DC Media Company drops 12K on ad buy for Represent South Dakota. Which is actually funded by out of staters.

sd-represents-order-47285-20181001-160617275-pdf by Pat Powers on Scribd

A Washington DC Democrat Media Company, Canal Partners Media, just dropped 12K on an ad buy on KDLT for Represent South Dakota, likely for advertisements on Amendment W.

Why do they need to run commercials to convince people to vote for Amendment W? Because they’re trying to convince people it’s in their best interest to give a ridiculous amount of power to an unelected, and unaccountable board.

As noted by the W is Wrong Committee:

This inquisitional board will have authority over all “non-federal elected officials” starting with the Governor and ending with members of road districts and irrigation districts and political precinct chairmen and chairwomen.  The reach of the new board includes every public employee working for state, county and local governments including townships.

Read that here.

Amendment W creates a non-elected, seven member tribunal, with two appointed by the Supreme Court, two appointed by the Governor and those four choosing three others. This group will have unchecked power to create rules that could require disclosure of tax returns for every elected official and public employee including teachers and law enforcement.

As noted here, the proponents of Amendment W claim to be a South Dakota group calling themselves “Represent South Dakota,” but, financial reports from 2017 and from this year’s pre-primary report prove that the effort has been 100% funded by a Massachusetts organization known as “Represent US”.

In case you were wondering who is paying for all that TV time.

9 Replies to “DC Media Company drops 12K on ad buy for Represent South Dakota. Which is actually funded by out of staters.”

  1. Michael L. Wyland

    The past performance of Represent.us is even more interesting. See: “Prairie Playground for Special Interests to Test Campaign Finance Initiative” – https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2016/08/18/prairie-playground-for-special-interests-to-test-campaign-finance-initiative/

    In the 2016 election cycle, the 501(c)(4) represent.us got its funding from the represent.us 501(c)(3) represent.us, which received *its* funding from major charitable foundations including Rockefeller and Hewlett. So large charities (and their tax deductible charitable assets) were funding ballot initiative campaigns in South Dakota.

    Reply
  2. Anonymous

    “DC”, “Democrat”, “Media Company”. Any more reasons you need to vote note on this. This Represent US group is a bunch of leftwing loons; if you love South Dakota and the country, don’t vote for anything they support. It’s similar to not voting for someone who supported Hillary Clinton-that tells you all you need to know about them (Sutton).

    Reply
  3. Anonymous

    Amendment W is a symptom of the real problem which is legislators inability to do their jobs and hold people accountable. Pass laws that would protect the taxpayers and their dollars instead of sitting back while people steal from us and get a slap on the wrist. You don’t want this crap? Do your job!

    Reply
    1. Annon

      You realize that both of the programs that the Dems are using for their poster children are federal programs right? It’s laughable to watch Billies ad condemning the legislature for EB5 and Gear up When he has been a member for years and has never sponsored one bill that had any bearing on “corruption” inspite of what his ad states. Think I’m wrong? Look it up. I challenge you to give me one bill number of any bill Sutton introduced that had anything to do with this.

      While your at it, give me a bill number of any bill that he has sponsored in 8 years that amounted to a hill of beans. It’s one thing to try and fail. It’s much worse to never even try at all.

      Reply
      1. Michael L. Wyland

        As a member of the Government Operations and Audit Committee (GOAC), in 2017 Billie proposed a one-page bill to the committee that would mandate state agencies to retain records for a minimum of ten (10) years. Current practice is for each state agency to set its own records retention policy, apparently without legislative guidance.

        His proposal was not adopted by GOAC, so he introduced it as SB 133. It failed in the SD Senate on a 11-24 vote.

        Other accountability/disclosure bills for which he was a prime sponsor in 2018 were HB1100, HB1182, SB129, and SB 192.

        Reply
  4. duggersd

    I often listen to a radio station out of Fargo. It sounds like there is a similar proposal in ND as well. They also point out it is a bunch of out of staters trying to bring civilization to ND.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.