Tucked at the bottom of Dana Ferguson’s Friday article on the top two races in South Dakota’s general election is this promise from Democratic candidate for U.S. House Tim Bjorkman not to take Democratic Party money:
Tim Bjorkman
Bjorkman said he won’t take donations from the Democratic National Committee or the state Democratic Party so that he can run a campaign free of party expectations.
But hold on: it’s one thing to refuse PAC money on the reasonable grounds that special interests “want to buy your loyalty and your vote.” But to dismiss one’s own party in the same way, to suggest that the party whose nomination you are about to officially receive is just another special interest trying to buy your loyalty to vote against the general welfare, could put off a big chunk of Democratic activists who view their party not as a special interest but as one of the organizations they have chosen to build and support to save the world from Trump/Republicanism.
Bjorkman’s refusal to take dirty Democratic money appears to be new and selective. According to his FEC reports, he took $250 from the South Dakota Democratic Party back in November 2017 (a surprising donation from the state party, given that there were still four months for a challenger to declare and petition to primary Bjorkman)*. He has also taken over $10,000 from Democratic county parties, Democratic candidate committees, and Tim Johnson’s campaign fund, all of which have the same goals as the state Democratic Party whose money Bjorkman says would taint him.
Contributor name
Receipt date
Amount
BEADLE COUNTY DEMOCRATIC PARTY
03/01/2018
$500.00
BROOKINGS COUNTY DEMOCRATIC PARTY
08/29/2017
$114.00
BROWN COUNTY DEMOCRATS
10/10/2017
$25.56
BRULE COUNTY DEMOCRATS
01/11/2018
$500.00
FALL RIVER COUNTY DEMOCRATS
05/05/2018
$200.00
HART FOR COUNCIL
04/18/2018
$1,000.00
HART FOR COUNCIL
10/28/2017
$500.00
HUGHES COUNTY DEMOCRATS
01/23/2018
$500.00
JIM POWERS FOR STATE SENATE
03/29/2018
$500.00
JIM POWERS FOR STATE SENATE
11/08/2017
$250.00
MARSHALL COUNTY DEMOCRATIC PARTY
12/08/2017
$100.00
PEGGY GIBSON FOR SD HOUSE
01/04/2018
$500.00
PENNINGTON COUNTY DEMOCRATIC PARTY
03/02/2018
$1,000.00
PENNINGTON COUNTY DEMOCRATIC PARTY
09/29/2017
$500.00
STANLEY COUNTY DEMOCRATS
01/23/2018
$500.00
TIM JOHNSON FOR SOUTH DAKOTA INC
03/30/2018
$2,000.00
TIM JOHNSON FOR SOUTH DAKOTA INC
03/30/2018
$2,000.00
TOTAL:
$10,689.56
I can scroll through the list of individual donors and find more prominent Democratic party activists: Carrie Ackerman Rice, Melanie Bliss, Kyle Boese, Jim Burg, Tom Daschle, Jeremiah Davis, Philip James Eckhoff, Spencer Hawley, Scott Heidepriem, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Bernie Hunhoff, Brendan Johnson, Deb Knecht, Jeff Nelson, Nick Nemec, Scott Parsley, Mary Perpich, Denny Pierson, Drey Samuelson, Don Schaunaman, Jody Severson, Darrell Solberg, Sharon Stroschein, Ann Tornberg, Susan Wismer, Harvey Wollman… good grief! That’s darn near a quorum at the South Dakota Democratic Party convention!
If Bjorkman’s vow not to take state party money is meant to impress voters, it won’t work. Voters won’t see a meaningful difference between taking money from the official state party checking account and taking money from the leaders of that party. Neither will the Republican attack ads, which will scream truthfully, “Bjorkman takes Democrat money!” Bjorkman would do better to help build the Democratic brand to withstand such easy attacks from the opposition and to encourage more voters and donors to carry the Democratic banner.
Besides, Bjorkman is fussing about a pot of money isn’t that full. In 2016, the South Dakota Democratic Party gave its U.S. House candidate Paula Hawks $1,500… and that came after the election to help pay her debts. In 2014, the SDDP gave its U.S. Senate candidate Rick Weiland $2,438. Bjorkman is making a counterproductive fuss over potential checks that won’t have that many zeroes at the end.
p.s.: Former Republican Governor Frank Farrar, who endorsed Marty Jackley for Governor, gave Bjorkman $900 in two contributions last December and February. Farrar gave Republican nominee Dusty Johnson $1,100 in three contributions last year in March, April, and June. Farrar gave second-place GOP primary finisher Shantel Krebs $3,750 in six contributions in March, September, and December of 2017 and February (two checks!) and April this year. Farrar gave no money to Trumpist hack Neal Tapio. I’m sure Frank Farrar isn’t trying to buy anyone’s loyalty; he just enjoys a spirited and well-funded Congressional race.
*Correction 17:35 CDT: The Bjorkman candidate updates me and explains the $250 from SDDP was a reimbursement, not a contribution. See my full post on the matter here.
It worked for me! And it will work for anyone else who knows the difference between non-Billionaire democrats who don’t want to screw over working Americans and what Clinton did at the DNC. Are you really THAT unaware Corey?
Democrats always fight the good fight, but to say that Democratic money is bad, is kind of ridiculous. Democrats are smart enough to read the tea leaves and understand that no matter whose money you take for contributions, it is not up to the voters to decide anymore, it is now up to the governments of Russia and North Korea to make the call.
“Coats said Russia had already undertaken an “unprecedented influence campaign to interfere in the US electoral and political process” in 2016. Russia, Coats pointed out, has also meddled in France, Germany, Norway, Spain, and Ukraine. “It is 2018, and we continue to see Russian targeting of American society in ways that could affect our midterm elections,” he said.
South Dakota was interfered with in 2016 no matter what Krebs says as it has been shown that all 50 states had some form of interference from Russia. RUSSIA IS OUR ENEMY. Our own national intelligence, chaired by a republican, tells us that our system is flawed and yet congressional republicans do nothing to change it.
So who does Putin like in the congressional house race from South Dakota? How about for governor, do you take someone who has a proven track record of voting against American interests or do you take the other guy that clearly is his own man?
Dana P
I dunno. I really like Bjorkman (and this hasn’t changed my mind) and it is so good to have such a qualified candidate running. But this decision? Hmmm.
I know he has already said he doesn’t support Pelosi as speaker (if D’s get control back) and now this. Is this just a strategic move he feels he has to make in a state like South Dakota? To win over some R’s, and Indy’s?
You don’t bring a knife to a gun fight. It sucks that money is part of politics. But you also have to compete. We’ll see how this decision plays/plays out for him.
Bernie
I’m guessing Tim is mostly referring to the WASHINGTON party money … he’s spoken often about the fact that he will not be going to DC to spend his valuable time working the phone bank for the national party as most congress people are expected to do.
leslie
“Purchasing power, not money, drives the unsavory politics of the New Gilded Age. This distinction is critically important to recognize—especially for liberals who are hoping for a Democratic wave in 2018 and a remobilization of the Obama voters who were absent in 2016.
Supreme Court is extremely unlikely to reverse Citizens United and other deregulatory decisions. As such, the only feasible solution is to re-empower ordinary Americans in politics. And that will require money.” https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/it-not-money-it-what-it-does
Paul, South Dakota Democratic Party resources helped pass the minimum wage increase in 2014, helped stop the youth minimum wage cut in 2016, and helped me campaign in District 3. Are the minimum wage and I to be abandoned as scurrilous plots by the DNC?
jerry
I think that the money will come to him locally once sensible republicans, Independents and Democrats see what the latest cost burdens to them have come from a one party rule. This elimination of pre existing conditions regarding healthcare, will make thousands of South Dakotan’s understand the pain of the republican party to their pocketbooks and to their well being. Opie is complicit in this healthcare maneuver as well.
BTW, his tepid response to trade deals was underwhelming when you think of it all. To declare Canada as a terrorist nation so that you can put tariffs in place national security, is beyond reason. Tim Bjorkman will go to Washington to work for the people of South Dakota, not Moscow.
Dicta
This is smart for two reasons:
1) South Dakotans are xenophobic as hell and any outside-the-state money would be used against him; and
2) The DNC’s reputation is absolutely trashed at the moment.
South Dakotans’ xenophobia is selective; they picked Kristi Noem over Marty Jackley last week, even though Jackley rightly reminded them that her campaign was far more flush with out-of-state cash than his.
Dicta
That’s because Noem is a Republican. Her crowd management doesn’t need to be as hyper-analyzed as Bjorkman because of her party affiliation. This isn’t normative, btw. I am not saying this is how it should be. I am telling you how it is (in my verbose opinion, of course).
jerry
What kind of reputation do you have if you cut Medicare and Social Security? What kind of reputation do you have when you end pre existing condition protection regarding health insurance? NOem is a republican that endorsed all of this. Johnson is a republican that has endorsed all of this as well.
There are just those Democrats, Tim Bjorkman and Billie Sutton who have not. I say they use their resources to let the voters know that they have their backs while these two republicans are trying to raid their checking accounts
Leo
Remembering lack of DCCC & DNC support for Rick Weiland, a hardworking candidate that wanted to get “big money and wealthy special interests out of politics.” Thinking about recent DNC Rules Committee ill-advised decision targeting Bernie Sanders from getting the Democrat nomination in 2020 and then how the SDDP profited off of his support for Clara Hart while not supporting its own state candidates in 2016, including you Cory, to funnel money to the HRC Victory Fund. I wouldn’t use the term xenophobic, but wary, yes, and South Dakota Democrats have reason to be. I support this decision made by Bjorkman.
*Correction 17:35 CDT: The Bjorkman candidate updates me and explains the $250 from SDDP was a reimbursement, not a contribution. See my full post on the matter here.
I dig what you’re saying, Leo, but I look at it this way: given that the state and national parties aren’t going to pour money into my campaign, I don’t really gain much by saying I’m not going to take their money. Believe me, if the SDDP or the DNC comes by and says, “Hey, turns out we have tubs of money. Want some?” my response will be to hold out my bucket and say, “Fill ‘er up!” Of course, any party giving me money, just like any PAC, entity, or individual, needs to understand that it is not buying my loyalty; it is paying me to spread my campaign message, win votes, and beat Al Novstrup.
Cory, I was disappointed in your post on Tim Bjorkman, not only because I’m Tim’s communications director, but also because I’m a frequent reader who has left an occasional comment on your usually excellent blog. Just to be clear, I have no problem with you, or anyone, criticizing Tim or the campaign, but if you’d have asked us for comment – or looked at the video – you would have realized your post was based upon two key inaccuracies and then, what you wrote would have looked much different.
Here’s the press conference video: http://kelo.com/news/articles/2018/jun/07/watch-bjorkman-wont-take-state-national-democratic-party-money/
Your post appears to rely upon on a reporter’s account of what Tim said at his news conference. That account left out a key part Tim’s answer, giving his response an entirely different meaning. Tim’s only stated concern was about being controlled by national not state party money, as the transcript of Tim’s exchange with KSOO’s Todd Epp makes clear:
Epp: “You think that party money even taints you?”
Bjorkman: “Well, it’s hard to draw lines. I don’t — the state party isn’t in a position to give anybody money.” [Laughter from the crowd.]
Bjorkman: “And I’m not looking for any money from state or national parties, Todd.”
Epp: “Does that taint you?”
Bjorkman: “It’s just easier not to” … [inaudible question or statement from Epp]
Bjorkman: “It’s easier not to not to be taking people’s money at the national party level. In my view, I think it’s wiser. I don’t want anybody to think that I am under their [the national party’s] thumb or under their control. I don’t want anyone to think I am bought by those big parties or special interests, Todd.”
(From KELO press conference transcript beginning at around 26:00)
Tim’s statement was not so much a rejection of funding from the SDDP, as an acknowledgement that the state party doesn’t have funds to give candidates. In fact, rather than receive money from the party, candidates like Tim have to pay the SDDP – even for items like the use of its registered voter program, something that many people may not know. A lot of regular citizens think that candidates get wheelbarrows full of money from state and national parties. Tim won’t and believes that it’s important to make that fact clear to voters.
As to the $250 check from the state party, while it appears as a contribution, it was actually a reimbursement. The state party cashed a check for an auction item put up by Tim, and the state party later reimbursed the campaign. As you suggest, it would be wrong for a state party to make a contribution to a candidate before a primary, and it didn’t happen here.
As you know, Tim has spoken out strongly against the corrupt “congressional dues system” both party leaders keep in place, against the continued House leadership of both political parties, and against members of Congress from both parties who spend more time “dialing for dollars” while Congress is in session than they do working on the business of the people who pay their salaries. To take money from the major national political parties which are funded to a large extent by PACs and other special interests would be inconsistent and also contrary to Tim’s values and, he believes, the values of most South Dakotans.
As Tim correctly says, “you can’t stand up to the special interests in Washington if you take their money, pure and simple.” If Tim were to take national political party money, it would suggest that he isn’t serious about his pledge to fight for reform. He is.
While people might find it hard to draw lines on such questions, it’s easy to draw a firm line between entrenched political powers and the voices of citizens across party lines, who are backing and helping Tim financially who just want to see good government again.
Tim is a reformer; he’s never been a partisan and won’t become one to win an election. And it shows: his staff itself is made up of Democrats, Republicans, and me, an independent.
Tim is serious in his belief that it’s time for a new, independent voice for South Dakota in Congress, based less on political parties than on serving South Dakotans.
Thanks for letting me respond, Cory.
Debbo
My questions are answered, though I think Mr. Bjorkman would be wiser to accept whatever donations he can get.
On the other hand, I’ve never run for any public office, I just like to pretend that I know the best way to do it. 😁
Inaccuracy? Tom’s transcript leaves out the lines at the very beginning of the exchange between reporter Todd Epp and candidate Tim Bjorkman [at 26:20 in the KELO Radio video]:
Epp: You’re not taking any state Democratic party money or national Democratic money, is that correct?
TB: Correct, that’s correct.
EPP: No party money at all. Do you think that even taints you?
TB: Do I think what?
Epp: Do you think that money taints you?
TB: Well, it’s hard to draw lines. Well, it’s hard to draw lines. I don’t — the state party isn’t in a position to give anybody money. [Laughter from the crowd.] And I’m not looking for any money from state or national parties, Todd [transcribed from video, in Todd Epp, “WATCH: Bjorkman Won’t Take State, National Democratic Party Money,” KELO Radio, 2018.06.07].
Note also that at 24:45, still in his prepared remarks, Bjorkman says, ” I want to show that a candidate at least in South Dakota can reject all the special interest and party money and still win.” Epp’s question appears to follow up on that statement, asking Bjorkman to clarify if that rejection applies to state party money and national party money. Bjorkman says that’s correct. When Bjorkman says, “It’s hard to draw lines,” he seems to be reaffirming that his rejection of party money applies to state and national party money. He then says “I’m not looking for any money from state or national parties,” emphasizing for a third time that he can’t draw a line between national and state money.
Bjorkman does then make a statement that Tom Lawrence cites above that deals only with “the national party level” and “those big parties” (but.. plural—there’s only one national party, right? Who else is there other than the state party to make “those big parties” whom Bjorkman is holding at arms length plural?).
However, listening to the comments above in Bjorkman’s Thursday press conference, I find it fair to conclude that Todd Epp, Dana Ferguson, and I have accurately characterized his words: Bjorkman said he will not take any party money, national or state.
It worked for me! And it will work for anyone else who knows the difference between non-Billionaire democrats who don’t want to screw over working Americans and what Clinton did at the DNC. Are you really THAT unaware Corey?
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/dnc-leak-clinton-team-deflected-state-cash-concerns-226191
Democrats always fight the good fight, but to say that Democratic money is bad, is kind of ridiculous. Democrats are smart enough to read the tea leaves and understand that no matter whose money you take for contributions, it is not up to the voters to decide anymore, it is now up to the governments of Russia and North Korea to make the call.
“Coats said Russia had already undertaken an “unprecedented influence campaign to interfere in the US electoral and political process” in 2016. Russia, Coats pointed out, has also meddled in France, Germany, Norway, Spain, and Ukraine. “It is 2018, and we continue to see Russian targeting of American society in ways that could affect our midterm elections,” he said.
Coats’ comments are aligned with assessments by the US intelligence community and US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who in his previous role as director of the Central Intelligence Agency warned that he expected Russia to attempt to disrupt the midterm elections.” http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/director-of-national-intelligence-dan-coats-russia-is-attempting-to-influence-us-midterms-divide-transatlantic-alliance
South Dakota was interfered with in 2016 no matter what Krebs says as it has been shown that all 50 states had some form of interference from Russia. RUSSIA IS OUR ENEMY. Our own national intelligence, chaired by a republican, tells us that our system is flawed and yet congressional republicans do nothing to change it.
So who does Putin like in the congressional house race from South Dakota? How about for governor, do you take someone who has a proven track record of voting against American interests or do you take the other guy that clearly is his own man?
I dunno. I really like Bjorkman (and this hasn’t changed my mind) and it is so good to have such a qualified candidate running. But this decision? Hmmm.
I know he has already said he doesn’t support Pelosi as speaker (if D’s get control back) and now this. Is this just a strategic move he feels he has to make in a state like South Dakota? To win over some R’s, and Indy’s?
You don’t bring a knife to a gun fight. It sucks that money is part of politics. But you also have to compete. We’ll see how this decision plays/plays out for him.
I’m guessing Tim is mostly referring to the WASHINGTON party money … he’s spoken often about the fact that he will not be going to DC to spend his valuable time working the phone bank for the national party as most congress people are expected to do.
“Purchasing power, not money, drives the unsavory politics of the New Gilded Age. This distinction is critically important to recognize—especially for liberals who are hoping for a Democratic wave in 2018 and a remobilization of the Obama voters who were absent in 2016.
Supreme Court is extremely unlikely to reverse Citizens United and other deregulatory decisions. As such, the only feasible solution is to re-empower ordinary Americans in politics. And that will require money.” https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/it-not-money-it-what-it-does
Paul, South Dakota Democratic Party resources helped pass the minimum wage increase in 2014, helped stop the youth minimum wage cut in 2016, and helped me campaign in District 3. Are the minimum wage and I to be abandoned as scurrilous plots by the DNC?
I think that the money will come to him locally once sensible republicans, Independents and Democrats see what the latest cost burdens to them have come from a one party rule. This elimination of pre existing conditions regarding healthcare, will make thousands of South Dakotan’s understand the pain of the republican party to their pocketbooks and to their well being. Opie is complicit in this healthcare maneuver as well.
BTW, his tepid response to trade deals was underwhelming when you think of it all. To declare Canada as a terrorist nation so that you can put tariffs in place national security, is beyond reason. Tim Bjorkman will go to Washington to work for the people of South Dakota, not Moscow.
This is smart for two reasons:
1) South Dakotans are xenophobic as hell and any outside-the-state money would be used against him; and
2) The DNC’s reputation is absolutely trashed at the moment.
He’s being pragmatic.
Does that xenophobia extend to the state party and to the South Dakota leaders of that party?
South Dakotans’ xenophobia is selective; they picked Kristi Noem over Marty Jackley last week, even though Jackley rightly reminded them that her campaign was far more flush with out-of-state cash than his.
That’s because Noem is a Republican. Her crowd management doesn’t need to be as hyper-analyzed as Bjorkman because of her party affiliation. This isn’t normative, btw. I am not saying this is how it should be. I am telling you how it is (in my verbose opinion, of course).
What kind of reputation do you have if you cut Medicare and Social Security? What kind of reputation do you have when you end pre existing condition protection regarding health insurance? NOem is a republican that endorsed all of this. Johnson is a republican that has endorsed all of this as well.
There are just those Democrats, Tim Bjorkman and Billie Sutton who have not. I say they use their resources to let the voters know that they have their backs while these two republicans are trying to raid their checking accounts
Remembering lack of DCCC & DNC support for Rick Weiland, a hardworking candidate that wanted to get “big money and wealthy special interests out of politics.” Thinking about recent DNC Rules Committee ill-advised decision targeting Bernie Sanders from getting the Democrat nomination in 2020 and then how the SDDP profited off of his support for Clara Hart while not supporting its own state candidates in 2016, including you Cory, to funnel money to the HRC Victory Fund. I wouldn’t use the term xenophobic, but wary, yes, and South Dakota Democrats have reason to be. I support this decision made by Bjorkman.
*Correction 17:35 CDT: The Bjorkman candidate updates me and explains the $250 from SDDP was a reimbursement, not a contribution. See my full post on the matter here.
I dig what you’re saying, Leo, but I look at it this way: given that the state and national parties aren’t going to pour money into my campaign, I don’t really gain much by saying I’m not going to take their money. Believe me, if the SDDP or the DNC comes by and says, “Hey, turns out we have tubs of money. Want some?” my response will be to hold out my bucket and say, “Fill ‘er up!” Of course, any party giving me money, just like any PAC, entity, or individual, needs to understand that it is not buying my loyalty; it is paying me to spread my campaign message, win votes, and beat Al Novstrup.
Cory, I was disappointed in your post on Tim Bjorkman, not only because I’m Tim’s communications director, but also because I’m a frequent reader who has left an occasional comment on your usually excellent blog. Just to be clear, I have no problem with you, or anyone, criticizing Tim or the campaign, but if you’d have asked us for comment – or looked at the video – you would have realized your post was based upon two key inaccuracies and then, what you wrote would have looked much different.
Here’s the press conference video: http://kelo.com/news/articles/2018/jun/07/watch-bjorkman-wont-take-state-national-democratic-party-money/
Your post appears to rely upon on a reporter’s account of what Tim said at his news conference. That account left out a key part Tim’s answer, giving his response an entirely different meaning. Tim’s only stated concern was about being controlled by national not state party money, as the transcript of Tim’s exchange with KSOO’s Todd Epp makes clear:
Epp: “You think that party money even taints you?”
Bjorkman: “Well, it’s hard to draw lines. I don’t — the state party isn’t in a position to give anybody money.” [Laughter from the crowd.]
Bjorkman: “And I’m not looking for any money from state or national parties, Todd.”
Epp: “Does that taint you?”
Bjorkman: “It’s just easier not to” … [inaudible question or statement from Epp]
Bjorkman: “It’s easier not to not to be taking people’s money at the national party level. In my view, I think it’s wiser. I don’t want anybody to think that I am under their [the national party’s] thumb or under their control. I don’t want anyone to think I am bought by those big parties or special interests, Todd.”
(From KELO press conference transcript beginning at around 26:00)
Tim’s statement was not so much a rejection of funding from the SDDP, as an acknowledgement that the state party doesn’t have funds to give candidates. In fact, rather than receive money from the party, candidates like Tim have to pay the SDDP – even for items like the use of its registered voter program, something that many people may not know. A lot of regular citizens think that candidates get wheelbarrows full of money from state and national parties. Tim won’t and believes that it’s important to make that fact clear to voters.
As to the $250 check from the state party, while it appears as a contribution, it was actually a reimbursement. The state party cashed a check for an auction item put up by Tim, and the state party later reimbursed the campaign. As you suggest, it would be wrong for a state party to make a contribution to a candidate before a primary, and it didn’t happen here.
As you know, Tim has spoken out strongly against the corrupt “congressional dues system” both party leaders keep in place, against the continued House leadership of both political parties, and against members of Congress from both parties who spend more time “dialing for dollars” while Congress is in session than they do working on the business of the people who pay their salaries. To take money from the major national political parties which are funded to a large extent by PACs and other special interests would be inconsistent and also contrary to Tim’s values and, he believes, the values of most South Dakotans.
As Tim correctly says, “you can’t stand up to the special interests in Washington if you take their money, pure and simple.” If Tim were to take national political party money, it would suggest that he isn’t serious about his pledge to fight for reform. He is.
While people might find it hard to draw lines on such questions, it’s easy to draw a firm line between entrenched political powers and the voices of citizens across party lines, who are backing and helping Tim financially who just want to see good government again.
Tim is a reformer; he’s never been a partisan and won’t become one to win an election. And it shows: his staff itself is made up of Democrats, Republicans, and me, an independent.
Tim is serious in his belief that it’s time for a new, independent voice for South Dakota in Congress, based less on political parties than on serving South Dakotans.
Thanks for letting me respond, Cory.
My questions are answered, though I think Mr. Bjorkman would be wiser to accept whatever donations he can get.
On the other hand, I’ve never run for any public office, I just like to pretend that I know the best way to do it. 😁
Inaccuracy? Tom’s transcript leaves out the lines at the very beginning of the exchange between reporter Todd Epp and candidate Tim Bjorkman [at 26:20 in the KELO Radio video]:
Note also that at 24:45, still in his prepared remarks, Bjorkman says, ” I want to show that a candidate at least in South Dakota can reject all the special interest and party money and still win.” Epp’s question appears to follow up on that statement, asking Bjorkman to clarify if that rejection applies to state party money and national party money. Bjorkman says that’s correct. When Bjorkman says, “It’s hard to draw lines,” he seems to be reaffirming that his rejection of party money applies to state and national party money. He then says “I’m not looking for any money from state or national parties,” emphasizing for a third time that he can’t draw a line between national and state money.
Bjorkman does then make a statement that Tom Lawrence cites above that deals only with “the national party level” and “those big parties” (but.. plural—there’s only one national party, right? Who else is there other than the state party to make “those big parties” whom Bjorkman is holding at arms length plural?).
However, listening to the comments above in Bjorkman’s Thursday press conference, I find it fair to conclude that Todd Epp, Dana Ferguson, and I have accurately characterized his words: Bjorkman said he will not take any party money, national or state.