A few South Dakotans have resigned from their legislative seat to run for federal office. I’m not thinking Democratic Congressional Candidate Paula Hawks is going to be one of them.
Hawks, currently serving as a representative of District 9, has finally filed her financial disclosure forms with the clerk of the US House. And I’m not seeing the ability to put a lot of personal funds into the race. In fact, I’d wonder if she can afford to take the time off of work to campaign, except that her campaign will probably be paying her a salary as Stephanie Herseth’s did when she ran.
Did she fill that out incorrectly? Or is Hawks really saying she doesn’t have a dollar to her name?
Her husband doesn’t earn anything? Is he chad haber?
If I’m reading it correctly, I don’t think they have to disclose that, as much as where he is employed.
Working class people should NOT represent working class people!
Sorry to hear you say that.
Why? Aren’t we here to make fun of her salary? Don’t we elect our representatives based on how much money they have? A middle class woman clearly does not represent the interests of the average South Dakotan, right?
Not her salary, her lack of additional funds, to pay her salary
I see. So we’re making fun of her for being too poor to run for office, since she doesn’t have enough money to pay her own salary. Clearly she doesn’t represent our interests since everyone else in SD can quit working anytime. Poor people shouldn’t hold office.
She’s broke, not poor. Without financial reserves — provided by political donors — it’s impossible for Hawks to get her message out.
Exactly. And it’s those donors that must be represented, not broke/poor people.
So will Noem and Thune resign then.
Crossgrain at 1:45…
It’s most definitedly a two-way street. Voters give political donations because they agree with candidates’ policy positions and other beliefs, and so want to support them. It follows that — voila! — the politician agrees with those who donate to his or her campaign. That’s a good thing.
Problem is that they agree more with somebody who gives $1000 vs somebody who gives $10. I agree that this is not a GOP-centric problem.
Why would you make fun of someone who made $38,000 last year plus their $6,000 legislative pay ? Plus her husband has a job. That looks pretty good in my book. Honestly, 13-14 years ago when I first started in the House and was single I lived the entire year off of my legislative salary and per diem, plus a few hundred dollars I withdrew from my business from produce sales from my garden. I’m not a Hawks fan, but I would much rather be represented by a middleclass Congressman than the super-wealthy.
Who is making fun of anyone? It’s a public campaign document, and what was said was quite factual.
You can wrap your BS in dryer sheets all you want, but at the end of the day, it’s still BS.
No, you’re calling out Hawks because she’s not got the resources of your preferred candidates. You’ve made light not only of her salary, but also the nature of her job at Metabank. You can claim “I’m just stating facts” all you want, but the nature and tone of your presentation, as well as which “facts” you choose to share, and which you choose to suppress, tell a different story.
It’s all about the money for you.