rich corporations?
4. Do you believe ex-post facto justification for criminal behavior should prevent such criminal behavior from being prosecuted?
I confess to having used poll questions to drive a point almost 40 years ago probably before the term push-poll had been coined. We at least put a detailed disclaimer notification on as to who wrote, published, with phone and address.
A real question this time. Can you explain why South Dakotans keep voting Republican?
That's easy, Doug: image is more powerful than substance. Plus the GOP has consolidated a lot of power.
Push polling is a most despicable and reprehensible element of any campaign although highly effective. During polling season I qualify each pollster by asking if this is a "push poll". Invariably they claim ignorance and are told by me that upon hearing the first advocating question I will not respond for three minutes between each question thus wasting their time and I will hang up after fifteen minutes not finishing the call. The pollster realizes they won't get paid for that call and the frequency of "push pollsters" dwindles. Sad is that most voters don't know what they're hearing.
Stace Nelson's next push poll:
Would you be less likely to support a candidate like Mike Rounds if you discovered that he a had secret love child in China?
and
Would you be more or less likely to support a candidate that had secretly hugged President Obama after accepting federal money to balance the state's budget?
I read the bill, again, and I sincerely wonder what critics of that section would prefer it be instead.
Take the Nielson Brothers polls of recent years as an example. How should they be handled under this part of state legal code?
This clown show reminds me of the kangaroo court proceedings against the two attorneys who blew the whistle on Janklow's insider trading scandal back in '94. The greater violation got swept under the rug while the media focused their very limited attention (as directed) on the shiny object.
Add to that watching Gant buzz around untouched after his string of abuses of power, and it boggles the mind. I have to keep asking myself what the legal violation was in this case against these campaign amateurs, and it is ONLY the failure to provide a disclaimer. Yet KELO and the rest of the lap dogs in the press seem to parade these knuckleheads as Public Enemy #1 with live coverage and top-of-the-news treatment.
The Pierre Power Clic really can screw people in plain view and get away with it.