Dusty Johnson Brings Campaign to SDSU Stadium

Republican U.S. House candidate was campaigning at the SDSU Beef Bowl yesterday:

Dusty Johnson for Congress, Facebook post, 2017.09.16.
Dusty Johnson for Congress, Facebook post, 2017.09.16.

Yes, it is nice to see Dusty on campus. However, we in the media (and that would include the SDGOP spin blog) cannot take any pictures or video of Dusty on campus without giving notice to SDSU’s director of marketing and communications, per SDSU’s Policy 6:2 on media access to university property. Given that Dusty’s campaign event was happening at an athletic venue, SDSU’s policy may even require permission from the director of marketing and communication. The Johnson campaign itself had to secure permission from SDSU to plant its sign and hand out goodies to game attendees, since, per Regental Policy 6:13 on facilities use by private parties, since the “Institutional facilities and grounds” that we taxpayers make possible “are not open to the public for assembly, speech, or other activities as are the public streets, sidewalks, parks or seats of government.”

SDSU PR apparently didn’t dispatch UPD to boot the blog photographer from campus for covering the Johnson campaign. I would suggest that SDSU’s stiff restriction on media access to campus should bend when it comes to covering the campaign efforts of a public figure seeking votes from thousands of people in a campus setting.

That said, campaigning at the gate of a big collegiate sports event is a great way to meet a lot of voters at once. KDLT says 15,806 came to watch SDSU beat Drake; envelope math says 90% were Jacks fans, 90% of them were voting age, 80% of them were South Dakotans, and 47% of them were Republicans, so perhaps 4,800 of those fans can help Dusty win his primary against Shantel Krebs less than nine months from now. Billie Sutton, Tim Bjorkman, contact our Regental campuses and find out when they’ll let you set up political shop at the gates!


28 Responses to Dusty Johnson Brings Campaign to SDSU Stadium

  1. mike from iowa

    Cardboard cutout looks like it is giving a half-###ed Nazi greeting and salutation. Just like Hitler himself used.

  2. Let’s say Dusty gets elected to congress in November 2018. President Trump calls him in December and offers him a job. Would Dusty take the House seat he was just elected to, or would he ditch that for the executive branch job?

    If you can’t answer this question with any degree of certainty, Dusty hasn’t earned your vote.

  3. Darin Larson

    It is too bad that Dusty couldn’t run on a ticket with another person who would take over when Dusty has to jump ship to the next big opportunity for himself.

  4. I, for one, think Mr. Dusty is a far more sincere individual and not the fake kind of fluff that Ms. Krebs is.

  5. Thank you for that reminder, Ror and Darin! When do you think Shantel will start reminding voters of Dusty’s fickle flip in 2010?

  6. Cory writes:

    … we in the media … cannot take any pictures or video of Dusty on campus without giving notice to SDSU’s director of marketing and communications, per SDSU’s Policy 6:2 on media access to university property.

    South Dakota State University’s leaders probably don’t want the media photographing any 17-year-old girls who are so terrified of the campus police that they dislocate bones trying to escape.

  7. IF he gets elected is the card board cu tour going to DC. And Dusty takes another job. Just can not count on this guy for anything.

  8. Kurt, interesting connection. Suppose the press had been on campus at the time of the Baker/Mentele incident: would SDSU have grounds to punish the reporters for recording and broadcasting the altercation? What punishment could SDSU impose after the fact—ban the reporters in question from campus?

  9. I don’t know Grudz. I think it was very copycat of Dusty to go looking for an innocent rattlesnake to kill and post on social media just to show he’s a snake killer too. Next thing you know he’s going to open a shoe store selling those Marco Rubio boots with the Cuba heels.

  10. I’d written:

    South Dakota State University’s leaders probably don’t want the media photographing any 17-year-old girls who are so terrified of the campus police that they dislocate bones trying to escape.

    Cory writes:

    Kurt, interesting connection. Suppose the press had been on campus at the time of the Baker/Mentele incident: would SDSU have grounds to punish the reporters for recording and broadcasting the altercation? What punishment could SDSU impose after the fact—ban the reporters in question from campus?

    Good questions, Cory. As an SDSU alumnus, I’ve been banned from my alma mater by campus police chief Tim Heaton, under threat of arrest, for more than 14 years. The university’s position is that Heaton has never formally accused me of any violation of the law, but that he has the inherent right to indefinitely ban me from the campus without a reason.

    Several years ago an attorney friend advised me to intentionally violate the ban. He said he believed the university’s legal team was bluffing. He said he’d represent me at no charge—“and we’d win”—if Heaton followed through on his arrest threat. Largely because of a series of very bad experiences with our so-called justice system, I’ve thus far declined to take my friend’s advice.

  11. Mr. Lansing

    Kurt Evans … It’s hard to believe you’re banned from campus without a reason. You may not agree with the police decision and are possibly in denial about what you did to cause it. Knowing your history, were you harassing a cheerleader or another female student or faculty member or administrator? You’re able to tell your side of the story here but you also have a track record of being misleading and misdirecting so don’t take liberties with the facts, sir … should you choose to get it off your chest.

  12. Without revisiting Kurt’s story, I’ll suggest that banning members of the media from campus for violating a questionable rule restricting First Amendment activities on a public university campus would put the university on thin legal ice. Should a public university be able to allow a political candidate to conduct partisan activities on campus but prohibit journalists from covering those activities?

  13. I’d written:

    As an SDSU alumnus, I’ve been banned from my alma mater by campus police chief Tim Heaton, under threat of arrest, for more than 14 years. The university’s position is that Heaton has never formally accused me of any violation of the law, but that he has the inherent right to indefinitely ban me from the campus without a reason.

    Porter Lansing writes:

    It’s hard to believe you’re banned from campus without a reason.

    SDSU’s position is that the ban is an internal matter, and that Heaton is under no obligation to provide reasons for imposing it. I have the document in front of me.

    You may not agree with the police decision and are possibly in denial about what you did to cause it.

    It seems to me that someone should tell me what I allegedly did to cause it, and that I should then be allowed to tell my side of the story.

    Knowing your history, were you harassing a cheerleader or another female student or faculty member or administrator?

    No, I wasn’t, and I was doing everything I could to ensure that no one would feel like I was.

    You’re able to tell your side of the story here but you also have a track record of being misleading and misdirecting …

    I’ve told the whole truth, as accurately as I could remember it, to everyone involved in this nightmare for nearly 15 years.

    Cory asks:

    Should a public university be able to allow a political candidate to conduct partisan activities on campus but prohibit journalists from covering those activities?

    I’d say a public university should seek to develop a set of rules that can be applied equally to candidates, journalists, and everyone else.

  14. Mr. Lansing

    “Knowing your history, were you harassing a cheerleader or another female student or faculty member or administrator?”
    Kurt replied, “No I wasn’t and I was doing everything I could not to make anyone feel this way.”
    Kurt … you know, Buddy you failed. A male’s opinion on harassment means little. Your hormones limit your ability to think with the big head. If a female felt uncomfortable, told you to stop and you said anything other then, “Have a nice day.” you were overly aggressive and out of bounds. When flirting the woman has full control. It’s not 50-50 like a business contract. When she complained, the restraining actions by campus police was perfectly justified. Her feelings matter a thousand times more than your desires, no matter how justified your little head believed you were. Cory requests this conversation end so use your brain and STFU.

  15. Porter Lansing writes:

    A male’s opinion on harassment means little.

    I’m wondering whether you’d say that applies to your opinions on it, Porter.

    If a female felt uncomfortable, told you to stop and you said anything other then, “Have a nice day.” you were overly aggressive and out of bounds.

    There are clearly situations in which that wouldn’t be true, but for the record, what I said was, “I’m sorry.” Then I walked away. That was in the mid afternoon of August 20, 2003, and I’ve never attempted to communicate with the woman involved again. The campus police hauled me in two full weeks later for the interrogation they used to destroy my reputation, my social life, and my teaching career.

    When flirting the woman has full control.

    There are clearly situations in which that isn’t true, but for the record, I never tried to flirt with the woman involved. Doing so would have been a blatant violation of my moral code, mainly because she was already in a relationship with another man.

    When she complained, the restraining actions by campus police was perfectly justified.

    They intercepted me at the end of a workout and wouldn’t even let me shower before the interrogation. Remember that this was two full weeks after I’d last spoken with her.

    Her feelings matter a thousand times more than your desires, no matter how justified your little head believed you were.

    That’s absolutely true, and the distress this situation has apparently caused her is a gut-wrenching tragedy.

    Cory requests this conversation end so use your brain and [don’t respond].

    My impression is that Cory would prefer to have the comments here more closely related to his original posts, but I guess I’d ask for some latitude. I really believe this is important.

  16. I take no position on that thread. I maintain my position that restrictions on press coverage of political activities on campus are not acceptable.

  17. What press restrictions? Mr. Evans worked for the press when he got banned?

  18. Cory writes:

    I maintain my position that restrictions on press coverage of political activities on campus are not acceptable.

    Assuming we’re talking specifically about public universities, my position is that the press should face the same restrictions as everyone else, and no restriction should be imposed without a compelling reason.

    “grudznick” asks:

    Mr. Evans worked for the press when he got banned?

    I doubt “grudznick” is asking a sincere question, but the answer is no. I haven’t worked for the South Dakota State University newspaper since 1993, and Tim Heaton banned me from the campus in 2003.

  19. Cory had written:

    … I’ll suggest that banning members of the media from campus for violating a questionable rule restricting First Amendment activities on a public university campus would put the university on thin legal ice. Should a public university be able to allow a political candidate to conduct partisan activities on campus but prohibit journalists from covering those activities?

    … I maintain my position that restrictions on press coverage of political activities on campus are not acceptable.

    I’d like to know your position regarding restrictions on the political activities themselves, Cory. Should a public university be able to allow one political candidate to conduct partisan activities on campus but arbitrarily prohibit another candidate from conducting the same activities?

    For example, should SDSU have been able to prohibit the 2014 Libertarian candidate for state auditor from conducting political activities on campus without providing any official reason whatsoever, much less a compelling one?

    And if candidates and journalists have the right to conduct what you call “First Amendment activities” on a public university campus, why wouldn’t every other citizen also have the right to do so?

  20. The possibility of the university arbitrarily excluding candidates is exactly the problem I wonder about with my last line in the original post when I urge other candidates to ask permission to stake out the Jackrabbit games with their campaign materials. I assume Johnson got the campus Pubs to sponsor him; invitation by some student organization is usually the pre-req.

    I chafe as a blogger and candidate at the Regents’ walling-off students from candidates, petitioners, and other speakers. I understand restrictions on access to dorms, stadiums, and other facilities with doors, but the ability to boot a speaker from a sidewalk where students and non-students alike may pass is problematic.

  21. Mr. Lansing

    Are military recruiters given free access? Here, they are at the Republican University (CSU) but not at the liberal University (CU).

  22. Mr. Evans, it was a sincere question. I did not understand you were employed for the student media or other issues about your “banning.” I, too, have been banned from places, and used to feel the same annoyance as you until I decided “awe, f-em” and just did what I wanted anyway. It’s the Libertarian in me brought out by my good friend Bob.

    Mr. H, you chafe in the present sense as a candidate? For what office are you now running and collecting funds?

  23. Not the point, Grudz. I make no declaration; I speak of past experience, possible future experience, and empathy for current candidates.

  24. I’d asked Cory:

    For example, should SDSU have been able to prohibit the 2014 Libertarian candidate for state auditor from conducting political activities on campus without providing any official reason whatsoever, much less a compelling one?

    Cory replies:

    The possibility of the university arbitrarily excluding candidates is exactly the problem I wonder about with my last line in the original post when I urge other candidates to ask permission to stake out the Jackrabbit games with their campaign materials.

    I’m not sure whether you understand that I’m not talking about a mere possibility. South Dakota State University actually excluded the 2014 Libertarian candidate for South Dakota state auditor (i.e. me) from conducting political activities on campus, and it did so without providing any official reason whatsoever.

    I assume Johnson got the campus Pubs to sponsor him; invitation by some student organization is usually the pre-req.

    That ties into a related topic. SDSU excluded me from its 2014 homecoming parade on the basis of the fact that I didn’t have a student organization to sponsor me, but the university had no problem with letting my campaign team into the parade without such a sponsorship when I was an independent candidate for Congress in 1996.

    That in turn raises the question of who changed SDSU’s parade policy, and when, and why. I really wish I could find a South Dakota journalist who cared enough to look into this.

    “grudznick” writes:

    Mr. Evans, it was a sincere question. I did not understand you were employed for the student media …

    I believe the second of those two statements, but not because “grudznick” said it.

  25. Kurt, I am not eager to relitigate a certain case, so let me offer this more general scenario:

    Suppose we grant our public campuses some control over who visits, including the option to indefinitely ban certain individuals whom the university has deemed to pose a threat to its students. (Yes, yes, due process, but if universities can expel students, do they have some power to “expel” non-students?) If the university exercises such legitimate power, should an expellee be able to circumvent that power by running for public office?

  26. I’d asked Cory:

    For example, should SDSU have been able to prohibit the 2014 Libertarian candidate for state auditor from conducting political activities on campus without providing any official reason whatsoever, much less a compelling one?

    Cory replies:

    Kurt, I am not eager to relitigate a certain case …

    Just to be clear, Tim Heaton’s decision to ban me from my alma mater has never been litigated in the first place.

    … so let me offer this more general scenario:

    Suppose we grant our public campuses some control over who visits, including the option to indefinitely ban certain individuals whom the university has deemed to pose a threat to its students.

    I’ll play along, but I’m not approving of indefinite bans.

    (Yes, yes, due process, but if universities can expel students, do they have some power to “expel” non-students?)

    I’d say they do.

    If the university exercises such legitimate power, should an expellee be able to circumvent that power by running for public office?

    I’d say no.

    Your “more general” scenario seems to miss the point of the questions in my previous comments. Should a public university be able to arbitrarily exclude all unsponsored candidates from its parades without a compelling reason?

    And should a public university that deems an individual to pose a threat to its students be able to abridge the First Amendment rights of that individual—candidate, journalist or otherwise—without providing any official reason whatsoever?

  27. It is a shame, Mr. Evans, that you are indefinitely banned from going to the Dairy Microbiology building and eating ice cream. But the safety of the students must come first. grudznick supports the indefinite ban. It shall remain.

  28. I’ll agree that if a campus is going to exclude a candidate for public office from its campus while allowing other candidates for that same office to visit and campaign on its campus, the university had better publicly state a solid legal reason for making such an exclusion.