KSFY covering out-of-state cash being dumped into Amendment V race

From KSFY comes another story of the out-of-state money from liberal donors flowing in to rewrite South Dakota’s Constitution and election laws.

With polls showing a tight race, and time running out to reach undecided voters, the Republican Party is stepping up efforts to oppose Amendment V.

The GOP is contributing 70,000 dollars to the ‘Vote No on V’ effort.

And…

Ads are being paid for by huge campaign donations that Republicans say are coming mostly from out-of-state donors.

“It is truly being pushed by out-of-state groups trying to change the way that we do things here in South Dakota,” Republican Party executive director Ryan Budmayr stated.

The New York based group Open Primaries has donated more than $800,000 to the effort.

Read it all here, and make sure you tell all your friends to vote against this awful measure.

26 thoughts on “KSFY covering out-of-state cash being dumped into Amendment V race

  1. Anonymous

    So anyone know where a Republican operative got $1.2 million to experiment with Marsy’s Law in SD?

    Oh that’s right…California. Interesting that we don’t hear people crying about that…

    1. Anonymous

      then you are not listening…S is a solid NO also…..

      I am against all these ballot measures funded by out of out of state people telling people in SD what is right

      NO on S, V, 22 and 23!

  2. HHG

    Rick Weiland is a complete phony. He can never show his ugly mug again and whine about “dark money from out of state.” He’s getting rich off if it!

    1. Anonymous

      He is like a bad penny no matter how many times he loses he won’t go away.

      Let us all get together and beat his 3 measures —T, V and 22 are all solid NO!

  3. Anonymous

    I am glad this is getting some coverage…no one likes being told what to do…especially by out of staters…

    NO on V

    1. Anonymous

      Rick Weiland likes being told what to do by his socialist, out-of-state pals. If he likes other state’s crappy, anti-American environments, why doesn’t he move the heck out of South Dakota! Would ANYONE miss him?

  4. Anonymous

    Republicans complaining about out-of-state money is just laughably hypocritical and childish when you look at the wallets of this state’s U.S. Congressional delegation. Look at the plank in your own eyes.

    1. Anonymous

      Yeah… No complaints from the defeat 22 campaign… Funny thing is that the joke of a presidential candidate will be the death of the republican party. Not to speak of the fact that Will Mortenson, Thune, and the republican leadership all knew that the polls showed V was going to win in a huge margin, something like 65%.

    1. Anonymous

      Amendment V is clearly opposed because the establishment politicians are threatened by competitive elections. Vote yes on V!!!! It would be nice if people here applied their principals of the marketplace uniformly.

  5. Anonymous

    Looks like liberal’s came to spin v here…latest poll said it was losing ground…did you here kbobbe today he was like get Mr pollster don’t be telling voters about how we are removing party labels focus on independents like we are
    …we arent telling them how we are limiting choice and information….

    No on V

    1. Anonymous

      You are clearly someone who lacks critical thinking skills. Limiting choice and information… I will try to break this down like a kindergarten teacher for you.

      Limiting Choice: This has been proven to actually encourage more people to run for office which expands choice. South Dakota as some of the least competitive elections in the county… which means less choice. Amendment V would mean more choice. This actually would be GOOD for conservative republicans in this state, but somehow the you people cannot fathom the idea. If two candidates who THE PEOPLE choose, move on to the general election … then that is the choice only chosen by the people.

      Limiting Information: Do you really think a (R) or (D) gives you information? If so then you need to see a therapist because your living in an alternate reality. By taking the control, which means taking the private labels off the ballot, away from the parties it actually makes our politicians more accountable to who…? YOU They don’t have to respond to a party whip,boss,minority/majority leader but only to the voters that elected them.

      Here is a riddle….

      What does a Republican fear most in SD?

      (Amendment V Passing) because they might actually have to run against another republican.

      1. Dave R

        Democrats want to choose the worst Republican because they can’t find candidates that voters are willing to elect.

        This would hurt Conservatives who would see more liberal candidates winning the Primary. V would shut Independents completely out.

        1. Anonymous

          Dave R, Refer to my previous comment. You seem to lack the ability to grasp the system. This actually would do nothing then let the voters completely choose their candidates. If the voters want conservatives then thats what they will get, if the voters want liberals…. that too is what they will get.

          You need to lay off the conspiracy theories and just think about it objectively. Do you disagree with the voters having complete control?

          1. Anonymous

            No we all grasp it very well…..does it limit chocie to only 2 ABSOLUTELY it does…Why bc liberals want to play games to get elected as they can’t win under the current rules….END OF STORY.

            BUT show me ONE AD where they even discuss how it limits it to top 2…there isn’t one as Pro V people are trying to ONLY talk about Independents int he primary…and slide the other stuff through…..

            It is not a conspiracy theory when they are running fake candidates in other states to dilute the votes already….and here it would be even easier with no party labels…..Joe Smith and Joseph Smith

            The people wanted liberals in WA 52% voted for them, bu the 48% minority republicans prevailed. How in the hell is that democracy!

            NO on V

    2. Anonymous

      Are you drunk.. or just lack an education. Maybe if we were not last in the nation in teacher pay you might be able to grasp the english language.

    3. Anonymous

      Who is limiting choice and information. This expands choice by letting everyone vote for whoever they want. This expands information by making our candidates rely on their ideas and not a letter next to their name.

      I can see how you like say “liberals are pushing this” but think about it. Don’t you think that more competitive elections would give us better politicians and policy makers? If that principle applies in the economic marketplace then why would it not apply in the political marketplace?

      1. Anonymous

        Liberals are pushing this..the so called republicans int he commercials…who tell us that,. even though they don’t want it on party labels are all liberals also.

        As for economics…why not MORE COMPETITION not less…under current system we can have 4 + candidates to choose from under V limited to only 2.

        If I was in California I wouldn’t have ANYONE to vote for with 2 far left liberals as the only choice….

        NEVER ON V!

  6. Anonymous

    Lets make America Great again… like when it was only great to be white, male, christian and straight!