Sep 15
Daugaard’s campaign team: Family, a pro and - of course - L&S
By Denise Ross
Rounding out my interview with Lt. Gov. Dennis Daugaard, let’s look at his campaign team. He’s hired his son and his son-in-law, and he knows what you all think of that. He’s also hired a professional political media outfit and that tried-and-true Sioux Falls ad agency to GOP govs, Lawrence & Schiller.
Daugaard’s son, Chris, graduated in May from SDSU (Go Jacks!) after achieving his own electoral success as student body president. (He majored in poli sci.) After a stint kickin’ it in Europe, Chris is on board with his dad’s campaign and with any luck just might wind up with a state government job in Pierre in 18 months. That is just one possibility, of course. (Chris writes in to say he’ll be off to grad school after the campaign is over. A sound plan. Law? Business? Anything certain on that front?)
Son-in-law Tony Venhuizen, married to Daugaard’s daughter Sara, will be on board as well. (He’s a USD law grad who finished a year clerking for the state court system and is now full-time with the campaign.) And like I said, Daugaard can hear the tongues wagging.
People can easily misunderstand that to be naive and inexperienced when I’m confident it is not. These guys have a lot of gray matter.
Venhuizen worked on Gov. Mike Rounds’ campaign back in 2002, when Rounds was a long-shot. (That is, in fact, how the young Mr. Venhuizen and the young Miss Daugaard got headed towards matrimony, after first meeting during a legislative session.)
So it would be easy to say that Daugaard is following Rounds’ improbable formula for success in hiring family members to run his campaign. (I think we sometimes forget that during the 2002 primary, Rounds had no money and no doubt had to rely on family for support. That, of course, wasn’t the case in 2006 when the all-in-the-family tradition continued.) Back to Daugaard, he’s hired the Beltway political shop of Wilson Grand Communications, whose motto is, “You Elect Us, We’ll Elect You.” (I’m wondering, does this mark the first SD gubernatorial candidate to hire a DC media firm? I recall Janklow hired one when he ran for Congress, but in my short time covering politics I don’t recall this at the governor’s level.)
Daugaard said he recognizes the need for a seasoned campaign pro (he named Paul Wilson specifically) to helm the ship and to help the family avoid becoming “myopic.” At the same time, Daugaard insisted, he said, that Lawrence & Schiller remain a key part of the media strategy. As I understand it, Wilson Grand gets to do the “creative” while L&S gets the rest of the media work, mostly placement I figure. (L&S employees Daugaard’s other daughter, Laura.)
And so another tradition continues, one long grumbled about amongst SD ad types and blown out into the open by a 2008 ballot measure campaign. The Republicans who run Pierre really like Lawrence & Schiller for campaign work and state contracts. It appears Daugaard has no intention of changing the landscape here.
12 Comments so far
Leave a Reply
I can safely say that after I’m done working with my dad on his campaign, graduate school is the next step - not a state job.
Denise,
A few quick thoughts:
1. If memory serves, Paul Wilson worked on Mickelson’s campaign, so this isn’t SD’s first dance with a DC firm. I’m quite sure that other gubernatorial candidates have also used non-SD firms in the past, but I don’t remember any specifics.
2. L&S does a lot of work for the state, but they don’t have a monopoly by any means. Other marketing forms get state business, too. The PUC, for instance, has used a couple of firms in recent years, but not L&S. They just didn’t win the bid. That’s not an indictment of L&S — they do truly outstanding work. I do think too many people overplay the L&S angle, though. They did work for Rounds’ competitor in 2002, for pete’s sake. If it was all about politics, they wouldn’t have gotten in the door.
3. Chris and Tony are smart, really smart. I think Dennis will be well-served by those guys . . . it’s nice to have people on staff who aren’t afraid to tell you when you are wrong, after all.
Dusty
From Denise: Excellent points (as I would expect), Dusty. 1. I was hoping to do a little arm chair historian work (if you can call it work) by posing that question. I think we moved the ball a wee bit down the field.
2. I’m sure you are correct in your facts. The perception, which has been around for as long as I can remember, won’t shake very easily. I have a few friends in the ad industry - and they aren’t terribly close to each other - and the grumbles have been there. Throw that in with the 2008 ballot measure, and, well, you can’t hardly talk about L&S credibly and not acknowledge the history. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. (Or, it is what it is.)
3. Again, I’m sure you are correct. Both of these guys were Briggs Scholars at SDSU, something they have in common with the ever-luminescent Hoghouse. (No one should hold this against them.)
Tonnis is destined for a lifetime of government patronage - unless the voters turn away Daugaard. Do Tonnis a favor, voters. Boot him out of the nest and see if he can fly on his own.
Lawrence & Schiller is bound for a ginormous no-bid contract if Daugaard wins. L&S will virtually be a cabinet department and Daugaard’s daughter will be promoted to deputy department secretary (VP of payola).
As to the PUC, they have squandered their share of taxpayer money with their press department and their self-serving political tv commercials. Seems to me the job got done before the Republicans took over and expanded the press office.
Doesn’t take a Briggs Scholar or a Truman Scholar to notice that GOP piglets feed readily and ravenously at the taxpayer trough after 31 years of one-party government. Hilton Briggs was/is an A-**** by the way.
Boy, with an impending $150 million deficit next year (over 10% of the state portion of the budget) I don’t know if we can take any more Republican-run government. Be tough for the GOP to pass off ownership of that record.
So, you’re a Democrat then? -Denise
Yikes, I take a lunch break to grab a bologna sandwich and find this vitriol. Wow, Outsider, like to play fast and loose with the facts much? The truth is that the PUC spent less money last year than we did in FY05 (when I showed up) on the “outreach” budget group than includes state printing, commercial printing, postage, and public and reference materials. That’s less money, not more.
The PUC has voluntarily reduced portions of their own budget (asking appropriators for less in those areas) every one of the last five years. Every single year we find new efficiencies and new cuts, and I don’t think we are “squandering” anything. Those are the facts, man.
Dusty
Someone’s playing fast and loose with the facts. Dusty wants to talk about reducing the cost of printed materials and postage, but didn’t the PUC expand the press office and create a new position after the GOP took over? Costs increased there, did they not? How many more FTE’s in the PUC now than in 2002? And those silly political commercials that glorify commissioners - usually when they’re up for election. Big waste of taxpayer money.
Nice job cherry picking the facts Dusty. Narrow the focus and divert attention from the big picture. Old political trick.
Maybe you can answer this too Dusty. Did you collect a paycheck on Rounds’ staff while you campaigned for the PUC in 2004? Was that a full-time paycheck - because you spent an awful lot of time campaigning?
Feeding at the taxpayer trough I tell you.
Outsider, so much cynicism . . .
Re: staffing — Wrong. In late 2004 the PUC submitted a budget requesting two technical FTE to deal with the large number of siting and rate cases they expected to have to deal with over the next decade. Those siting cases and rate cases have shown up, and I’m glad we have the experts on hand to deal with cases like the 306 MW wind farm we approved a few months ago, Big Stone II, Keystone, the three high voltage transmission lines for wind power we’ve approved, two natural gas power plants, Hyperion (next year), and rate proceedings dealing energy efficiency and transmission riders. The PUC hasn’t routinely worked on those kinds of cases in almost 25 years, and never to this extent, so I’m glad we geared up. We still have the smallest state utility commission in the country, once you account for all the bodies. One of the new positions (approved five years ago — no adds since then) is an electrical engineer who doesn’t work on marketing. The other new position is filed by a regulatory expert with more than twenty years of experience on rate cases. He also doesn’t work on marketing.
Re: Commercials — Wrong. The last TV commercial to run during the election season (after the parties select their candidates)was in 2004. Democrat Commissioner Burg (a great guy, by the way) was up that year, was in the commercials, and ran against . . . me. Those ads happen because some associatitions (like those involved with electrical safety) don’t want to pay actors and have used Commissioners in the past. The associations pay for the air time, and since 2004 the Commissioners have declined to participate in ads that will run during the election season.
Re: Pay during campaign time — Wrong. I took a leave of absence in July 2004 and received $0 from the State of SD from that point until after I went back to work after the election. That’s right, no income from the Gov’s Office during the active campaign. $0. No feeding at any trough, much less the taxpayer one.
Outsider, I live my life by a pretty clean code of conduct. I am flawed and I make mistakes, but it seems odd for you to make accusations based on so little fact. I understand why citizens have so little trust in government (government has done much to violate our trust), but I’ve tried to earn trust, and haven’t done much to violate that trust (in my opinion).
Let’s do this . . . rather than trading accusations and bitterness, why don’t we talk? Give me a call at 773-3201. You can raise the issues you are concerned/nervous about, and I’ll get you the documentation you need to answer your questions. I’m proud of what your bipartisan PUC is doing, and I’m always willing to respond to questions/inquiries/inquisitions.
Thanks,
Dusty
There was a PUC television commercial in 2006 with the commissioners popping up on the screen one after the next with silly little quotes each time. Whether it ran after the party convention or before the party convention is irrelevant if taxpayer money was used to glorify the commissioners - all of whom were Republican.
If Dusty took a leave during the 2004 election, he deserves credit for that. I don’t think Dusty directly addressed the issue of a new press-related person in the PUC office though.
Why won’t you answer a question straight Dusty? I asked if the Republicans added a press person at the the PUC, and you limited your answer to after 2004. I complained about the PUC wasting taxpayer money running commercials glorifying commissioners, and you limited your answer to after the party convention in election years. I know for a fact the PUC has run such commercials after 2004. How can anybody trust anything you say when every answer of yours comes with an asterisk but no footnote to go with the asterisk? A half truth meant to mislead is a lie, Dusty. And stop with the accusations of “bitterness” and “playing fast and loose with the facts”. I just want the truth, but you keep obfuscating.
In addition to the previous questions, answer this directly without any asterisks. When you took your “leave of absence” during 2004 campaign, did you just defer your pay and get paid for some or all of the “leave of absence” time after you resumed working after the election?
Ahhh, I love the smell of napalm in the morning!
1. I talked about staffing after 2004, because that’s when I showed up. I honestly don’t know about before that. Considering that we don’t even have one full person dealing with press though, it seems unlikely a position was added. The person who drafts our releases and takes our calls has a number of other duties.
2. The airtime in question (featuring commissioners) wasn’t paid for by the PUC. We have had ads not featuring commissioners or mentioning them by name that were paid for with funds given to the PUC as part of a settlement.
3. I didn’t defer any pay. I got paid zero dollars at any point for my campaign time. That’s zero.
Sheesh, you read a lot of unintended wiggling into my earlier answers. As you can see, the goblins you imagine don’t exist. No half-truths, just an over-active imagination on your part. Gosh, I love politics.
On at least one front, Outsider seems to have his facts completely mixed up.
He makes a comment about Briggs Scholars and Truman Scholars and in the next sentence mentions Hilton Briggs.
He must not know much about SDSU history. If he did, he’d know that Briggs scholars are named after Stephen Briggs, co-founder of Briggs & Stratton engines, not after Hilton Briggs, who was an SDSU president during the 60’s and 70’s.
I’m surprised Hoghouse didn’t mention that
There were times when I’d have agreed with Outhouse’ characterization of Hilton, but in the decades after his tenure at SDSU, he spent lots of time doing fantastic volunteer work. This has mellowed my opinion of him.