In my Sunday Argus this morning (which I get for the full week of online access, as well as the Sunday ad inserts, since the ads generally out number news) this full page advertisement appeared attacking newly elected Senate Majority Leader Blake Curd.
The ad appears to come from out-of-state group Represent.us, the same one who spent millions to promote the ultimately unconstitutional Initiated Measure 22.
If you recall, initiated measure 22 was submitted to the voters after sponsors were warned that portions may be unconstitutional in the initial drafting review stages done by the Legislative Research Council. Ignoring that, out of state sponsors spent well over $1 million on a campaign which ignored portions of the measure objectionable to the public, and focused on unfounded claims that lobbyist were buying off state officials.
The measure nearly passed, but was quickly challenged in court, and enjoined by South Dakota courts for – guess what? – being unconstitutional. Who would’ve imagined that, after they were warned about it the first place?
Legislators have promised to roll back the unconstitutional measure, but to retain some form of ethics commission, since that is what the voters thought they were getting in the first place.
But that’s not good enough for the sponsors of the unconstitutional measure. So, the out-of-state liberal group is once again opening up their pocketbook, and pressuring legislators to keep the portions that they just lost in court on.
I’m sure there will be more drama to come.
Woah this is a major violation of the state constitution. What will the legislator do about this!! Thank you for pointing out this issue of an elected official entering into contracts with the state.
Wow. $100,000 in three years? That might actually mean as many as three state employees went there for orthopedic injuries. Maybe even work-related injuries. Absolutely shocking.
Actually, they sent a post card concerning this info out to South Dakotans, too, this past weekend. A Republican acquaintance of mine got one. And the sponsor of the ad and the post card is Represent.Us/SD. Its website is http://www.Represent.Us/SD and when you go to their site you will learn that this organization is made up of people from the left and right, who together are working to fight corruption in government.
So this is not just an “out–of-state liberal group,” rather it is also an “out-of-state” conservative group with individuals from the Bush43 administration, the business community, and even “Tea Party” activists. Just check out their “About Us” tab to learn more as I did when I found out about the post card, so that I would not jump to conclusions….
The fact that there are some Republicans who support Represent Us does not mean that it is a conservative organization or even that it has a significant number of conservatives or even a single conservative who support or supports it. The blogger formerly known as winston is either gullible or a liar.
How could I be a “liar” when I told you my source? And how could I be “gullible” when there are multiple conservatives involved based on that source.
Also, I can’t help but notice that on the most recent post concerning this group on this blog site, that the reference to this group has changed from an “out-of-state- liberal group” to “out-of-state backers…..”
Someone who repeats information that he knows is false is a liar. It does not matter whether or not he cites a source for it. Someone who believes a single word stated by Represent Us is gullible. Its people can claim that they are conservatives, but that does not make them so.
How is the listing of “Tea Party” activist involved in a group a lie? Or do you merely live in Orange’s Twitter world where the truth is what you claim it is and not what the facts substantiate.
Your comments are assertions but not facts and for an audience you are totally dependent upon “gullible” and willing listeners to find favor….
Oh, and why would not good conservatives be against corruption in government, too? This concept is not mutually exclusive to liberals is it?
It’s going to be a show down. I hope republicans will pass an ethics commission. IM 22 was a bad law that should be repealed.
I hope the Democrats in Pierre enjoy stuffing their face with free donuts and hot dogs every day as they whine about “ethics” from their Nesiba led caucusing room.
All Nesiba did was “Trump a constituent.”
Like IM 22 or not, this ad does point out what shouldn’t be going on since it’s UnConstitutional, elected (or appointed) officials entering into private contracts with the State !
IM22 passed. In its current form, it’s unconstitutional. Pass something similar and get these dark money goons out of our state.
Wasn’t IM 22 only about campaign finance? This ethics commission that they keep talking about doesn’t deal with ALL of state government only CAMPAIGN FINANCE. RIGHT?
I feel like they are really misleading people. IM 22’s Ethics commission was only campaign finance.
Curd should be booted by Jackley just like Barnett did with Pitts if he did something wrong.
Marty Capone has said he supports an ethics commission.
Blake Curd is one of the sharpest conservative minds in the SD Legislature and Military trained. I would not cross his Red Line ever!
Please elaborate on the “Red Line” comment, or is that merely a Republican euphemism for the GOP’s new found coziness with Putin, a former KGB agent?
not surprised a liberal does not understand the drawing of a red line….President Obama didn’t either in Syria…..
So when are you enlisting to fight in the continual war brought on by the Bush Doctrine…..The doctrine which keeps on giving or should I say killing……
Winston having obviously never raised children asks, “What the heck is a Red Line?”
The obviously answer is written below in Obama’s own words:
What and where?
if its unconstitutional why does it have to be repealed?
It is only an injunction…the case is still active
Remember, folks – both sides of the IM 22 debate were funded almost exclusively by out-of-state groups, as I reported last August: https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2016/08/18/prairie-playground-for-special-interests-to-test-campaign-finance-initiative/.
I haven’t searched for the final campaign reports to see how the financing ended up.
Since my reporter’s “beat” is the nonprofit sector, I’m noticing the increased use of charities – 501(c)(3) nonprofits – to fund political advocacy and campaigns of social welfare organizations – 501(c)(4) nonprofits, as represent.us did in support of IM 22. One key difference between charities and social welfare organizations is that contributions to charities are tax deductible, where contributions to social welfare organizations are not deductible.
Thanks for the link. Koch Brothers versus the Rockefeller Brothers, very interesting.