Roger Hunt’s loophole dancing to avoid having to name the anonymous donor of $750,000 to help proponents of 2006’s abortion ban has been deemed legal according to state law at the time by Circuit Court Judge Kathleen Caldwell.

The decision – received today by the attorney for state Rep. Roger Hunt of Brandon – says that Hunt’s Promising Future Inc. is not a “ballot question committee.”

State law requires such committees disclose their donors, whereas corporations need not.

“Even if PFI was formed with the motive of protecting the identity of the unnamed shareholder who wished to donate to VoteYesForLife, that does not mean that its conduct violated SDCL ch 12-25,” wrote Circuit Court Judge Kathleen Caldwell, referring to the campaign law in question.

That law, now repealed, defined a ballot question committee as “any two or
more people who cooperate for the purpose of raising, collecting or
disbursing money” for a ballot question campaign.

Caldwell ruled that Promising Future did not raise or collect money itself, and made a contribution, not a “disbursement.”

The state attorney general filed suit against Hunt to force him to identify the donor.

Secretary of State Chris Nelson maintains that Promising Future was a ballot question committee and should have made public its sources of money.

The South Dakota Legislature has since closed this loophole but Hunt’s wealthy partner will apparently remain a secret and Secretary of State Chris Nelson will now have to come up with plan B if he wants this donor exposed.