Dana Ferguson over at the Argus Leader was looking at campaign finance reports, and noticed that Democrat Candidate Clara Hart recieved a massive $81k influx of money because Bernie Sanders talked nice about her:

Hart’s campaign finance reports show that she brought in $81,405.20 since the last filing in late May.

Read it here.

Well, good for her. 81K is a massive influx of cash that should give anyone the ability to assume a commanding lead. So, what did she do with it? After spreading it to some of her fellow dems..

…then, it got odd….

$14K in advertising is pretty normal.   But $3,047 in credit card fees? How does a political candidate rack up $3000 in credit card fees?  Is that even possible? Then, $2,031 on travel around Sioux Falls? And here’s the kicker – $22,537 spent on consulting for a South Dakota State Legislative race?

Seriously? She spent as much on consulting as she did on advertising, postage and printing PUT TOGETHER?

I don’t know about you, but having been around the block a time or two, something smells a bit fishy wth this campaign finance report.

A reader noticed something interesting about the Amendment V ad.

Isn’t it a little ironic that the “republicans,” independents and democrats in the new YES on V ad are willing to provide transparency of their affiliation on an ad, but too ashamed to list that on a ballot?

Indeed.

From the Mitchell Daily Republic, the Out-of-Staters are throwing more cash into another South Dakota’s Ballot Measure; this time Amendment V:

Vote Yes on Amendment V received a total cash income of $1,140,684.71, according to the disclosure statement, and No on Amendment V received $100,623.

and…

Two of Vote Yes on V’s four largest individual committee contributors come from out-of-state, including $117,916.71 from Boston resident Vincent Ryan and $12,500 from Manhattan Beach, California resident William Bloomfield. Vote Yes on V also reported a direct contribution of $820,448 from New York-based Open Primaries and $55,487.86 from the same organization from in-kind contributions — which are goods or services provided at no charge.

and…

“Amendment V is an anti-transparent, out-of-state plan that is wrong for South Dakota,” Mortenson wrote Friday. “The Yes on V campaign hides the source of its money just like Amendment V would hide party labels from voters.”

Read it here.

Speaking of that Initiated 22 measure that’s being promoted by out of staters…

Defeat 22 TV Ad Reminds Voters That IM 22 Is Pushed by Mass. Special Interests

Statewide Ad: “They say it’s about ethics and transparency, but it’s really just a scheme to use our tax dollars to get politicians elected”

SIOUX FALLS – The Defeat 22 coalition today released a television ad urging South Dakotans to vote no on Measure 22. The ad, which runs statewide on broadcast and cable stations, points out that Measure 22 will create taxpayer-funded campaigns. The ad also highlights that the proposal is being led by a Massachusetts special interest group.

“People in Massachusetts shouldn’t be telling South Dakotans how to spend their tax dollars,” said Defeat 22 chairman Ben Lee. “We know what’s best for our state, and using our hard-earned tax dollars to get politicians elected certainly doesn’t fit the bill. Our TV ad gives South Dakotans the facts about who is pushing Measure 22 and what it will do with their tax dollars.”

Tom Helland, Board Chair for new Defeat 22 coalition member Rapid City Chamber of Commerce, adds: “This television ad highlights why we are proud to join the Defeat22 coalition. Our tax dollars should be spent on infrastructure and other essential services, not to publicly fund political campaigns. We are encouraging our members to vote No on Measure 22.”

Defeat 22 is a coalition of over 20 South Dakota businesses, charities, political leaders and organizations who agree that tax dollars shouldn’t fund political campaigns. The coalition has led a robust grassroots effort of door knocking and phone banking to educate South Dakotans about the measure and urge them to vote no. They have released multiple radio ads and multiple mailers to supplement the grassroots effort. All details about the coalition-led effort can be seen at www.defeat22.com.

Slick Rick Weiland’s front group for his public campaign finance scheme filed their campaign finance form this past week. And it contains some VERY interesting information.

Did you know that the donor list for this group contains nearly NO South Dakotans? They provided it, down to donations of $1. And out of 103 pages of donors, I counted 17 citizens from SD. 

Even more surprising… out of the $1,297,091.97 raised, do you know how much came out of South Dakota? $718 or  .055%.

Yes. 55 Thousandths of a percent of their funding came from South Dakota.

Committee Chairman Don Frankenfeld was only in for $100. But, the big South Dakota donor was Committee spokesman Darrell Solberg who wrote a check for $300.

Of course, Don and Darrell left the heavy lifting to people such as Henry Pincus of NY who was in for $75K. And neither Don nor Darrell could keep pace with people like Jeffrey and Katherine Abrams of Beverly Hills, who were in for $100k. Jonathan Soros of NY, NY pitched in $25k. Mark Gallogly & Lisa Strickler living on Central Park West in NYC were in for $100K. Sean Eldridge of Garrison, NY was the biggest individual donor at an incredible $275,000.

And as we’ve grown to expect, the out of state group RepresentUs was the big donor at $633,383.20.

But, South Dakotans did donate $713. Including a $3 donation from a woman in “Fart Pierre.” If they can’t even spell that right, you can’t help but have doubt raised as to how “South Dakota” this group is. And we have to keep reminding ourselves that the group is supposedly called “South Dakotans for Integrity.”  Instead of “Almost NO South Dakotans for Integrity.”

And if you doubt one word of what I have to say? Please. I invite you to read it all for yourself below. In Black and White. 

Almost No South Dakotans for Integrity by Pat Powers on Scribd

This was recently left in a comment on my website, and offers a unique view from a Californian who – living under a similar system – believes Amendment V would create the worst election system in the nation.

He notes it sets up both incumbents and rich people to dominate elections in the state.

Take a few minutes and check it out.

I’ve had multiple reports from Aberdeen starting yesterday over Nikki Bootz, Democrat House Legislative Candidate for District 3, regarding her campaign finance report.

If you recall, Bootz is the candidate who earlier found her theater class for Northern State University a little too challenging, and expressed her dislike of the institution in a rather profane manner (pardon the language, it’s her’s not mine.):

Now it looks like Bootz should have paid more attention in Math Class as well.

According to the Campaign Finance Disclosure Statement for The Brown County Democrats, they handed Bootz a check for $500.  But if you look at her campaign finance report….

In fact, if you look at her complete Campaign Finance Report, according to Bootz, she raised nothing, and spent nothing.

Bootz Sdcfdisclosure by Pat Powers on Scribd

So, if that’s the case, who paid for her $25.00 T-Shirts back in July?And what about her “ActBlue” Donation(s)?

If I’m reading it correctly, there appears to be at least $600 in donations that are missing from the report as in addition to any expenditures. Doesn’t she have ads or yard signs?

Given her track record, I have a suspicion that Bootz’s next tweet might be #F_CampaignFinanceReporting!

Something This Broken Cannot Be Repaired
By Sen. John Thune 

When I’m home in South Dakota, I spend a lot of my time traveling the state to hear from farmers, ranchers, small business owners, and moms and dads about the issues important to them. It’s the best way to cut through the noise and hear directly from the people who are impacted by the decisions made in Washington, D.C. I frequently hear about the mountains of federal regulations that are stifling growth for businesses and private landowners and how the government’s out-of-control spending is saddling the next generation of Americans with unsustainable debt. And almost without fail, I hear about the federal government’s takeover of the nation’s health care system and the financial strain it’s creating. 

Obamacare is broken, plain and simple. I understand how difficult it is for Democrats to concede that point since they consider it one of their top accomplishments, but pretending that it isn’t broken will only cause more pain for the American people in the future. Objectively speaking, it just didn’t work. Democrats said it would lower costs, but premiums and deductibles are skyrocketing. Democrats promised that all Americans could keep their existing health care plans and doctors, but that wasn’t true either. Obamacare had lofty goals, but Democrats overpromised and underdelivered, and the American people have been left holding the bag.  

Democrats are quick to point out that millions more Americans are insured today than before Obamacare was signed into law – the result, in part, of a law that forced law-abiding Americans to purchase a product, whether they wanted it or not. Democrats conveniently forget to mention the nearly 30 million Americans who remain uninsured and the millions who lost the doctors and coverage they enjoyed before Obamacare became the law of the land. Today, some Democrats are slowly starting to admit Obamacare’s failures, primarily because the facts can no longer be ignored.

In a brief moment of candor, former President Bill Clinton recently called Obamacare the “craziest thing in the world.” Many South Dakotans would agree. And the Obama administration recently conceded that Obamacare premiums would rise by an average of 25 percent in 39 states across the country next year. Here in South Dakota, premiums will rise by 37 percent, according to a study by Congress’ Joint Economic Committee. That’s the eighth highest premium increase in the United States. South Dakotans can’t afford such an extreme hike in costs. 

The version of Obamacare that Democrats dreamt about seven years ago is just that, a dream that’s unrecognizable to the American people today. Obamacare is the perfect case study in what happens when one political party ignores the other and implements a big-government takeover of a large portion of the U.S. economy. It didn’t work, and something this broken cannot simply be repaired. The sooner my Democrat colleagues admit it, the sooner the two parties and a new president can get to work on policies that actually fulfill the needs of the American people by lowering costs and increasing access to care. 

###

The (Un)Affordable Care Act
By Senator Mike Rounds

The skyrocketing cost of healthcare has made the Affordable Care Act (ACA) unaffordable for many Americans. The Department of Health and Human Services recently announced that in 2017, premiums will rise an average of 25 percent for those covered on plans under the ACA. South Dakotans have it even worse: those of us covered under the ACA will see insurance rates increase by nearly 37 percent, according to Congress’ Joint Economic Committee.

The ACA was intended to provide all Americans with quality, low-cost healthcare but instead it has had the opposite effect. More and more insurers are declining to participate in the exchange, leaving consumers with few options ahead of this fall’s open enrollment period. Despite the growing problems surrounding the ACA, the president continues to maintain that the law has been a success. The hundreds of South Dakotans who call my office telling me that they have to choose between paying outrageous rates or pay a fine to forgo healthcare coverage all together—just so they can afford to pay their mortgage—would probably disagree.

I have repeatedly called for the ACA to be repealed and replaced with a patient-centered, market-based plan that is truly affordable for all Americans. This can be achieved by enacting transparent, step-by-step reforms. I support common-sense initiatives, like expanding Health Savings Accounts and creating pools, such as the Multiple Employers Welfare Trust, in which small businesses can unite to secure better rates. The worst parts of the ACA, such as the employer mandate, individual mandate and the Independent Payment Advisory Board, should not be included in a replacement plan. 

We can cut costs by reforming medical liability laws as well. Our current system encourages frivolous lawsuits which come at a high cost to doctors, taxpayers and truly injured patients who deserve timely compensation. Lastly, we must hold insurance companies more accountable by increasing transparency, standardizing paperwork and helping those with pre-existing conditions maintain access to care. 

We’ve long suspected that the ACA would eventually crumble under its own weight, and now that is exactly what is happening. Americans can no longer afford to abide by this costly law. I will continue working with my colleagues in Congress to replace the ACA with a plan that is effective and affordable for all Americans. 

###