« COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST SECRETARY OF STATE RITCHIE’S OFFICE | Home | SENATE PASSES GAS TAX INCREASE; PAWLENTY PROMISES VETO »
COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST SECRETARY OF STATE RITCHIE’S OFFICE #2
By Michael B. Brodkorb | March 23, 2007
I called Secretary of State Mark Ritchie’s office for comment on the complaint filed by Minnesotans for Responsible Government with the Legislative Auditor regarding hyperlinks provided by Ritchie’s office to political organizations in possible violations of sections of Minnesota Statute 10.60.
Kent Kaiser, Secretary of State Mark Ritchie’s communications director responded via e-mail:
“We believe the statute is clear and that our website was always compliant. We believe any review process will confirm this.”
Please check back to Minnesota Democrats Exposed for further information on this developing story.
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 29 Comments »
29 Responses to “COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST SECRETARY OF STATE RITCHIE’S OFFICE #2”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:34 PM
Did he indicate how much hyperlinks cost the taxpayer?
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:42 PM
He did not.
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:43 PM
I should clarify my answer. I did not ask Mr. Kaiser how much the hyperlinks cost.
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:44 PM
You have a website. How much does it cost you to put hyperlinks on this site?
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:48 PM
This is a banner day!
The DFL excels in using the levers of government to inflict injury on its opponents.
Finally, the GOP is learning how to play that game.
Truly a banner day!
March 23rd, 2007 at 1:14 PM
I don’t get it. What’s the impact? This isn’t a criminal statute, there’s no civil penalty associated with it, and the links are down. In the worst case scenario it looks like it’s an honest mistake that’s now corrected.
Is there a scandal I’m missing here?
March 23rd, 2007 at 1:57 PM
The issue is that candidate Mark Ritchie promised to be a “non-partisan” secretary of state. Links being provided to groups that encourage people to “…to invest in the next MoveOn.org”…is not “non-partisan” activity. This is just another example of candidate Ritchie saying on thing and Secretary of State Ritchie doing another.
March 23rd, 2007 at 1:57 PM
A comment and a question.
First, the comment. Norm, how do you kow that “there’s no civil penalty associated” with the SOS’s hyperlinks. Please give us the specific statutory cite or case law cite.
Next, the question. If it is true, as Kent (The Chameleon) Kaiser has maintained that the “website was always compliant”, then why did the SOS remove the hyperlinks?
March 23rd, 2007 at 2:02 PM
The SOS’s office removed the links only AFTER I posted and AFTER I notified their office.
March 23rd, 2007 at 2:03 PM
Did he indicate how much hyperlinks cost the taxpayer?
How much does a state employee cost (wage, benefits)?
How much time did they spend:
1) Considering to put the links up?
Who changed the page (adding, then subtracting) the links? How long did it take them?
2) Considering which links to put up?
3) Confirming the links were accurate?
4) Considering the ramifications?
5) Who was involved in all this considering (total the time for each of those employees)
6) Were there meetings? Who participated in those meetings? How many meetings? How long were the meetings?
7) Where there emails where this subject was discussed?
9) How much time has been spent by paid employees considering the ramifications now that those links were made public?
Those and other questions will determine the real cost to the taxpayer. It is NOT just a simple question. Clearly there were considerable costs to the taxpayer and the bill has yet to be completely tabulated.
As for this being an “honest mistake”, that’s crap. Richie is a partisan who attempted to use state resources for partisan political purposes.
March 23rd, 2007 at 2:10 PM
Norm, how do you kow that “there’s no civil penalty associated†with the SOS’s hyperlinks. Please give us the specific statutory cite or case law cite.
MN STAT §10.60
Subd. 6. Enforcement. Violation of this section is not a crime and is not subject to civil penalty.
I understand your reading of the statute and actually agree with it. It’s not appropriate to link to the sites, according to the law. You bring that to their attention and it goes away– isn’t the problem solved? Or are you looking for an apology?
March 23rd, 2007 at 2:13 PM
Part of the issue is also that you accused Mr. Ritchie of posting hyperlinks at “taxpayers expense”. If it is the case (as I suspect it is) that the owner of the website is not charged for each hyperlink on a per-use basis, then you made a mistake. Mistakes are easy to apologize for and to correct. If you continue to say something that isn’t true (“…providing direct hyperlinks at taxpayers expense…”(sic) March 21st) when you know it isn’t true, you get into trouble. Every elected official has hyperlinks on their site. You know this, Michael.
March 23rd, 2007 at 2:17 PM
The links were provided at taxpayers expense.
March 23rd, 2007 at 2:28 PM
The hyperlinks themselves don’t cost anything. The cost to the taxpayers is the same as posting a resume. The links to radio stations (which are not government entities) on Gov. Pawlenty’s website I’m sure you will agree are taxpayer giveaways as well.
March 23rd, 2007 at 3:03 PM
Anyone who has to equate “radio stations” with Moveon.org has lost the argument.
March 23rd, 2007 at 3:16 PM
Who’s the bigger whistleblower??? Michael or Colleen Rowley??? We the citizens of this great nation owe you a large debt of gratitude MB. Thank you for being our own little City on a Hill.
March 23rd, 2007 at 4:07 PM
In addition, by hosting links to partisan fringe-groups via his official State website, Ritchie is, in effect, giving these radicals State recognition and endorsement.
I don’t want that asshole speaking for me.
March 23rd, 2007 at 4:48 PM
This idiot “otter scrubber” doesn’t understand basic economics. A “hyperlink” DOES cost money because of all the things Roving mentioned.
Clearly this clown is some punk living off his parents, working at Starbucks, and doesn’t understand that everything costs something. There’s no such thing as a free lunch and there’s no such thing as a free “hyperlink”. Time is also money, especially when taxpayers are paying for that time.
March 23rd, 2007 at 9:02 PM
Roving as someone who knows how to build a website I can tell you, it takes about five seconds to post a link, and I’m sure they didn’t have a whole lot of meetings to decide what went on the bio.
“The SOS’s office removed the links only AFTER I posted and AFTER I notified their office.”
What’s your point?
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:33 PM
WhoKnows hit the nail on the head. I doubt the links were discussed at meetings – and my guess is the bio was copy/pasted from the campaign website.
Michael was correct this was against the law, but the problem has been fixed.
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:39 PM
otter,
It’s free advertising for the organizations Ritchie belongs to. It’s no different than Mark Dayton putting a link to Target stores or Herb Kohl putting a link to Kohl’s stores on their former and current U.S. Senate web sites.
Radio stations provide the governor’s radio show in the public interest to fulfill their obligations required to keep their licenses. It is different because Pawlenty has no direct relationship to the stations where Ritchie has a relationship to the groups he belongs to.
March 24th, 2007 at 10:53 AM
This is an absurd issue. It’s okay to put up an elected officials past activities but not to hyperlink to them? No one believes Rep. Ramstad is fleecing the taxpayers or doing something disadvantageous to other Minnesota colleges by linking to the Gopher Sports webpage, do they? Chris I think you make a reasoned argument about Sens. Kohl and Dayton. Herb Kohl worked for Kohl’s, but I’m not sure Mark Dayton worked for Target. They both stand to gain financially if those companies do well. I’m not sure about Mr. Ritchie.
March 24th, 2007 at 1:51 PM
You called for a comment? You’re a blogger, who cares to comment for you? Either build a website, or quiet down already.
March 24th, 2007 at 1:59 PM
Roving as someone who knows how to build a website I can tell you, it takes about five seconds to post a link,
Getting past the condescending arrogance, it takes more than that when it involves state employees.
As Roving stated:
1) Considering to put the links up?
Who changed the page (adding, then subtracting) the links? How long did it take them?
2) Considering which links to put up?
3) Confirming the links were accurate?
4) Considering the ramifications?
5) Who was involved in all this considering (total the time for each of those employees)
6) Were there meetings? Who participated in those meetings? How many meetings? How long were the meetings?
7) Where there emails where this subject was discussed?
9) How much time has been spent by paid employees considering the ramifications now that those links were made public?
Conveniently these questions are ignored by those defending this Richie clown. But they are legitimate questions.
WhoKnows hit the nail on the head.
As to Eva, she’s just a RINO clown. The point is that Richie is just another liberal liar. He lied to the public to get elected and his true communist believes are coming out.
March 24th, 2007 at 5:00 PM
otter,
Thank you for the response regarding my comment. Mark Dayton is an heir to the Target corporation and has made his fortune on that company. I don’t see any difference between advertising for a corporation and advertising for organizations which influence government through the political process.
March 24th, 2007 at 5:50 PM
Tedd, I wasn’t being condecending. Don’t over read things.
March 25th, 2007 at 10:50 AM
Chris… I understand Mr Dayton is an heir to the Target fortune. I think there is a difference between listing one’s past activities and work experience and having an advertisement. I do not believe Mr Brodkorb endorses Air America or many of the other things he’s hyperlinked to on this site. I don’t believe that Rep. Ramstad (by linking to the Gopher Sports webpage) would do anything to hurt the St Cloud State sports teams or facilities. As a general rule, the more disclosure of politicians’ previous activities the better and this makes it easier to find out what those activities were.
March 25th, 2007 at 5:22 PM
otter,
The difference here is that these groups work to influence the political process. Do you think Ritchie should link to the state DFL party website? Should Tim Pawlenty link to the state GOP website? I think the answer to all of these questions is no.
March 26th, 2007 at 7:45 AM
I do. The more information the better.