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?

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.

Talk about accountability.

Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN

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.

Way to go MDE!

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.

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.

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).

Mark Ritchie has it.

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.

And I don’t want to lessen the act itself. But like I said, he is no bright shining beacon of intelligent thought.

This is more great work by MDE. He takes his game to the next level in these types of situation.

Stay vigilant, MDE.

Oops.

I have the statue…I’ll post it soon.

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.

” 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.

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.

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