« RITCHIE CLAIMS HE DOESN’T KNOW GIGA AND TOMCZAK WERE ADDED TO HIS CAMPAIGN EMAIL LIST | Home | REPRESENTATIVE BROD AND EMMER SEND LETTER TO SECRETARY OF STATE RITCHIE REQUESTING INFORMATION REGARDING ALLEGATIONS THAT HE USED HIS OFFICIAL OFFICE FOR CAMPAIGN PURPOSES »
THE COCKAMAMIE “LIST RENTAL” THEORY DOESN’T EXPLAIN AWAY RITCHIE’S PROBLEM
By Michael B. Brodkorb | November 1, 2007
A cockamamie theory is being pushed by the liberal blogosphere that Secretary of State Ritchie's campaign participated in a "list rental" and this is how they received the specific email addresses of the people who attended an official meeting of Secretary of State Mark Ritchie's office.
I spoke with some of the people involved in this growing scandal involving Ritchie's campaign last evening. They repeated their claim that they didn't provide Ritchie's campaign with the specific contact information through which they received their solicitation for contributions on October 22, 2007, nor have they received solicitations from any other political organization.
The only solicitations for contributions they have received is from Secretary of State Ritchie's campaign. Also, if Secretary of State Ritchie's campaign had participated in a "list rental", why did Ritchie provide this answer when questioned by a reporter?
"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
Please check back to Minnesota Democrats Exposed throughout the day for more information on this developing story.
Topics: Uncategorized |
November 1st, 2007 at 10:03 am
Thank for keeping the pressure on Ritchie. He needs to step forward now and say how this happened.
November 1st, 2007 at 10:12 am
What we have here is a case of liberal hubris.
Entenza exhibited it when he lied about paying a private investigator to dig dirt on Hatch.
Dean Johnson exhibited it when he lied about conversations with Supreme Court justices.
Mike Hatch exhibited it when he called the reporter a Republican whore and lied about it.
Mark Ritchie has now exhibited it.
These four all have such large egos they think they can lie and get away with it.
November 1st, 2007 at 10:20 am
And, I forgot to add that MDE was an integral part of each of these stories….
November 1st, 2007 at 10:25 am
I wasn’t aware that the state of Minnesota was in the business of renting out lists of attendees to government sponsored events. That too would seem to be a violation of the data practices act.
Let’s assume this explanation is true. Which vendor is the state doing business with?
What are the relationships between Ritchie, the vendor and Ritchie’s campaign?
How was the vendor selected, and under who’s authority? Is there a conflict of interest?
What are the financial details of this sale of “public data”? How is the money used? What public interest is served?
Are there records of financial transactions to support this explanation?
November 1st, 2007 at 10:34 am
According to the liberals—this is a non-story.
No news, nothing.
1 of 2 things are happening in the liberal mindset:
1. They are too busy shaking down taxpayers on behalf of the teacher’s union.
2. –Or– They don’t want to admit that there is some legal impropriety going on in their SoS office.
My guess is both—the challenge is for MN Conservatives to expose this junk to “Joe Citizen.”
November 1st, 2007 at 10:40 am
I can think of 0 circumstances when a gov’t agency would or could allow partisan political orgs to rent lists, exchange lists, etc.
November 1st, 2007 at 10:40 am
Nice job MDE. This is a prime example of why all other political blogs in Minnesota (left and right) play second fiddle.
November 1st, 2007 at 10:44 am
Didn’t MPR get caught giving donor list to the DFL a few years back?
November 1st, 2007 at 11:02 am
Two points:
As far as mailing lists from the SoS office, you can purchase the voter regs for any district you want. See that word? PURCHASE. The State DOES NOT give information away for FREE. If Richie Ritchie got information, there has to be a policy in place that would likely have a fee for the transation.
Second, it wasn’t the actual break-in that killed Richard Nixon…it was the cover-up after-the-fact.
November 1st, 2007 at 11:59 am
MDE:
The word “rental” is important. To “rent” something, by definition, means a FEE was required. If they just GAVE the list away…that’s not a “rental”. Have Richie Ritchie produce a receipt for the “rental”.
November 1st, 2007 at 1:11 pm
D:
They have provided nothing.
November 1st, 2007 at 1:19 pm
You get extra points for using “cockamamie” in your post title.
November 1st, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Ritchie is like the piano player in the house of ill repute. He says he doesn’t know what is going on upstairs in the house of ill repute. As you (meaning MDE) point out, Ritchie’s explanation won’t fly.
November 1st, 2007 at 1:39 pm
You know if they’re not get solitications from the other DFL organizations maybe the DFL will get angry for not sharing possible donors and kick Ritchie out of office for that.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
November 1st, 2007 at 1:40 pm
MDE:
Demand to see the rental receipt. Also, if this actually WAS some kind of “rental”, there has to be a signed agreement from the Richie Ritchie campaign that says something like “After XX/XX/XXXX, we will not use the information on this list for any purposes.” A “rental” means you have to give it BACK. A “purchase” means you get to KEEP it.
Nail ‘em, cowboy!
November 1st, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Ritchie’s silence is deafening on the various inquiries surrounding this ugly issue.