« BREAKING NEWS: “REPUBLICAN PARTY OF MINNESOTA FILES DATA PRACTICES REQUEST SEEKING INFORMATION ON MARK RITCHIE” | Home | THE COCKAMAMIE “LIST RENTAL” THEORY DOESN’T EXPLAIN AWAY RITCHIE’S PROBLEM »
RITCHIE CLAIMS HE DOESN’T KNOW GIGA AND TOMCZAK WERE ADDED TO HIS CAMPAIGN EMAIL LIST
By Michael B. Brodkorb | October 31, 2007
"Ritchie, often a target of the Minnesota Democrats Exposed blog, said he did not authorize use of the civic engagement sign-up sheet for campaign contributions but emphasized that the names of the 600 people are public information.
'There is no crossover, but the list of civic engagement groups is public. It's public information,' Ritchie said.
Asked how Giga and Tomczak's names were included in the campaign newsletter if they did not sign up for it, other than through the civic engagement list, Ritchie said: 'Well, I don't know about that.'" Source: Star Tribune, October 29, 2007
Click here for the complete story.
###
I think Ritchie's quote is very interesting and shows his incompetence . How could he not know the process for people being added to his own campaign email list? Why can't Ritchie find out the answer?
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 22 Comments »
22 Responses to “RITCHIE CLAIMS HE DOESN’T KNOW GIGA AND TOMCZAK WERE ADDED TO HIS CAMPAIGN EMAIL LIST”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
October 31st, 2007 at 6:20 PM
Okay lets try to give Mark the benefit of the doubt:
One, why is reaction not to name the person involved in the campaign who puts together the list to be interviewed and explain this. That person should know for sure if Mark doesn’t. Or doesn’t Mark even know that person.
Two, if the names are public records were the email addresses? I’m pretty sure the state has no right asking for email addresses (especially personal ones if they can be sold or given out to the public). Even if a resourceful campaign worker got the name the concern should be how did they find out the email addresses?
Three, since one and two aren’t being answered truthfully why doesn’t he come clean, demanded an investigation, or resign!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
October 31st, 2007 at 7:24 PM
Public information? Where online can this list be obtained self service? If it’s available free from the SOS office, then where is the request for the information.
If it was shared absent a formal request, and absent an online catalog of free lists the SOS assembles, then it was illegally obtained by the campaign.
Ritchie is fucked.
October 31st, 2007 at 7:48 PM
I have some doubts about this statement
” but the list of civic engagement groups is public. It’s public information,”
According to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act:
“1 Whenever a state or local government agency asks you to provide private or confidential data about yourself (ed – such as your email address), you must be told (1) Why the information is being collected, (2) How the information will be used by the collecting agency, (3) Whether you can refuse or are legally required to provide the data that is being requested, (4) What the consequences are to you if you supply or refuse to supply the data, and (5) The identity of other persons or entities, which are authorized by law to have access to that data.
2 You have the right to know what data are maintained about you and how the data is classified.
October 31st, 2007 at 8:10 PM
I’m looking into the official statute that defines “private data” or “non-public private data”
So far, what I’ve come up with is
“person’s name, physical and electronic addresses, and telephone number ” are considered “private data” and are protected under the Data Practices act.
I think Ritchie is up a creek, on multiple levels.
October 31st, 2007 at 8:24 PM
Master of None:
I have the statue…I’ll post it soon.
October 31st, 2007 at 8:48 PM
I think it’s pretty obvious that Ritchie figured that the people that signed up for his “Civic Education” bologna were all on his side and that nobody would utter a peep about commingling information with his campaign.
Oops.
October 31st, 2007 at 10:34 PM
I think it’s safe for me to now say that Mark Ritchie is indisputably a first class no-talent ass clown. He is entering a rarified echelon, inhabited solely by my namesake, Matt Entenza.
This is more great work by MDE. He takes his game to the next level in these types of situation.
Stay vigilant, MDE.
October 31st, 2007 at 10:42 PM
who cares the 2 parties are the 2 heads of the same snake..i believe i may have been black listed Ron Paul for prez!!!!
October 31st, 2007 at 10:54 PM
I hate to say it, but there is a chance that Ritchie is just an enormous idiot. But his ego would be in the way of him admitting wrong doing. From what I know of him, he didn’t strike me as bright but he did strike me with having a gigantic ego. In any event, I can’t picture him hatching a plot like this. It would be too stupid even for an idiot. But I would guess that his lack of response is buying time for him to cover his idiocy and enormous ego and that is almost more indicting than the act itself.
And I don’t want to lessen the act itself. But like I said, he is no bright shining beacon of intelligent thought.
November 1st, 2007 at 12:25 AM
Last time I checked, e-mailing someone with a request for money or to sell them something is called spam. Were the members of this group told that their e-mail addresses would become public information? If it is public, will Mr. Ritchie gladly share this list to his Republican challengers?
I, for one, am disgusted by Mr. Ritchie. He tarnished the good name of Mary Kiffmeyer and promised clean elections to take his office, and not one year in, he’s making excuses. I’m afraid this won’t be the last of his excuses.
November 1st, 2007 at 6:50 AM
Major ethical and legal dilemma.
Mark Ritchie has it.
November 1st, 2007 at 7:30 AM
It is incredible to watch this story evolve from a couple of egregious examples of abuse of the office, to a pattern of corruption.
This whole saga begs the question “which other official lists is Ritchie lifting from the taxpayers for his own political gain? and how many?”
He can’t just continue to claim ignorance. He has to come out of the shadows and tell the public how his campaign has been attaining official Secretary of State lists.
There has to be a data practices request from someone in his campaign for these list requests (if indeed the list are public information).
November 1st, 2007 at 7:37 AM
Well, you know… if Ritchie weren’t corrupt and incompetent, he wouldn’t be a Democrat.
November 1st, 2007 at 8:11 AM
The silence among Democrats tells us all we need to know (aside from the internal grumblings which are apparently widespread and loud).
Those who are attempting to defend Ritchie are saying this is all public information.
There is a lot of data and lists that are collected by the Government that constitute public data. Political contributions, both state and federal for example are posted all over the Internet.
But without exception, it is either illegal or highly unethical to fundraise off those lists.
This is doubly so here where his official office caged these names and addresses and, as far as I can tell, haven’t widely published them anywhere.
My guess is the DFL will force Ritchie to say something about this before it totally boils over.
November 1st, 2007 at 8:49 AM
C.I.,
The reality is, those lists may be public information. But it is highly doubtful, as you point out, that it is legal for the State to share the lists with outside parties for the sole purpose of solicitation, without the consent or notification of those on the list.
Moreover, these lists are not available publicly via some self-service mechanism, and so the act of sharing these lists exclusively with the Ritchie campaign absent a formal request for the information, represents gross mis-use of State property, and out-right theft of the information.
November 1st, 2007 at 8:52 AM
… in other news: this is a huge feather in the MDE cap of exposing the illegal and unethical activities of one of the state’s highest ranking Democrats.
Way to go MDE!
November 1st, 2007 at 9:19 AM
Chestnut,
The way the state manages data anything is possible. You would be naive to think all your public data, especially your name and address are always protected.
November 1st, 2007 at 9:29 AM
for those people who think no investigation is needed answering the question how the people got the email addresses needs to be answered even if it’s a very clever campaign aide who knows something about state lists which your averaged person doesn’t know.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
November 1st, 2007 at 9:40 AM
So Ritchie’s only comment on this is basically, that he doesn’t know.
Talk about accountability.
November 1st, 2007 at 9:56 AM
MN Publius’ absence from this story says a lot.
The liberals’ mindset is so fixated on anything anti-Bush, anti-Guiliani, anti-Iraq….that they can’t see the trees through the forest.
Something happens that makes their party/ideology look bad, and—look what happens—-no attention.
Anyone that honestly believes that there is no liberal bias in the news media must have an IQ under 30.
And—by no way am I correlating MN Publius with the name “News Media.”
The thrust of my point reads like this:
If it defames America, or hurts the Republicans in anyway…FRONT PAGE NEWS, 4 INCHES ABOVE THE FOLD!
Something like Cindy Sheehan challenging Nancy Pelosi for the CA Congressional seat (and wouldn’t that be an interesting debate to roll our eyes at)….and that’s nothing, no story, no press, no attention.
Because it doesn’t make GW Bush look bad.
I know some folks think Bill O’Reilly is a hack, partisan, whatever….but he has it absolutely right on this one.
The Bush derrangement syndrome has hit MN in a huge way, and it needs to be dissected.
November 1st, 2007 at 10:00 AM
Does someone have a copy of the email? I would love to see what it said.
November 1st, 2007 at 10:20 AM
Rexford says: The way the state manages data anything is possible. You would be naive to think all your public data, especially your name and address are always protected.
The way government does anything, indeed. However, your comment implies some sense of randomness that’s o.k… But if the a database of voting records was stolen from the SOS office, wouldn’t there be public outrage? Wouldn’t Ritchie be held accountable?
Why is his campaign’s theft and illegal use of a state property any different, especially when it’s his office who assembled the list?