In the race for Sioux Falls’s At Large City Council position, this week incumbent City Councilperson Theresa Stehly has finally filed a campaign finance report, which claims she’s raised nothing and spent nothing. (It’s unclear what period this is for, since she missed the checkbox explaining what the report was for).
2 28 2020 Citizens for Stehly Campaign Finance Disclosure Report Theresa Stehly by Pat Powers on Scribd
The report is noted as being a report of receipts and expenditures under Stehly’s name, forgoing the organization of any committee.
So Stehly is claiming that she raised nothing and spent nothing. Ok.. But.
But, what about the easter weekend robocalls she directed this last year to the public against the hiring of an employee to the rest of the Sioux Falls City Council? Robocalls aren’t free.
“While many families were celebrating Easter, they were interrupted by an unsolicited and misleading phone call,” read the joint statement issued by Neitzert and fellow councilors Christine Erickson, Marshall Selberg and Rick Kiley.
and…
Stehly wouldn’t address whether she had an opportunity to review and interview candidates for the internal audit manager gig, but she defended the call as a public service for citizens “who had four days notification” of Nelson’s nomination.
“The only way I thought to alert the public was to put out a robocall at my own cost,” Stehly said.
Clearly Theresa spent money on an advocacy robocall to try to convince the city council to vote a specific way. Is she trying to claim she doesn’t have to disclose that?
And what about Theresa’s newsletter “the Stehly Report?” In her last newsletter, she claimed that ..
“There is a “BIG MONEY” SPECIAL INTEREST effort to take my seat on the Council,” (specifically noting my seat as if she has some ownership right over the elected position, as if it’s some sort of divine-right imparted monarchy.)
Anyway, in her multi-page newsletter, she offers the following disclaimer:
If Theresa is filing a committee-less campaign finance form for herself as above, and has paid for all of this political advertising herself, why is her campaign finance report for herself silent as to any expenditures?
Neither her robocalls nor her newsletters are listed under advertising. In fact, they’re not even listed as items she donated to herself…
Interestingly, in Sioux Falls, you have a councilperson questioning the ethics of Councilmen making fully-disclosed campaign donations to candidates for city council.
But nobody is saying boo about the ethics of Theresa Stehly making political expenditures for her own benefit, and failing to disclose ANYTHING about the number, nature and cost. Especially for a report she’s named after herself.
(UPDATE: After I wrote this, I notice I left out the paid columns she places in the SF Shopper paper also titled The Stehly Report that all say “paid for by Theresa Stehly.” She didn’t disclose those, either.)
The Sioux Falls City Council race rolls on. And will continue to get wilder.
Let’s be honest our entire city and state campaign finance system is vague and on the honor system.
There should be major changes.
It is very interesting that Theresa Stehly’s friend Janet Brekke has a big problem with the properly-disclosed financial contributions of other city councilors, but seems to have no problem with Stehly’s own unreported political expenditures. Stehly Reports that highlight her political record and provide commentary on local elections should be fully disclosed like any other political expenditure.
The other question is, who is actually paying for this stuff? Being a city councilor pays about $20,000 per year and her only other job is being a part-time piano teacher. Robocalls, political mailings, and shopping news ads are expensive (think thousands of dollars). That money has to come from somewhere and it’s probably not from Stehly’s own piggy bank.
Stehly didn’t file her statement of organization/candidacy unitl February 28. Any expenditures before that do not apply to the campaign finance rules of a pronounced candidate. You first have to file that statement before collecting donations or spending donations. Look it up.
This is exactly why we need to reform campaign finance rules in this state. Elected officials should file quarterly.
Let’s face it, we don’t know who face Theresa the money to run her monthly papers that were delivered to more doors than the Argus Leader. Has she had benefactors giving her funds all these years without disclosing who they are? Are these donors actually giving in excess of the limits? Has she received any in-kind donations for printing?
This is almost worse than that guy who used his kids to skirt finance limits in the last mayoral elections. Hopefully Ellis or Sneve will look into this ethical lapse, but I’m not holding my breath.
An interesting point about the Shopping News. One of her biggest allies works there.
As far as I know Theresa has paid for all of those mailings, etc. from her own income. No donations (she had no money left over from her 2016 campaign) were used. You have to realize, Theresa is a grassroots candidate who doesn’t ask for money unless she is running for office, and as of Friday she can do that.
“This is almost worse than that guy who used his kids to skirt finance limits in the last mayoral elections.”
Mr. McDonald who donated that money to Mayor TenHaken who doesn’t want Theresa re-elected. McDonald has publicly endorsed Jensen.
The Blogger from SF you are probably speaking about hasn’t worked at the SFSN for quite a long time. Don’t believe me, call them up and ask.
Weird. I didn’t say blogger. But now we know who explicitly who was helping her.
Stehly’s defenders will quickly tell you the rules don’t apply to her because she “wasn’t a candidate yet” when she paid for robocalls against a fellow city councilor and was mailing out advertorials about her political record.
Her defenders should read city ordinance § 38.005-A, “A campaign finance disclosure whose contents are specified by state law shall be signed and submitted to the city clerk’s office by the treasurer of every municipal candidate or candidate campaign committee, municipal or nonmunicipal political action committee, municipal ballot question committee, and municipal public office holder pertaining to city elections. Any statement pursuant to this section shall be consecutive and shall cover contributions and expenditures since the last statement submitted.”
Note that political expenditures of elected officials, not just candidates, are supposed to be reported according to city ordinance.
‘Pertaining to city elections’
I heard the robocall, there was nothing in it that said ‘re-elect Theresa Stehly in the next year’s city election. There was also nothing in it that said ‘don’t re-elect Greg Neitzert’. It did not pertain to a city election, it was a public official in their public role informing the public about a city government issue. It is a little far-fetched to say that robocall pertained to city elections a year before the election.
The biggest problem is the January 29th, 2020 Stehly Report. In that edition which was mailed to thousands of Sioux Falls voters, she touts her track record on the city council, says there’s a “big money special interest effort” to remove her from the council, and notes that there is a city election coming up in April.
If municipal public office holders are required to file campaign finance disclosures “pertaining to city elections”, that definitely counts as something that should have been reported as part of a campaign finance disclosure.
How much is being spent publishing these Stehly reports? Who are they being sent to? Did she receive any in-kind donations in the form of discounted production costs? Where is the money actually coming from to pay for these? For someone that regularly beats the drums of government transparency, you think she would be more than happy to answer these questions.
‘Not Theresa’ must be Scott Ehrisman’s secret code name.
If it was Scott, it would have many more grammatical errors.
‘How much is being spent publishing these Stehly reports?’
She wasn’t a declared candidate so she doesn’t have to disclose that information.
‘Who are they being sent to?’
Even if she was a declared candidate, she wouldn’t have to disclose that information, and shouldn’t.
‘Did she receive any in-kind donations in the form of discounted production costs?’
Once again, I doubt she received any in kind donations, but still wouldn’t have to disclose that information because she was not declared yet.
‘Where is the money actually coming from to pay for these?’
She said in the newsletter where it came from – are you accusing her of lying?
‘For someone that regularly beats the drums of government transparency, you think she would be more than happy to answer these questions.’
This coming from an anon commenter. LOL.
You may not like that she did the robocall or N/L, and that’s fine, but it is pretty clear she hasn’t violated any campaign finance rules. If you want to change those rules, you can ask the CRC in two years.
§ 38.005 PERSONS AND ENTITIES REQUIRED TO SUBMIT CAMPAIGN FINANCE DISCLOSURES; TIME FOR SUBMISSION.
(a) A campaign finance disclosure whose contents are specified by state law shall be signed and submitted to the city clerk’s office by the treasurer of every municipal candidate or candidate campaign committee, municipal or nonmunicipal political action committee, municipal ballot question committee, and municipal public office holder pertaining to city elections. Any statement pursuant to this section shall be consecutive and shall cover contributions and expenditures since the last statement submitted.
Theresa bought paid advertisements. She failed to disclose them on her report. Period.
…
She’s adopted the rules that AOC and the rest of the revolutionary leftists use: “since my motivations and ideology are pure (as defined by me), I don’t have to follow any rules”. . . the attack the Hell of of anybody that calls her on it.
“Disclosure for thee but not for me” is clearly the rules according to Theresa Stehly.
If the defense is “not yet a candidate” for failing to disclose donations and expenditures, the way to be the most secretive and take illegal contributions and spend money without disclosure would be to wait until the very last minute to declare one’s candidacy.
Which is exactly what Theresa did, the person who yells about transparency the loudest. By far the laziest, most dishonest and slimiest politician in SD today.
I agree with That Blogger From Sioux Falls that Pat should not have the right to blog about elections in Sioux Falls. Pat should only blog about elections in Brookings, just like That Blogger From Sioux Falls. Actually, at should only blog about elections in his own house.That Blogger From Sioux Falls who loves Theresa is right about so, so many things.
Pat not “at.”
“ Pat should not have the right to blog about elections in Sioux Falls.”
I didn’t know the Constitutional Right to free speech was limited by ones geography.
Just another example of Theresa’s crowd believing the rules are for others and not she and her ilk.
Pretty sure that was satire, man. The giveaway was “Pat should only blog about elections in his own house.”
Troy, so you are saying because Theresa waited until the end to file that she doing something illegal? You really are a moron. She’s the incumbent, she has no reason to file early, and you know it. I can’t wait until she whips Jensens ass, and listen to the excuse fest from you sore losers.
But, she has an obligation to be transparent. She spent money and may have raised it.
If she is hiding behind the letter of the law to be non-transparent, she proves she is a hypocrite and slimy.
If you think she did something illegal, I double dog dare yah to file a formal complaint
I don’t know if she violated the law as I said. Is your failing to grasp what I said an inability to read or are you as openly dishonest as Stehly?
Whether it is a violation of the law (which it may be by a reading of the ordinance but I am not a campaign finance lawyer), I am asserting is she has violated the standards of transparency she has harped on for others.