Recent Posts

Sviggum

Complaint on printing campaign materials at public expense can go forward

by Eric Ferguson on June 12, 2012 · 0 comments

Last February, the Republican caucus in the State Senate got this seemingly terrific deal on printing their campaign material for the precinct caucuses:

State Senate GOP caucus spokesman Steve Sviggum apologized for printing partisan materials at public expense. He was referring to materials distributed at GOP precinct caucuses, thanking attendees for attending GOP caucuses. “In my mind that was a constituent piece and they are constituents,” said majority leader David Senjem, R-Rochester. Well, I don’t want to be ungracious (until a later paragraph). Apologizing is better than not apologizing. Apologizing after giving such a phony excuse is better than not apologizing after giving such a phony excuse. Apologizing after claiming it was cleared by the Senate counsel is better than not apologizing after claiming it was cleared by the Senate counsel.

One thing apparently not worthy of an apology however was telling us the printing was only $50: “In all, 4,725 flyers were printed at a cost of less than $50 to taxpayers,” as reported by MPR. Let’s pull out our calculators and just have a look (OK, now is when I get ungracious). $50 divided by 4725 is $.0106, rounded off. A bit over a penny apiece. Wow. Can I use that print shop? I can’t get basic black and white photocopies for less than maybe 10¢. Sweet deal the Senate GOP got! Well, it would have been sweet if they were paying for it.

Yesterday, the Office of Administrative Hearings said a complaint that the Republicans used public money for campaign pamphlets can go forward. The Senate GOP was asking for summary disposition, and the complaint against one senator was dismissed, but the rest can go forward. The dispute is over materials printed for precinct caucuses at public expense. Republicans claim their just constituent information. The DFL complains the constituent information apparently includes the address of GOP campaign web sites. Despite the apology I ridiculed last February, the GOP senators are sticking by their claim these are legitimate constituent materials.

Are there potential fines I’m unaware of? I can’t fathom why they just don’t say someone screwed up, but now they know better, and the caucus will reimburse the full cost. Even if they got very expensive pamphlets, without the discount of bulk orders and in-house printing, how much could this have cost, several thousand dollars? Isn’t paying that easier than making up some convoluted claim?

I wonder if the administrative judge will ask if she can get the same wonderful deal on printing costs for copies of the decision, or if she’ll just point out that such a bizarre claim doesn’t help the defendants’ case.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

{ 0 comments }

MNGOP senators get terrific rate on printing

by Eric Ferguson on February 16, 2012 · 2 comments

State Senate GOP caucus spokesman Steve Sviggum apologized for printing partisan materials at public expense. He was referring to materials distributed at GOP precinct caucuses, thanking attendees for attending GOP caucuses. “In my mind that was a constituent piece and they are constituents,” said majority leader David Senjem, R-Rochester. Well, I don’t want to be ungracious (until a later paragraph). Apologizing is better than not apologizing. Apologizing after giving such a phony excuse is better than not apologizing after giving such a phony excuse. Apologizing after claiming it was cleared by the Senate counsel is better than not apologizing after claiming it was cleared by the Senate counsel.

One thing apparently not worthy of an apology however was telling us the printing was only $50: “In all, 4,725 flyers were printed at a cost of less than $50 to taxpayers,” as reported by MPR. Let’s pull out our calculators and just have a look (OK, now is when I get ungracious). $50 divided by 4725 is $.0106, rounded off. A bit over a penny apiece. Wow. Can I use that print shop? I can’t get basic black and white photocopies for less than maybe 10¢. Sweet deal the Senate GOP got! Well, it would have been sweet if they were paying for it.

Wait though. Be fair. Maybe they just got lousy copies at a dinky size. Index card size maybe? Postage stamp size? With extra lines and smeared ink? Alternatively, MPR did say, “…less than $50 to taxpayers” so maybe we didn’t pay the whole cost — we just chipped in! Is that it? The GOP ran $50 short and we lent it to them! Borrowing without asking isn’t nice, but better than the last alternative, — and I feel terrible for suspecting this — but, maybe claiming the printing cost only $50 is not entirely true? Partly true certainly, since I assume the real figure likewise includes a dollar sign. Beyond that though…

One more thing. About the Senate counsel that supposedly approved printing at public expense:
Doesn’t the fact you need to consult a lawyer before a routine print job suggest maybe you’re doing something you shouldn’t? And how could the counsel sign-off on claiming as non-partisan material something that says something like “Thanks for attending the GOP caucus!”. Maybe it toed the legal line by saying something like, “This is a non-partisan thank you from your Republican senator for attending these non-partisan GOP caucuses where we hope you will work to non-partisanly elect Republicans who will be as completely non-partisan as this non-partisan Republican lit piece and no, we haven’t sent these to other parties’ caucuses because they’re a bunch of partisan doody-heads, which we mean in the most non-partisan way. Of course.”

That’s assuming the “thanks for being a Republican” bits were indeed on what was shown to the Senate counsel. Hard to think anyone in that position would get fooled into approving something like what actually got printed. Or maybe the counsel himself is a wee bit partisan? Or paid to be? Maybe it’s an application of the old saying, “It’s hard to make a man understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it.”

OK. So I guess saying “sorry” and giving $50 to the public print shop makes this go away. Anyway, at least majority leader Senjem himself had the sense to stay out of this and not make it look like he’s clueless about how … oops:

LEGISLATOR

Al DeKruif, Madison Lake
Michelle Fischbach, Paynesville
Chris Gerlach, Apple Valley
Joe Gimse, Willmar
Gretchen Hoffman, Vergas
Ben Kruse, Brooklyn Park
Ted Lillie, Lake Elmo
Doug Magnus, Slayton
Geoff Michel, Edina
Carla Nelson, Rochester
John Pederson, St. Cloud
Claire Robling, Jordan
Dave Senjem, Rochester[bolding mine]
Ray Vandeveer, Forest Lake
Pam Wolf, Spring Lake Park
Source: Senate Republican Caucus

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

{ 2 comments }

So – How Serious ARE They??!?

by TwoPuttTommy on June 5, 2009 · 0 comments

T-Bag announces he’s out; which obviously means there’s a whole buncha republiCons in.  Well, even some Republicans, too.  Which begs the question:  how serious are they?

It’s easy to go to various blogs and find out what various rightwingers are postulating; it’s even easier to  check in with the (almost)official rightwing site (although, many bona fide RightWingNuts haven’t weighed in yet.)

It’s important to note: what you might find, might simply be “opinions.”  Well, “opinions” if – and I mean “if” – the following “commentary” is considered “opinion”:

D Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 11:27 am
Laura Brod was one of the chief proponents of the “Rape the Taxpayers of Hennepin County to the delight of multi-billionaire Carl Pohlad”.

Nobody, I mean NOBODY, in the Hennepin County GOP has forgotten her vote and defense of ripping our right to vote by referendum on the Twins stadium.

And I will take great joy in reminding my state delegate friends of this woman. (MinnesotaDemocratsExposed)

Gotta love them RightWingNuts, “right”?

“Right.”  Even when they got opinions such as this:

J Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
Aside from her tax issue which will be huge, Brod will have to answer for her personal behavior if she runs. She’s – ahem – played the field. A lot.(MinnesotaDemocratsExposed)

Doncha just love “blogs” “written”  and “moderated”  by “gentlemen” considered “candidates” for “positions”  of “authority” in today’s “Family Values” party?

But, I digress.  What’s “written” is just “opinion.”

What’s needed, is analysis!  And fortunately, I’m here to help!!! So, let’s take a look at domain names – taken and available and  related to those considered “potential candidates” by those from the party  that bows to the guy with the big cigar….
…taken:

LauraBrodForGovernor.com – taken
BrodForGovernor.com – taken
Brod2010.com – taken
LauraBrod2010.com – taken

OK, every indication is Laura “Screw Hennepin County” Brod is in!

But, what domains did her “brain(dead) trust” miss?

Well, by my unofficial and quick reconoitering:

BrodForGovernor2010.com – available!
LauraBrodforGovernor.com – available!!
Brod4governor – available!!!

Dam – what were THEY thinking??!?

Plus, they missed these:

DumpBrod.com – available!
DumpLauraBrod.com – available!!!

One would think those around “The Card Check Girl” woulda checked what’s happened up in the 6th, what with the  Dump Bachmann stuff…..

Then again, has anyone ever accused Brod of bein’ “brighter than Bachmann”?

Not likely….

Anyway, on to the next contestent “contestant”, in the “Small Tent” Party!

SullivanForGovernor.com – taken
Sullivan2010.com – taken

Well, I guess that’s not surprising; there’s a lot of “Sullivans” in these fifty states.  Let’s look a little closer:

BrianSullivan2010.com – Available!
BrianSullivanForGovernor.com – Available!!!

Gee – is Brain “Brian” – a GOP National Committeeman – so out of touch that he didn’t register his domains, before T-Bag headed for the Des Moines Register??!?

How ’bout Marty – who couldn’t wait 24 hours to dance on T-Bag’s grave “legacy”?

Seifert2010.com – taken!
SeifertForGovernor.com – taken!!!

OK, that explains the presser, less than 24 hours after T-Bag bolted for Iowa….but:

What explains this?

MartySeifert2010.com – available!
MartySeifertForGovernor.com  - available!!!

Could it be, that after spendin’ all them years in the GreedOverPrinciples party, that Marty got a case of the cheaps?

You tell me.

And tell me – is Pat in?

PatAndersonForGovernor.com  - available!
PatAnderson2010.com  - available!!!

And all of the Rammer’s are available; then again:  did anyone really think Rammer could get a state-wide GOPer endorsement, anyway?

Now, here’s the deal:  Steve Sviggum is a really  nice guy. Horrible policies, but:  truely a nice guy.  

A genuinely nice guy.  Again, horrible policies, but…. I noted “Sviggum.com” was taken.  So, when I found that “SteveSviggum.com” was open, I took it.  

Well, I took “Sviggum2010.com” and “SviggumForGovernor.com” too, but:  that’s a tangent.

I took “SteveSviggum.com” ’cause I wanted to make sure no one took it and play games with such a nice guy.

Well, “no one would play MOST games with such a nice guy.”

One never knows, eh? OTO….

…that “DumpBrod.com”?

I got a funny feeling that one would go for a right might bit more….  

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

{ 0 comments }