I can’t say I’ve seen this before.
Former 32-year Democrat and current South Dakota Republican Party Chairman Jim Eschenbaum is apparently partnering with a group which includes a dark money fund for purposes of lobbying and endorsing candidates. And not just lending them support as a private citizen, but in addition to recording a video for them, is allowing them to use his Republican party title in their advertising.
Funny. I seem to recall the former 32-year Democrat chair saying something about using party titles for getting in the middle of campaigns..
“It has been brought to my attention this morning that Toby Doeden’s campaign is asking County parties to endorse him. It has been discussed many times that this would not be appropriate for the party to influence the election process, other than supporting Republicans…
What each person does outside of the the “umbrella” of the State or County party opertions is up to each individual.. but please avoid taking a collective position with the SD GOP, or County GOP title involved….
..please exercise that privilege outside of the “umbrella” of the party identity.“
Well, I guess that was all just bullsh*t.
No matter who or what they supported, I don’t recall during my time that Joel Rosenthal, Dwight Adams, Craig Lawrence, Karl Adam, Bob Gray, Tim Rave, Pam Roberts, or any other chairs ever doing this.
Did they support people or causes privately? Yes. Did they ever record an ad for a lobbying group and specifically use their title as SDGOP Party Chairman in advertising for their group?
NO. Because it would be inappropriate.
Clearly, Eschenbaum sets down rules for others, but chooses not to follow them himself. Rules for thee…
Well, Pat, all the former GOP chairs you mentioned weren’t crazy. They were responsible adults.
Common sense, ethics or rules are not JimE’s friends.
Regarding the issue of emminent domain, please refer to the Supreme Court decision on Kelo v. City of New London”
“In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the majority held that the city’s taking of private property to sell for private development qualified as a “public use” within the meaning of the takings clause. The city was not taking the land simply to benefit a certain group of private individuals, but was following an economic development plan. Such justifications for land takings, the majority argued, should be given deference. The takings here qualified as “public use” despite the fact that the land was not going to be used by the public. The Fifth Amendment did not require “literal” public use, the majority said, but the “broader and more natural interpretation of public use as ‘public purpose.”
Decided Jun 23, 2005: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2004/04-108
The people pushing the end of eminent domain are fear mongers. None of the laws they have passed are strong enough to be a test case to overturn Kelo.
Do South Dakota tax payers really need to be the ones footing the bill on a fool’s errand?
The court ruled wrongly on this one. It happens.
Regardless of your opinion, the opinion of the Supreme Court IS the law.
Absolute embarrassment. How has the RNC not intervened yet?!
I thought the same thing – this has to be in violation of RNC rules
They maybe need someone to file an official complaint
I mean, have you seen who’s been running the RNC lately? Not exactly titans of ethics or morality.