Release: South Dakotans Continue to Support Dusty

South Dakotans Continue to Support Dusty

Republican Candidate Received over 1,000 Separate Donations in Q3

Mitchell – Today, Dusty Johnson announced that his campaign had received over one thousand (1,000) separate donations in the third quarter of this year for a total of more than $540,000.

“I’m incredibly thankful to have such broad support from South Dakotans,” said Dusty Johnson.  “The energy and enthusiasm for a positive, policy-focused campaign has been incredible. The sheer number of donations we’ve received is a testament to that excitement.”

Since July 1st, Johnson’s campaign has received 1,065 donations for a total of $543,000. Over 90% of donations came from South Dakotans.  Dusty received the “Most Local Candidate Award” from news outlet Axios, which is given to the U.S. House candidate who received the lowest portion of donations from outside the district. Support of small dollar donors continues to be a huge part of Dusty’s campaign.  In the third quarter, 510 people gave donations of $200 or less to Johnson’s campaign.

“Dusty has more South Dakota support than any candidate in this race,” said Will Mortenson, Johnson’s Campaign Manager.  “South Dakotans are tired of the anger and the dysfunction. This is just another sign that Dusty’s hard work and positive message is connecting with voters.”

Dusty Johnson is a Republican businessman running for U.S. Congress to rein in federal spending, combat DC dysfunction, and return power to families, businesses, communities and states.  He is a former South Dakota Public Utilities Commissioner and former Chief of Staff to Governor Daugaard.  Dusty is a husband, a father of three boys and Vice President of a private sector engineering and consulting firm based in Mitchell.


Board of Regents reply to Rep. Qualm on Campus Free Speech

After observing incidents squelching of free speech on South Dakota campuses, South Dakota free speech advocates have been adamant that the violence and suffocation of free speech that has taken place in Berkeley and other places won’t be allowed to happen here.

If you recall, GOP House Majority Leader Lee Qualm sent the Board of Regents a letter with some pretty specific questions.

And now the Regents have responded:

Board of Regents Reply to Qualm by Pat Powers on Scribd

Tonight’s AG forum on Public Broadcasting: While Seiler rambled, Ravnsborg rolled over him.

My daughter sent me a note asking if I was watching the debate tonight, so I had to switch the channel and check it out.  I’m glad I did. It was good show. But not for Democrats. If you happened to catch it, you were left with no doubt who our next AG will be.

Jason Ravnsborg wiped the floor with Randy Seiler. It was a definite win.

Of course, there were highs and lows for both candidates. It was a bit of a slow start. And both candidates could have had a better close. But in the middle – after they got warmed up – Seiler seemed to solely spend his time falling back on that “he had more experience.” And that challenge was met in  the breadth of Jason’s command of the issues. And you got to watch him land some solid hits on his opponent.

But I have more experience…

While Seiler kept talking about how we needed more time to work the bugs out of SB 70, the often maligned criminal reform measure, Ravnsborg roasted him with statements such as if Seiler “knew any Sheriffs or State’s Attorneys who liked Senate Bill 70, to have them give him a call, because he hasn’t talked with them yet.”

And Ravnsborg got to note that a majority of Sheriffs, as well as 30 State’s Attorneys are actively supporting him.

After Seiler spoke about the need to address “corruption” and how he would take another look at cases, Ravnsborg AGAIN roasted him, with Seiler becoming visibly flustered, as Jason pointed out that as US Attorney during EB-5 and Gear up, Seiler brought NO federal charges in the issues. And Ravnsborg further noted that the charges brought and being prosecuted are being done so by the current Attorney General, Marty Jackley.

While Seiler spoke yet again about the need to work the bugs out of Senate Bill 70, and that “SB70 is not a problem,” Ravnsborg fired back again noting that we’ve already had five years of it, questioned how much more time we needed. Ravnsborg also talked about the need to remove presumptive probation, the effect of SB 70 on the counties, AND he brought up how Senate Bill 63 was not having the intended effects for juveniles as well.

During the entirety of the debate, as Seiler kept falling back on that he had more experience, Ravnsborg took the opportunity to concur, and point out the fact that for all of his experience, Seiler was not bringing any ideas.

I suspect that this forum was not at all what Randy Seiler was expecting, or was prepared for. Because Ravnsborg met and answered nearly challenge.

While Seiler rambled about all of his experience, Ravnsborg rolled over him with a breadth of knowledge, and a wealth of ideas. This was a definite win for Ravnsborg. And I suspect not what Seiler was expecting.

Adelstein who currently runs 3 PAC’s, sends letter from his PAC criticizing Kristi Noem for taking PAC money.

Interesting. Stan Adelstein, who is continuing his streak of supporting Democrats for Governor, sent out a letter  critical of Republican candidate for Governor Kristi Noem for taking PAC money:

But in an amazing lack of self-awareness, the letter complaining about PACs….is coming from a PAC:

And it’s coming from a man who currently funds 3 political action committees which he funnels money through (A Better South Dakota PAC, All South Dakota PAC, and now the Stan for Billie PAC). And he’s notoriously been the primary source of income for other PAC’s in the past.

In fact, Adelstein’s name is so associated with PAC’s that the mainstream media have written about it…

Like many candidates, Duniphan put a substantial amount of her own money into her campaign, providing $4,800 to it. But of the $14,925 of direct contributions from supporters this year, she received $9,000 from two political action committees that are self-financed by Sen. Stan Adelstein, R-Rapid City.


This activity is nothing new for Adelstein. He’s established many PACs through the years, routing money to candidates and other PACs and causes. He’s been the pioneer in what might be called personal or boutique PACs.

Read that here from 2010.

Many years ago now, we’d taken to referring to him with the nickname “PACaStan,” for his affinity to using personal PACs to go around campaign finance limits.

So, why does Adelstein have such a beef with Kristi Noem?  I suspect it goes back to when she first ran for office.  Back in 2006, Kristi was a new candidate for office, and a PAC funded by Stan Adelstein (or should I say an Adelstein funded PAC which funded a second PAC) named “Rapid City Action Committee” was supporting Rapid City candidates… and candidates from outside Rapid City:

Why did the PAC send Kristi money?  There was a radio program in Watertown shortly thereafter (June 6, 2006) where Adelstein called in, and PAC-splained, as I reported back when:

I’ve gotten a couple reports from the field this morning that State Senator Stan Adelstein didn’t take too kindly to being cast as the villan on KWAT’s What’s Up Program yesterday in Watertown. So this morning, The Adelstein Struck Back after yesterday’s installment of Stan Wars.

One listener e-mailed me and noted:

I was listening to the local news- top of the hour I caught the tail end of a story about Adelstein/Shoenbeck and the PAC money thing. It had Adelstein on the story talking very hot about his right to give money to people who would be his vision of a Republican, doing things the way he wants the Republican party to be (not infusing religious doctrine and forcing women to do things – or something like that, I’m paraphrasing much of this). He sounded very hot and not happy with Lee.

Another listener chimed in and also noted:

He also – in the same interview – criticizes “one church” trying to enact its theology in law.

So, in one interview, it appears that Senator Adelstein manages to confirm that:

  • Everything that Senator Schoenbeck said appeared to be true about him funding races in the district.
  • He’s spending his money on those that fit his vision of being a Republican.
  • He wants them to do things to promote the way he wants the Republican party to be.
  • To the casual listener, he seemed angry about the whole thing.
  • And he was said to throw in a little religious criticism of a church for good measure.

Read that over at SDWC Classic.

So, Adelstein was sending checks around and was demanding that these candidates do things the way he wants the Republican party to be.   But, if you look at the difference between Kristi’s record, and Adelstein’s record, she didn’t.

In fact, her record could probably be called the antithesis of Adelstein’s record.

And here we are 12 years later. The person who didn’t follow his agenda & do what he wanted is set to become South Dakota’s next Governor.  So, what’s the person who Bob Mercer referred to as “the pioneer in …. personal or boutique PACs” to do when faced with the person who didn’t do what he wanted?  Form yet another PAC, and spend his money & run against her.

Of course, the problem for Adelstein attacking her over PAC money now, and questioning “what will these PACs.. expect to receive for their donations,”  he can answer that question for himself from pure experience.

What can PACs expect to receive from Kristi for their donations?  Not a damn thing.

And that might explain why he’s back PACing once again.

“Fact Check Gnomes” activated against “False allegations being spread by Billie Sutton’s Campaign”

This clever concept grabbed my attention, because it’s a novel way to make people open their e-mail in a season when people’s e-mail boxes are inundated by political mail.

The Kristi for Governor campaign has started sending out e-mails coming from the “Fact Check gnomes” correcting claims being made by the Sutton campaign for Governor:

It’s cute enough to get people to open it. And that’s most of the battle.

(I also enjoyed the part where they noted Dakota Free Press is “an extreme, left-wing outlet,” which I think most people knew already.)

Release: Next governor to appoint two Supreme Court Justices; South Dakota needs a consistent, pro-life governor to make appointments

Next governor to appoint two Supreme Court Justices; South Dakota needs a consistent, pro-life governor to make appointments

Rapid City, SD–October 11, 2018: The next governor of South Dakota will appoint two new Supreme Court Justices.  Due to mandatory retirement laws, two South Dakota Supreme Court Justices, including the Chief Justice, will be required to retire during the next governor’s first term in office.

Now–more than ever–it is important that principled justices are appointed to our highest courts who will consistently recognize the right to life of all people, including the unborn.  To ensure these principled justices are appointed, South Dakota needs a consistent, pro-life governor.

With Justice Kavanaugh now on the U.S. Supreme Court, South Dakota Right to Life is increasingly hopeful that Roe v. Wade will be overturned and states will again be given authority to prohibit abortions. When that happens, South Dakota needs a state Supreme Court that will recognize the humanity of the unborn and uphold protections of all life.

South Dakota gubernatorial elections have real consequences.  Unlike nominations for U.S. Supreme Court justices, South Dakota has no Senate confirmation procedure.  Whoever the governor appoints will sit on the Supreme Court. When the lives of innocent children hang in the balance, South Dakota cannot take a chance on a candidate who is not consistently pro-life.

That’s why South Dakota Right to Life PAC reaffirms its endorsement of Kristi Noem for Governor and emphasizes how important it is that Kristi Noem chooses our next two Supreme Court Justices.  Because of Kristi Noem’s consistent, 100% pro-life record, South Dakota Right to Life is optimistic that she will choose new justices who will uphold state and federal constitutional principles that recognize the rights of all human life.