Shantel Krebs for Congress files 2nd Quarter FEC report: $48.8k Raised, $187.4k Spent, $85.7k left in account over after loss

Shantel Krebs for Congress files her after-primary report in the abbreviated reporting 2nd quarter reporting period for 5/17/18 through 6/30/18.

Shantel Krebs 2018 Q2 FEC Report by Pat Powers on Scribd

What are we seeing? Numbers both telling and interesting. During this period, while her opponent raised over $122,000, Shantel raised $48,835, which at least on the surface shows that during the last month of the primary, Dusty had the wind in his sails, and her support had waned.

Krebs spent $187,442 in comparison to Dusty Johnson’s $275,000 during the same period. Krebs’ balance of $85,727 left in the campaign account after her loss to Johnson seems to indicate some of what I’d been noting, and had pointed out to me in terms of her donations; that her high dollar donors were maxing out for both the primary and the general.

What does that mean? That the general election donations couldn’t be spent on the primary. And with the loss, over eighty-five thousand dollars remain in her account.

It will be interesting to see what that big pot of cash eventually goes towards.

GOP Weekly Update: Democrats experienced a catastrophic failure at being a political party this week

The Chairman’s Letter
By Dan Lederman, Chairman, South Dakota Republican Party
For the week ending July 13, 2018

Do you remember playing baseball or softball as a kid? Every once in a while, there might be a summer flu outbreak and you’d show up ready to play, but the other team couldn’t take the field because they didn’t have a full roster, and had to forfeit. No one blamed the team who was there on time and ready to compete.

In South Dakota, Politics are similar to a ball game, except when Republicans show up ready to compete, and the Democrats can’t take the field, they claim the system is rigged, or someone is corrupt, or the system is broken because they couldn’t take the field. That’s not correct in baseball. And it’s absolutely not correct in politics.

The latest example of it? When South Dakota Democrats failed to follow state law, and because they didn’t turn in their convention results in on time, the Secretary of State had to remove seven of their nine candidates for statewide office from the ballot. Now Democrats have to hold a new convention in August.

Their candidates for Lt. Governor, Attorney General, Secretary of State, State Auditor, State Treasurer, Commissioner of School & Public Lands and Public Utility Commissioner were removed from the ballot because South Dakota Democrats couldn’t follow state laws that have been in place and unchanged for decades.

Democrats are using every excuse in the book as to why they don’t have candidates on the ballot. ‘It was the post office,’ they are trying to say. Or they’ve even tried to intimate that it was ‘those Republicans being mean.’ That couldn’t be farther from the truth.

What did happen was that Democrats experienced a catastrophic failure at being a political party. It was a failure at the highest levels of the party organization. Because the first rule in competing is that you show up, and the second is that you follow the rules.

As South Dakota Republican Chairman, I can guarantee you that Republicans will consistently show up. We will be ready to compete fairly, and according to the rulebook.

Dan Lederman, Chairman
South Dakota Republican Party

US Senator John Thune’s Weekly Column: Judge Kavanaugh Is Well-Qualified to Serve on the Supreme Court

Judge Kavanaugh Is Well-Qualified to Serve on the Supreme Court
By Sen. John Thune

Every vote that I cast in the U.S. Senate, whether it’s on a substantial piece of legislation or a minor procedural motion, is important and helps me fulfill the oath that I took when I assumed this office. Few votes, if any, though, match the gravity that goes with providing my constitutional advice and consent on nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court. Once confirmed, Supreme Court justices serve for a lifetime, which is why these votes are so consequential.

Now that the president has nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh, a well-qualified and mainstream jurist, to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Senate will follow regular order, which will allow senators time to meet with him, review his record, and determine how they will ultimately vote on his nomination. Having considered the nominations of more than half of the current justices on the Supreme Court, I’m not new to this process, and I’m humbled to have the opportunity to participate in it once again.

The process for considering Supreme Court justices is a unique intersection of the three branches of the federal government. The head of the executive branch chooses a nominee, the upper chamber of the legislative branch provides its advice and consent, and the nominee, if confirmed, goes on to sit on the judicial branch’s highest court.

The qualifications for serving in each of these branches differs greatly, though . For example, if someone is running for Congress, it’s important to know where they stand on the public policy issues of the day and how they’ve voted in the past or how they might vote in the future. If someone is being considered for a judgeship, though, particularly a seat on the Supreme Court, I’m most interested in two things: is he well-qualified, and does he understand the proper role of a judge, which is to call balls and strikes, not rewrite the rules of the game.

Judge Kavanaugh checks both of those boxes. He’s eminently qualified. He graduated from Yale Law School, clerked for Justice Kennedy, and he’s spent more than a decade on one of the most powerful circuit courts in the nation. And from what I’ve seen so far, Judge Kavanaugh isn’t interested in legislating from the bench. He checks his opinion at the door, and he interprets the law and the Constitution as they are written – not how he would have written them.

While I was hopeful this process would rise above partisan politics, it doesn’t seem likely, unfortunately. For example, one of my Democrat colleagues issued a statement that he’d vote no on the president’s nominee – before the president even announced who he would nominate. How can we have a constructive debate when so many of my colleagues are using “no” as their starting point?

Some of my colleagues, many of whom are still unable or unwilling to accept the 2016 election results, might be more interested in scoring political points than learning about Judge Kavanaugh’s qualifications, but I’m looking forward to meeting with him and hearing more about his judicial philosophy. As I mentioned, he’s clearly well-qualified, and he seems like a genuine person who’s dedicated to his family and community. I believe that he deserves to be considered on the merits, and I hope my colleagues ultimately do, too.


US Senator Mike Rounds’ Weekly Column: Another Historic Opportunity to Shape the Direction of our Country

Another Historic Opportunity to Shape the Direction of our Country
By U.S. Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.)

In June, Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement from the United States Supreme Court after 30 years. While we thank him for his years of service and dedication to our legal system, his announcement provides an important vacancy on our nation’s highest court. Confirming a president’s nominees to lifetime appointments to the federal bench is one of the most important jobs of the U.S. Senate. The decisions they make have lasting effects on the direction of our country for a generation or more.

On July 9, 2018, President Trump announced his intention to nominate Judge Brett Kavanaugh to replace Justice Kennedy. I had the opportunity to be at the White House for this historic announcement. Judge Kavanaugh currently sits on the D.C. Circuit Court, commonly referred to as the “second highest court in the land.” He graduated from Yale Law School and was a clerk for Justice Kennedy.

During his career, he has issued more than 300 opinions, so part of our job in the Senate will be to review them so we can learn more about his decision-making philosophy. The Supreme Court has endorsed Kavanaugh’s opinions more than a dozen times. In some cases, the Supreme Court upheld a D.C. Circuit Court opinion, which he joined, and in other cases, they used his dissenting opinions to overturn D.C. Circuit Court opinion.

Already, President Trump has done an excellent job of nominating fair-minded, conservative judges to the federal courts. In addition to Justice Neil Gorsuch, who was sworn in as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court last year, today approximately one out of every eight circuit court judges on the bench has been nominated by President Trump.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell recently announced that the Senate plans to schedule a vote on Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation this fall. This timeframe is similar to the confirmation process of previous Supreme Court Justices who have been confirmed in recent years.

As a coequal branch of government, it is vital that our federal judges apply the law as it is written, regardless of the policy outcome. Some of our Democrat colleagues have demanded that nominees reveal how they would vote in a particular case based on the policy outcome. We believe this is inappropriate. Judges – particularly Supreme Court Justices who have the final say in the law – must be able and willing to put their personal beliefs aside and apply the law as it was written, not as he or she would like it to be.

The Constitution clearly laid out that the role of the Supreme Court is to fairly interpret the law that Congress creates. Period. The judiciary must not be politicized. Confirming fair, impartial judges who will adhere to the Constitution is one of our greatest responsibilities in the Senate, and one which I take very seriously. I look forward to a thorough and rigorous confirmation process as we consider the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh.


Congresswoman Kristi Noem’s Weekly Column: Tackling Juvenile Diabetes

Tackling Juvenile Diabetes
By Rep. Kristi Noem

Never underestimate the power of your story. That’s typically my advice when folks ask what they can do to influence policy. Just tell your story.

Each week, dozens of South Dakotans do.

In some cases, people will share how federal policy impacts their jobs or career fields. In other instances, they’ll offer up changes that could create more opportunity. But many times, they’ll talk about a challenge their family faces, recognizing that many others likely face the same obstacle. That was the case when I met with a juvenile diabetes research advocate this summer.

It’s rare to find a family whose story hasn’t been touched by diabetes. In South Dakota alone, more than 40,000 people live with the disease, many of whom are children.

I had three nephews who were diagnosed young. My nephew Hunter learned he had Type I diabetes when he was in elementary school, and his brother was diagnosed a few years later. Another one of my nephews was just diagnosed a couple years ago. He’s 17 now. Growing up with juvenile diabetes has rarely been easy for my nephews, but more often than not they’ve embraced the challenge, learning resilience, personal responsibility, and compassion for others. I’m pretty proud of them.

We’ve learned together, as a family, how to manage the disease, but it took time to make the necessary adjustments.  Nonetheless, the changes made a world of difference. Unfortunately, an estimated 21,000 South Dakotans aren’t even aware they have the disease, as it’s easy to cast aside the symptoms, which include extreme thirst, itchy skin, increased hunger, unexpected weight loss, or slow-healing wounds.  Some people also experience drowsiness or extreme nausea. If you or someone you love has experienced these signs, it’s important to consult a doctor.

Even in the short time since my nephews were diagnosed, new information about how to best manage diabetes has surfaced. And more investments are being made into research and biomedical innovation every day.

From a policy perspective, we’ve cut some of the burdensome red tape that had made it difficult for innovation to thrive. For instance, in 2016, the 21st Century Cures Act was signed into law. This landmark legislation removed regulatory burdens that slow the pace of scientific advancement and put patients at the heart of the regulatory review process. It also modernized clinical trials and streamlined processes that made it difficult to translate discoveries into FDA-approved treatments.

Many of these policy changes came because people were willing to tell of the challenges their families faced. Your experiences can have an incredible impact too, so never underestimate the power of your story.

Governor Daugaard’s Weekly Column: Bringing Our Alcohol Laws To The 21st Century

Bringing Our Alcohol Laws To The 21st Century
A column by Gov. Dennis Daugaard:

When I speak with business prospects, I often praise our common sense regulatory environment. I emphasize that we don’t place unnecessary hurdles before our citizens or entrepreneurs in South Dakota. Success is allowed here and government doesn’t get in the way.

Until very recently though, this hasn’t been the case for microbreweries in South Dakota. Many of South Dakota’s laws on alcohol were designed right after prohibition ended, including our laws governing microbreweries. Our statutes capped microbrewery production at 5,000 barrels of beer per year. This is very small, compared to Montana’s cap of 60,000, Wyoming’s cap of 50,000 and North Dakota’s cap of 25,000. Iowa had no cap at all. South Dakota also did not allow a microbrewery to sell its product directly to a retailer while Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, Minnesota and Iowa did.

As of July 1, this is no longer the case. A bill I signed into law this past legislative session now allows microbreweries to produce up to 30,000 barrels of beer per year and they can also self-distribute their product. These updates will allow us to better compete with our surrounding states and help our homegrown craft breweries grow and thrive.

I also signed several other bills this year to modernize our alcohol statutes – some of which just went into effect at the beginning of this month as well. Two of these new laws allow farm wineries, distillers and microcideries to hold other types of retail licenses and operate at additional locations under the same privileges. Other laws streamlined regulations for wine manufacturers, provided greater flexibility for charitable events and eliminated the prohibition on using alcohol in some types of foods.

South Dakota’s alcohol laws were written over 80 years ago, during a very different era. I am glad we have streamlined and modernized our statutes, so that they make sense for a 21st Century economy. The new framework improves our already stellar business climate, and validates claims I’ve been making to our business prospects.


LaFleur grouses at Hubbel on social media, threatens Hubbel and Howie with legal action.

Looks like there is some unhappiness on the island of misfit toys, as the Constitution Party Candidates for Governor see Terry Lee LaFleur threatening Lora Hubbel with being ‘held accountable civilly and criminally.’

On Facebook:

Got that Lora? You’re riding the Terry train now.

(Why do I find all this hilarious?)