For Immediate Release
October 14, 2010
Contact: Jason Gant 321-1596
GANT DEMANDS INVESTIGATION
Rapid City, SD - Today, Senator Jason Gant, Republican Candidate for Secretary of State, joined many others in demanding an immediate investigation into the South Dakota Democratic Party’s practice of offering meals in exchange for votes. Numerous media outlets are reporting that the South Dakota Democratic Party, through some of its local and statewide candidates, are offering food and rides to polling places on South Dakota Native American Reservations.
“I am truly surprised by the continued practice of trading food for votes used by the Democratic Party and I am also shocked at the arrogance with which they defend such a practice,” stated Senator Gant from the campaign trail referring to quotes made by the executive director of the Democratic Party. “The Democratic Party has been warned about this type of activity in the past and they appear to be openly mocking South Dakota’s law enforcement and election laws.”
Erin McCarrick, executive director of the Democratic Party and former staffer to US Representative Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin, admits in a piece written by Jonathan Ellis in today’s Sioux Falls Argus Leader that approximately one hundred people voted early in the election after being fed by her party. They also received rides to the polling places paid for by Democrats and more events are planned.
“The average South Dakotan finds this practice reprehensible. The United States Attorney’s Office and local and state law enforcement should be investigating this conduct immediately,” continued Senator Gant. “Voter fraud is a serious issue that should not be taken lightly. When I am elected as your next Secretary of State I will work to ensure this practice is abolished and anyone engaging in this kind of activity will be dealt with.”
Senator Gant concluded, “This travesty dovetails into exactly what I have been warning South Dakotans about throughout this campaign. We must protect our elections. We cannot allow outside groups, or in this case South Dakota groups, to make a mockery of our elections. Our Constitution, and to some extent our way of life, depends on providing our elections the utmost protection.”
Senator Jason Gant was first elected to the State Senate in 2004 and reelected in 2006 and 2008. Senator Gant won the Republican nomination for Secretary of State at the State Republican Convention in June 2010. Senator Gant owns his own healthcare consulting company. Jason is married to Chris who is a nurse practitioner, and they have three daughters, Abbi (7), Sophie (5), and Mallory (2). For more information about Senator Gant, visit his website at www.jasongant.com.
###
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Gant Wants To Make Government More Transparent
Gant Wants To Make Government More Transparent
Yankton Press & Dakotan
By Travis Gulbrandson
Published: Saturday, October 2, 2010 1:16 AM CDT
When Jason Gant was serving his first term in the state senate in 2005, he tried to pass a bill that would bring presumption of openness into state law.
Gant — a Sioux Falls Republican who is currently running for South Dakota’s secretary of state — said he met with a lot of resistance.
“That was quite the challenge,” he said during a visit to Yankton Friday. “I remember when I first started talking about open government, it was challenging because it wasn’t on a lot of legislators’ radar screens.”
The bill was eventually passed one year later and became effective as a law in 2009.
“I wanted to go all the way to the presumption of openness, but there was no way to do that back then,” he said. “There was no interest, and the governor was absolutely (not interested). It’s kind of like everything with legislation — you have to start, and keep going.”
Gant, who is opposed by Democrat Ben Nesselhuf and Constitution Party candidate Lori Stacey, said he hopes to continue to “keep going” with the issue of transparency during the secretary of state race. It’s at the core of three platforms of his campaign. Part of his proposal to continue the expansion of openness in government is to shine a light on campaign finance.
Current Secretary of State Ben Nelson’s website contains only scanned finance reports, a reality Gant said has earned the state an “F” grade from a number of nonprofits in terms of campaign finance.
“What I’d like to do is set it up to where you can type in ‘Jason Gant,’ and you could see all the people who have contributed to my campaign. Or, you could type in ‘Jason Gant’ and see who I contributed money to,” Gant said. “This way, the voters are going to be able to see exactly where that money is coming from.
“Right now, if a campaign receives $10,000-$20,000 from a political action committee, you have to go search around and find where that comes from,” he said.
In terms of financing campaigns, Gant said corporations need to be made as accountable as political committees, Gant said.
“They all need to be on the same level,” he said.
For this reason, Gant helped to pass legislation that required political ads to make clear who paid for them.
“It seems simple and a no-brainer, but it wasn’t, and it wasn’t in the official law. I changed that to make sure we had that,” he said.
Not only must the financial backer be listed, but the members of its board of directors and how the money they donate is going to be spent must be made available, as well.
Gant said corporate involvement is only going to increase in the future.
“That’s why we have to make sure that our laws are ready for those situations,” he said. “If we’re holding them accountable ... then the public is going to be able to know where this money is coming from. There’s so much money in political campaigns that we’re never going to stop all of it from coming in, but what we can do is make it open and transparent.”
The election process itself also needs reform, Gant said, and that will come from making sure each district in the state uses the same system.
“You can’t have two counties doing things differently, because then my vote is going to be different than your vote, and that’s not fair,” he said.
The state must also prepare for what it would do should the need for a statewide recount arise, he said.
“We haven’t had a recount in more than 30 years, so it’s time that we practice. We may need to have a mock recount to make sure that all of our policies are good to go,” Gant said. “Let’s assume that the Thune and Johnson race back in 2002 was a recount. Was everything ready? When you go that many years when you’re not doing it on a statewide basis, you need to make sure that your policies and procedures are up to date.”
Bipartisanship is a large part of making sure everything runs smoothly, he said.
“With the open government issue, when we started talking about it more and more, it was (talked about) like it was a Democrat issue,” Gant said. “To me, that just seems silly how this could be a political issue when it’s taxpayers’ information. It shouldn’t matter if it’s a Republican piece of paper or a Democrat piece of paper. ...
“You’ve just got to follow the law,” he said. “You’ve got to do what’s necessary.”
By Travis Gulbrandson, Yankton Press & Dakotan
Friday, October 1, 2010
Registering to Vote, Absentee Voting, & Early Voting
Registering to vote is easy and quick.
If you are not registered to vote, click here for a voter registration form. Once you have completed the form, sign and mail it to your County Auditor. Here is a list of the County Auditor addresses.
Not sure if you are already registered to vote...click here to see.
Remember that the deadline to register to vote in the November 2nd General Election is Monday, October 18th at 5pm. Your voter registration form must be in the County Auditor's office by that day and time.
Absentee Voting is also very easy and quick.
Click here for the Absentee Ballot application. Remember that you must either have the form notarized or a copy of your approved photo id must be included with the application. Once you have completed the form, sign and mail it to your County Auditor. Here is a list of the County Auditor addresses.
Early Voting is the easiest way to vote.
Go to your County Auditor's office today and VOTE. It is just like voting on Election Day, but you get to do it NOW.
For more information, you can visit the Secretary of State's website at http://www.sdsos.gov/.
If you are not registered to vote, click here for a voter registration form. Once you have completed the form, sign and mail it to your County Auditor. Here is a list of the County Auditor addresses.
Not sure if you are already registered to vote...click here to see.
Remember that the deadline to register to vote in the November 2nd General Election is Monday, October 18th at 5pm. Your voter registration form must be in the County Auditor's office by that day and time.
Absentee Voting is also very easy and quick.
Click here for the Absentee Ballot application. Remember that you must either have the form notarized or a copy of your approved photo id must be included with the application. Once you have completed the form, sign and mail it to your County Auditor. Here is a list of the County Auditor addresses.
Early Voting is the easiest way to vote.
Go to your County Auditor's office today and VOTE. It is just like voting on Election Day, but you get to do it NOW.
For more information, you can visit the Secretary of State's website at http://www.sdsos.gov/.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Gant A Step Ahead, Again
There is a great article in the Rapid City Journal today regarding campaign finance laws with respect to corporate involvement.
Senator Jason Gant lead the charge in the legislature to ensure that South Dakota complied with the US Supreme Court ruling governing corporate and union political activities. Senator Gant also made sure that if corporations were involved in political campaigns, they were held accountable just like any other political campaign or political action committee.
Here is the Press Release sent out in March of 2010 regarding this new legislation to hold corporations and unions accountable.
You can also click here to read the Argus Leader Guest Editorial in April 2010 where Senator Gant explained the importance of this legislation.
You can read Senator Gant's bill here.
It is plainly evident that Senator Gant lead the charge to ensure the public would receive nothing short of openness and transparency. While some will follow, Senator Gant is a leader.
Here and below is the Rapid City Journal article.
Secretary of state candidates disagree over campaign finance disclosure law
Kevin Woster Journal staff
rapidcityjournal.com Posted: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 7:00 pm
Democratic secretary of state candidate Ben Nesselhuf said Wednesday that if elected he would introduce legislation to "close the loophole" on corporate spending he fears could unfairly dominate elections.
But his Republican opponent in the race, Jason Gant, said Nesselhuf is coming late to the reform party on that issue.
"To me, this is already in law," said Gant, a state senator from Sioux Falls. "And I passed it, and Ben followed."
Nesselhuf, a state senator from Vermillion, did support a bill that Gant had amended during the 2010 legislative session to require independent spending by corporations on candidate campaigns to be reported with the secretary of state. It also requires the corporate entity purchasing those advertisements to identify itself on the advertisement.
And the reports must be filed with the state within 48 hours of the advertisement being run.
The law only applies to elections for state offices. Federal regulations cover the congressional campaigns. And as of Wednesday, Secretary of State Chris Nelson hadn't received notice of any corporate spending for or against state candidates.
That doesn't mean it won't come, now or in future campaigns, Nesselhuf said. And because of a U.S. Supreme Court decision last winter, a wealthy corporation could easily dominate the advertising in a candidate campaign and determine who wins, he said.
"I think it's only fair to require corporations or unions that are going to spend perhaps millions of dollars to do the same type of expense reports that we expect our state legislative candidates to do," Nesselhuf said.
Nesselhuf's South Dakota Disclose Act also would require that advertisements by a corporation or union include "an appearance by the CEO or union head saying who they are and that they approve the message." That would be similar to the way congressional candidates identify themselves at the end of ads.
A third point in Nesselhuf's plan would prohibit those who receive state loans or grants from "direct electioneering" in the state. That would prevent tax dollars from influencing elections, he said.
"That's the only way to assure that taxpayer dollars don't end up in the political arena," he said.
Gant said trying to ban taxpayer dollars from entering political campaigns would be a fruitless effort with broad implications.
"If you're really talking tax dollars, that would mean anyone on welfare couldn't contribute to a campaign," Gant said. "To me, that all seems terribly unconstitutional and unrealistic."
The transparency issue arose early this year after a U.S. Supreme Court decision loosened restrictions on corporate spending in candidate campaigns allowing corporations to make independent advertising campaign buys in support of candidates. The decision also allows unions to spend independent of campaigns in support of candidates.
Spurred in part by a Sioux Falls mayoral campaign he thought could attract corporate dollars, Gant pushed for legislation to address the issue quickly. The bill was approved with an emergency clause that put it into effect almost immediately.
"With that ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, it was imperative that our state law be changed to hold corporations accountable, just like others involved in political campaigns," Gant said. "The Supreme Court ruled that they (corporations and unions) could give in unlimited amounts, but it didn't rule whether they had to disclose. So we decided in South Dakota that they did."
Gant took a bill introduced on behalf of Nelson to remove from state law the language prohibiting independent corporate expenditures in campaigns and had it amended. Gant's amendment did remove that language but went further than Nelson was prepared to go. It also required corporate disclosure on the spending for advertisements and a list of corporate directors.
"Jason and I had a difference of opinion on whether it would be constitutional," Nelson said. "The court said corporations can make these kinds of expenditures but left completely open the question of how or whether or not states could regulate that. That's a whole new area."
Nelson said his discussions with the lawyers in the attorney general's office left him unsure about the constitutional question. Nelson had similar questions about Nesselhuf's reporting requirements. If they were similar to what is required of political candidates and political committees, requiring that kind of detail from corporations might not be allowed, Nelson said.
"It gets more sensitive when you're talking about individuals and private corporations," he said.
Whatever the details, more must be done, Nesselhuf said.
"Just think of the potential for influence if somebody like BP got involved," he said. "They could be spending money like crazy."
By Kevin Woster
Senator Jason Gant lead the charge in the legislature to ensure that South Dakota complied with the US Supreme Court ruling governing corporate and union political activities. Senator Gant also made sure that if corporations were involved in political campaigns, they were held accountable just like any other political campaign or political action committee.
Here is the Press Release sent out in March of 2010 regarding this new legislation to hold corporations and unions accountable.
You can also click here to read the Argus Leader Guest Editorial in April 2010 where Senator Gant explained the importance of this legislation.
You can read Senator Gant's bill here.
It is plainly evident that Senator Gant lead the charge to ensure the public would receive nothing short of openness and transparency. While some will follow, Senator Gant is a leader.
Here and below is the Rapid City Journal article.
Secretary of state candidates disagree over campaign finance disclosure law
Kevin Woster Journal staff
rapidcityjournal.com Posted: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 7:00 pm
Democratic secretary of state candidate Ben Nesselhuf said Wednesday that if elected he would introduce legislation to "close the loophole" on corporate spending he fears could unfairly dominate elections.
But his Republican opponent in the race, Jason Gant, said Nesselhuf is coming late to the reform party on that issue.
"To me, this is already in law," said Gant, a state senator from Sioux Falls. "And I passed it, and Ben followed."
Nesselhuf, a state senator from Vermillion, did support a bill that Gant had amended during the 2010 legislative session to require independent spending by corporations on candidate campaigns to be reported with the secretary of state. It also requires the corporate entity purchasing those advertisements to identify itself on the advertisement.
And the reports must be filed with the state within 48 hours of the advertisement being run.
The law only applies to elections for state offices. Federal regulations cover the congressional campaigns. And as of Wednesday, Secretary of State Chris Nelson hadn't received notice of any corporate spending for or against state candidates.
That doesn't mean it won't come, now or in future campaigns, Nesselhuf said. And because of a U.S. Supreme Court decision last winter, a wealthy corporation could easily dominate the advertising in a candidate campaign and determine who wins, he said.
"I think it's only fair to require corporations or unions that are going to spend perhaps millions of dollars to do the same type of expense reports that we expect our state legislative candidates to do," Nesselhuf said.
Nesselhuf's South Dakota Disclose Act also would require that advertisements by a corporation or union include "an appearance by the CEO or union head saying who they are and that they approve the message." That would be similar to the way congressional candidates identify themselves at the end of ads.
A third point in Nesselhuf's plan would prohibit those who receive state loans or grants from "direct electioneering" in the state. That would prevent tax dollars from influencing elections, he said.
"That's the only way to assure that taxpayer dollars don't end up in the political arena," he said.
Gant said trying to ban taxpayer dollars from entering political campaigns would be a fruitless effort with broad implications.
"If you're really talking tax dollars, that would mean anyone on welfare couldn't contribute to a campaign," Gant said. "To me, that all seems terribly unconstitutional and unrealistic."
The transparency issue arose early this year after a U.S. Supreme Court decision loosened restrictions on corporate spending in candidate campaigns allowing corporations to make independent advertising campaign buys in support of candidates. The decision also allows unions to spend independent of campaigns in support of candidates.
Spurred in part by a Sioux Falls mayoral campaign he thought could attract corporate dollars, Gant pushed for legislation to address the issue quickly. The bill was approved with an emergency clause that put it into effect almost immediately.
"With that ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, it was imperative that our state law be changed to hold corporations accountable, just like others involved in political campaigns," Gant said. "The Supreme Court ruled that they (corporations and unions) could give in unlimited amounts, but it didn't rule whether they had to disclose. So we decided in South Dakota that they did."
Gant took a bill introduced on behalf of Nelson to remove from state law the language prohibiting independent corporate expenditures in campaigns and had it amended. Gant's amendment did remove that language but went further than Nelson was prepared to go. It also required corporate disclosure on the spending for advertisements and a list of corporate directors.
"Jason and I had a difference of opinion on whether it would be constitutional," Nelson said. "The court said corporations can make these kinds of expenditures but left completely open the question of how or whether or not states could regulate that. That's a whole new area."
Nelson said his discussions with the lawyers in the attorney general's office left him unsure about the constitutional question. Nelson had similar questions about Nesselhuf's reporting requirements. If they were similar to what is required of political candidates and political committees, requiring that kind of detail from corporations might not be allowed, Nelson said.
"It gets more sensitive when you're talking about individuals and private corporations," he said.
Whatever the details, more must be done, Nesselhuf said.
"Just think of the potential for influence if somebody like BP got involved," he said. "They could be spending money like crazy."
By Kevin Woster
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Sad example of Voter Fraud
Here is a sad story about voter fraud taking place in New Mexico where a dog, yes a dog, was registered to vote. The worst part is "Tuckup" is still registered and received a notice in the mail the other day on where to go vote on Election Day.
As your next Secretary of State, fighting voter fraud will be Jason Gant's number 1 priority!
Dog Registered To Vote In New Mexico
Owner Says He Registered Pet As Independent
POSTED: 9:16 pm MDT September 7, 2010
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. -- Tuckup -- an 11-year-old black lab and golden retriever mix -- may be the first and only animal registered to vote in New Mexico.
"He's registered as an independent," the dog's owner, Don Pizzolato, said. "I was curious to see if I made up a completely false registration what would happen. Would I receive a voter registration card?"
Pizzolato put Tuckup's name and a fake Social Security number on a registration form several years ago.
"Six weeks later, I received a registration card for him," Pizzolato said.
"Unfortunately, submitting a false or fraudulent voter registration is actually a felony," Bernalillo County Clerk Maggie Toulouse Oliver said.
But it was only after Pizzolato talked about registering Tuckup on a local blog that officials realized the mistake. Then they charged him. He served nine months probation and the case was dropped.
But even after everything played out in the legal system and with an election coming up in November, Tuckup is still registered to vote.
Last week, Tuckup received a notice in the mail telling him where he can vote in November.
"From my experience, they're not even doing the most basic of checking to see who goes on those rolls to make sure they are valid registrations," Pizzolato said.
But the Bernalillo County Clerk said her hands are tied.
"I would actually have to have a court order causing me to remove the voter registration and I still haven't gotten anything yet," Toulouse Oliver said.
So for now, Tuckup can leave his mark at the polls.
Tuckup's owner wants to point out that the dog has never voted, but that he, the owner, could cast one vote under his name and then return and cast another under his dog's name.
As your next Secretary of State, fighting voter fraud will be Jason Gant's number 1 priority!
Dog Registered To Vote In New Mexico
Owner Says He Registered Pet As Independent
POSTED: 9:16 pm MDT September 7, 2010
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. -- Tuckup -- an 11-year-old black lab and golden retriever mix -- may be the first and only animal registered to vote in New Mexico.
"He's registered as an independent," the dog's owner, Don Pizzolato, said. "I was curious to see if I made up a completely false registration what would happen. Would I receive a voter registration card?"
Pizzolato put Tuckup's name and a fake Social Security number on a registration form several years ago.
"Six weeks later, I received a registration card for him," Pizzolato said.
"Unfortunately, submitting a false or fraudulent voter registration is actually a felony," Bernalillo County Clerk Maggie Toulouse Oliver said.
But it was only after Pizzolato talked about registering Tuckup on a local blog that officials realized the mistake. Then they charged him. He served nine months probation and the case was dropped.
But even after everything played out in the legal system and with an election coming up in November, Tuckup is still registered to vote.
Last week, Tuckup received a notice in the mail telling him where he can vote in November.
"From my experience, they're not even doing the most basic of checking to see who goes on those rolls to make sure they are valid registrations," Pizzolato said.
But the Bernalillo County Clerk said her hands are tied.
"I would actually have to have a court order causing me to remove the voter registration and I still haven't gotten anything yet," Toulouse Oliver said.
So for now, Tuckup can leave his mark at the polls.
Tuckup's owner wants to point out that the dog has never voted, but that he, the owner, could cast one vote under his name and then return and cast another under his dog's name.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Gant debates at Corn Palace event
Secretary of state candidate Jason Gant speaks Saturday during a debate at the Corn Palace in Mitchell. (Chris Huber/Republic)Secretary of state candidates clash over endorsement
By: Ross Dolan, The Daily Republic
Published August 28 2010
Democrat Secretary of State candidate Ben Nesselhuf, of Vermillion, fended off verbal jabs from candidate Jason Gant, R-Sioux Falls, at Saturday’s Corn Palace debates in Mitchell.
The pair filled in for the gubernatorial debate, which was deleted from the program when Lt. Gov. Dennis Daugaard dropped out due to the death of a close friend.
The secretary of state candidates are colleagues in the state Senate and are seeking the office of current Secretary Chris Nelson, who will be term-limited out of office at the end of this year.
Gant attacked Nesselhuf’s endorsement from the Secretary of State Project. The organization’s website says it “supports reform-minded Secretary of State candidates and incumbents in key battleground states.”
Gant claimed the group does not favor the use of photo identification, which would confirm a voter’s identity.
Nesselhuf said that whatever the group’s specific positions, its overall aim appears reasonable. “This is quite a conspiracy that I’m the evil genius of,” he said with intended sarcasm.
Nesselhuf said he envisions a more active role for the secretary of state’s office in distributing business information on corporate filings. He pitched it as an “economic development” idea.
Gant said the secretary of state’s office isn’t meant to delve into economic development, and that as the state’s chief election officer, he would continue to protect the integrity of the election process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
