Anonymous donor
August 14th, 2007 by 
Alica
A judge has ruled that Roger Hunt does not have to disclose the name of the person who gave $750,000 to the anti-abortion campaign last year.
Do you agree with the judge’s decision? Do you think the state should appeal?
Posted in Uncategorized | 
August 14th, 2007 at 9:25 am
Uh - ever heard of campaign finance reports? $750,000 is a lot of money, regardless of what it’s used for. And I’m worried about anyone who can be influenced by money.
August 14th, 2007 at 10:17 am
Roger is a smart man who has many years of experience in state government and law practice. I would guess he knew he was within the law but working in the legal gray area.
We need Roger to represent our district for the betterment of all taxpayers. He has the experience and knowledge to be a great advocate for our district. Now lets let him get back to work on major issues for our district.
During the last election season I listened to ALL candidates talk about the importance of education. Since the election I have not seen much activity
get out of the House for the betterment of education.
August 14th, 2007 at 10:31 am
I agree with it. Why should it be anyone’s business what someone does with their money towards a cause?
August 14th, 2007 at 10:54 am
It’s important because how do you know the money even came from an anti-choice group/representative? Besides that, many in Hunt’s district, like myself, don’t agree with his choice to take money from such a group. What if he took money from a white supremist group or some other hate group? Money promotes policy: If he doesn’t disclose where the money came from, we’ll never know whose interests Hunt is serving.
August 14th, 2007 at 11:03 am
I have a feeling that it might be Rogers donor that does not want his name released, not that Roger would release it. If some one does not like the issue of him not releaseing the name, it easy, don’t vote for him when the next election comes up.
August 14th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
I can’t wait until Roger retires. Or gets voted out.
August 15th, 2007 at 2:03 am
Jennie I agree but would add that Rogers interests are apparently best served by Roger, for Roger and to Roger. Lets all say “goodbye Roger” at election time.
August 19th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Yeah, Roger is a class A politican who cares only about his own interest and what lines his own pockets. He flaunts the law, and seems to think that he can operate with impunity. I’m glad he got caught.
August 29th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
If so many people are dissatisfied with Roger you better start planning for a candidate to run against him.
That takes time and $$$$$. He has many contacts in state government.
I just wished he would put that energy towards education, property tax relief , and other more pressing items.
Every campaign season we hear about abortion , gay rights, environmental issue and infamous spotted owls. But deep down MOST of us will not vote specifically on any ONE issue. The majority of us will want numerous issues covered versus a controversial topic like this.
We want a well rouned candidate to represent us not a one topic candidate.
September 14th, 2007 at 7:44 am
I find it ironic that people like Jennie would call Roger “anti-choice” and then say she doesn’t agree with his “choice” to keep the donor’s name anonymous.
And by the way, it’s not “anti-choice” - it’s PRO-LIFE. (Unless you want to be called “anti-life??)
Sorry, just had to vent…