LETTER: Wrigley overstated case against blog post

I'm not quite sure how to respond to comments about me in Kathleen Wrigley's Viewpoint ("Fuglie sets low bar for truth about Marsy's Law," Page A4, May 18).

istock photo

I'm not quite sure how to respond to comments about me in Kathleen Wrigley's Viewpoint (" Fuglie sets low bar for truth about Marsy's Law ," Page A4, May 18).

I guess I can say the main difference between Wrigley's letter and my commentary piece about Henry Nicholas, the billionaire who's financing her Marsy's Law campaign, is that she made up a bunch of stuff about me, and I didn't make up anything.

Wrigley says that I said Nicholas "paid" her a million dollars. Wrong. I said he "sent" her a million dollars, to finance her Marsy's Law campaign in North Dakota. She changed it to "paid" in her letter so she could express outrage over the fact she's a volunteer and not getting paid. Nicholas "has not given me, personally, a million dollars," she says. Good grief.

Well, that's the one little mistake I made in my article. She's right. The California billionaire sent a million dollars to the Marsy's Law Committee, not to Wrigley. Never mind that Wrigley is chairman of the Marsy's Law Committee. There's a difference. I guess. Sorry for the mistake.

In her letter, Wrigley said my column about her and the California billionaire who is financing her Marsy's Law campaign was "breathtaking in its falsehoods."


Except that it wasn't. Other than the mistake about who got the check (maybe that took her breath away, but I doubt it affected very many others that way), everything in the column was truthful. Heck, I hardly wrote about Marsy's Law. I wrote about the drug and sex scandals of the billionaire who's financing her campaign. That's way more fun than writing about some boring constitutional amendment.

Mostly, I just reported what others had already written and said about the scandalous Nicholas. Dang, there was hardly an original thought in there. I wrote it because we've not seen his like in North Dakota before, and I thought voters ought to know who was providing the money to fund the effort to change our constitution.

Finally, Wrigley calls me an opponent of her measure. I'm not sure where that came from, because, as I said, I hardly wrote about it and certainly did not take a position on it. I even wrote that I signed her petition. And boy, am I getting a lot of grief about that.

Jim Fuglie


Fuglie, a former North Dakota tourism director, blogs at

What To Read Next
Get Local