I didn’t need to read that. But someone sent it to me anyway.

Heard an interesting rumor today.

Don’t have any confirmation, and it may not be available until October. But I did hear something interesting today.  So, with a couple degrees of separation, the claim was made by a friend of a friend that – and definitely just a rumor at this point – that allegedly state Democrats might have agreed to work with marijuana legalization campaign on some voter data.

I can’t confirm any of this, but given some of the involvement of former Dem candidates and other highly placed Dems, a person can voice speculation and ask if this is true?   Yes, I know there are people like Jordan Mason affiliated with the pot measure who have worked with some Republican candidates in the past, but people are chirping that supposedly Dems might be working to support the marijuana measures organizationally.

If true, it might not be able to be verified until the pre-election reports are filed in October. But if anyone has inside information on this, drop me a note here, and let’s chat.

Several years back – in 2016 – I opened up a PAC as a possible mechanism to help promote candidates with the (semi-serious) purpose “to promote economic opportunity and goodness in government.”

I never really did anything with it, but it never cost me any effort, so I let it sit there for a while. Then, there was a movement to attach a criminal penalty to any screw-up with PAC reporting. Criminal penalty for a problem with filing?  I “Noped out” of keeping that PAC going, and I shut it down in 2018.

So imagine my surprise when I get a letter the other day from a Democrat House Candidate whose name I’m not even going to try to pronounce, Rick Stracqualursi:

Apparently this District 34 Democrat is skipping the vetting of his list, and is just blasting fundraising letters out to any old political action committee. Emphasis on old, since he sent it to mine, again a PAC defunct since 2018. Mark that down as Mistake number 1.

Nevermind the fact I don’t know him, and I would venture that it’s pretty well known that I am not likely to support a Democrat candidate running against GOP House candidates. Bonus that both Mike Derby and Jess Olson are pretty good people. Mistake #2.

Stracqualursi goes on a bit about expanding medicaid, but then we get to mistake #3:

Simply complete the enclosed contribution form and return it in the enclosed envelope. Checks can be made out to “Rick for House”. Any donation amount is needed, and please consider $10, $25, $100 or more to help with the campaign.

Wait.. did he really send a letter to a political action committee, asking for cash, and he led off by asking for $10?  It’s bad enough he capped his request at $100, but he really led off by asking for $10?

You know how this works, right? Ask and ye shall receive. For those very, very few PACs that will respond, they know he’ll be happy with $10. That might cover the cost of printing and sending 6 or 7 of these letters, as they were mail-merged, bar coded, and had envelopes.

Stracqualursi very well might actually lose money on this fundraiser. Definitely mistake #3.

Then we get to mistake #4. From the November 3, 2018 Rapid City Journal:

So Rick Stracqualursi, the person who in 2018 declared “we need a system that stops lobbyists and big money from controlling our elections and government” and that “we can no longer let special interests corrupt our legislature” just sent out a solicitation letter begging for cash… to a group that includes lobbyists and special interests?

That might be the biggest mistake of them all.

Because it certainly appears that Rick Stracqualursi can include being a hypocrite among the problems his campaign has to overcome.

(While managing to avoid noting where they found out about it), South Dakota Public Broadcasting has a story about Governor Kristi Noem’s recent sky-high approval polling among South Dakotans:

Dan Lederman is the chair of the South Dakota GOP. He says the poll reflects her response to COVID-19

“At a time when a lot of governor’s pushed for locking down their states, she kept it open,” Lederman says. “She let the people make their own decisions. That’s something that will continue to keep working in her favor for the public. Because the constituents, the voters, are smart. They see that they’re given the drivers seat in how things are ran.”

Read SDPB’s story (about South Dakota’s thumbs up for Kristi) here.

And, you can read the polling memo they are writing about for yourself here.

Here’s an item that a reader brought to my attention a little while back. Here’s the information from the South Dakota Democrat Party as to who is eligible to participate in their National Convention Delegation:

Check out the line about 5 SDDP Leaders:

5 SDDP leaders (SDDP Chair, Vice Chair, Committeeman, Committeewoman & Sen. Tom Daschle)

That’s all well and good…but there’s just one item that they aren’t mentioning. Because while Tom Daschle is one of the SDDP leaders for the purposes of their State Delegation, it would not appear that former Senator Daschle is registered to vote in South Dakota anymore.

From a check of voter rolls, I don’t see he nor his wife registered to vote in the state. Recent Democrat party donor records certainly don’t show his address to be in SD:

So if Tom Daschle doesn’t live in South Dakota, and isn’t registered to vote in South Dakota, how does their statement noting “Who is eligible to be a delegate? Any South Dakota registered Democrat” apply?

According to Democrat Party bylaws as filed with the Secretary of State…

Article X: National Convention Delegate

The state central committee shall adopt a specific plan of affirmative action and delegate selection for national convention delegates in compliance with South Dakota law and the rules of the Democratic National Committee.

Read that here.

And according to Dem Party rules, it appears they might be giving Daschle a bye on the whole residency thing by expressly NOT addressing it:

The following categories (if applicable) shall constitute the Automatic Party Leaders and Elected Official delegate positions:

i. Members of the Democratic National Committee who legally reside in the state. This includes the South Dakota Democratic Party Chair, Vice Chair, 18 Committeewoman and Committeeman. (Rule 9.A.1, Call I.F, Call I.J, & Reg. 4.15).

…

v. “Distinguished Party Leader” delegates (if applicable); [Persons who qualify as “Distinguished Party Leader” delegates are: all former Democratic Presidents or Vice Presidents, all former Democratic Leaders of the U.S. Senate, all former Democratic Speakers of the U.S. House of Representatives and Democratic Minority Leaders, as applicable, and all former Chairs of the Democratic National Committee.] In South Dakota, this includes Sen. Tom Daschle (Rule 9.A.5, Call I.G & Reg. 4.14)

Read that here.

Despite the fact Tom Daschle appears to not be registered to vote in South Dakota anymore, Democrats are writing their rules to make him the sole exception of needing to actually be a South Dakota voter to take part in leading their convention delegation.

But, claiming to be a South Dakotan while living elsewhere isn’t fresh territory for Tom Daschle. Is it?

Former District 30 State House Candidate Florence Thompson, fresh off of her defeat in the District 30 Republican House Primary, is back “flossie-splaining” based on her extensive knowledge in epidemiology:

Florence Thompson, president of South Dakota Parents Involved in Education and a retired school psychologist, said the media is hyping up the coronavirus and that the pandemic is extremely politicized.

Thompson also said “children are at very low risk for COVID-19” and “adults are more vulnerable.”

“There is no risk to children. They have more risk driving to and from school, walking to and from school, than they do from COVID-19,” Thompson said. “If the teachers are in such poor health that their immune systems are so bad that they can’t take the risk to be there, then they should be put on some kind of disability and find another job.”

Read it all here.

So, if a teacher might be more susceptible to coronavirus, say, because they are diabetic, recovering from cancer, etc., “they should be put on some kind of disability and find another job.”

Florence Thompson was also the same expert who in 2018 called for giving each student identified as gay or transgender attending Western Dakota Technical Institute “a complete medical and psychological workup, and see what is the appropriate program for that child and support them in getting their true gender straightened out.” (At taxpayer expense, no less).

Can someone explain to me why every crazy statement thrown out by Florence Thompson involves illegal discrimination, massive taxpayer expenditures, or both?

Ugh.

Looks like the circus is coming back to town.

According to facebook, former Annette Bosworth hanger-on and former employee of Russian Government news service Sputnik Radio is apparently moving back to Sioux Falls.

What does he intend to do here? At least according to a statement on Twitter, running his “citizen journalist school,” which he’s apparently been operating since at least 2018.

And according to his other statements.. quite possibly begging for money via social media.

South Dakota Public Broadcasting must be doing one of those hidden wildlife nature shows, because it appears they’ve found a unicorn in our midst:

Weck says he’s aware of many Republicans who don’t like the direction the GOP party is going.

“We felt it was necessary to have a presence and to make a statement and say, ‘Look, Joe Biden seems to be a reasonable guy. He’s got decades of experience in government. He’s stable. He’s forthright and he’s clear.”

Read the story on SDPB here.

SDPB actually found a South Dakotan who thinks Joe Biden is “stable” and “clear?”  That’s a rarity.  And somehow I think the results at the ballot box will show that.

Rules for the Digital Road
By Sen. John Thune 

I currently serve as chairman of the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, Innovation, and the Internet, and I’m the senior Republican on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Both panels play an integral role in developing federal technology policy and providing oversight of some of the nation’s largest technology companies, including Twitter, Facebook, and Google, just to name a few.

My goal as a federal policymaker has always been to apply a light-touch approach to internet regulation that creates a positive environment for consumers and entrepreneurs, while ensuring users are protected and online platforms follow all of the appropriate rules and regulations. It’s that type of balanced approach that has allowed the internet to flourish as much as it has in its relatively short history.

An overly regulated internet hinders innovation and growth, but an under-regulated internet would create its own set of problems. For example, think of the internet as a new interstate highway system that’s been built from the East Coast of the United States to the West Coast. In a completely regulation-free environment, a driver could access the highway without a driver’s license and travel as fast as he or she wanted through big cities, small towns, and the open road.

If you multiplied that unregulated driver by hundreds of thousands of people, that would obviously be unsafe for the people on the highway and in the towns through which it travels. That’s why governments and regulators apply speed limits, stops signs, traffic lights, and licensing requirements to ensure drivers, and those people around them, have the freedom to travel as safely and efficiently as possible.

As traffic patterns, volume, and other needs on our nation’s roadways evolve, so too does the internet. That’s why it’s so important for Congress to stay ahead of the curve and always work toward striking the right balance on internet regulation. If we don’t, we risk creating a system where the rules that apply in the offline world for certain conduct do not apply in the online world, a situation that will tilt against consumers.

I recently joined Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), my Democrat counterpart on the subcommittee I chair, in introducing the Platform Accountability and Consumer Transparency Act – or PACT Act – which would update a decades-old federal law that provides the rules of the road for certain technology companies that host user-generated content. For example, most social media platforms would fall into this category.

Under current law, if a user posts illegal content, the platform that hosts it isn’t held liable for it, in most circumstances. The law also protects companies that choose to moderate content on their platforms (in other words, decide whether user-generated content stays or is removed). The law was effective while many of these online companies were in their infancy, but there’s a growing bipartisan concern that social media platforms are often not transparent and accountable enough to consumers with respect to the platform’s moderation of user-generated content. That’s why our PACT Act is so relevant.

At its core, the PACT Act is about transparency, accountability, consistency, and consumer protection. It would require companies that moderate content to provide a clear and easily accessible user policy that explains how, when, and why user-generated content might be removed. It would also require these online platforms to create a defined complaint system that processes reports and notifies users of moderation decisions within 14 days. Our legislation would require large technology companies to have a toll-free customer service phone line with live customer support to take customer complaints. This requirement is geared toward consumers who are less familiar with technology and who want to talk to a real person about a complaint about their service. And, among other things, the PACT Act would allow users to file an appeal if a platform removes a post and the user disagrees with the decision.

Again, regulating the internet is all about striking the right balance, and I believe our bill is a step in the right direction. Anyone on either end of the political spectrum who is worried about potential bias or too much top-down control on online platforms should be able to support the basic principles of the PACT Act and its modernization of the rules for the digital road throughout the United States.

###

Half-Time Pep Talk
By U.S. Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.)

The year 2020 is only half written, but already it’s one for the history books. Everyone, whether 8 or 78, will remember this year as one unlike any other.  While it is very common to set resolutions and goals on New Year’s Day, this year is unique enough to deserve a half-time review, and possibly even a little pep talk.

Farmers probably always subconsciously perform a half-time transition in July. You put away the planter and fertilizer while you tune up the combines. The old, outdated saying, “knee-high by the 4th of July” means farmers are starting to anticipate harvest. While farming always has an element of uncertainty that is beyond our control, 2020 has delivered previously unexperienced obstacles due to COVID-19. These include processing and ethanol plant shutdowns and shortages in supply chains. Despite these uncertainties, our farmers and ranchers continue to be innovative and adapt to a tough year.

Our kids, mid-summer, are usually beginning to consider the transition back to school after a summer packed with sports and recreation. This year has been different, however, as our kids haven’t had the same rigorous summer recreation activities. They also have been away from their classrooms for an extended period of time, instead of the normal short summer.

This week, I met virtually with superintendents from schools all across the state. Their message was consistent: we need to safely and efficiently get our kids back in school this fall. What August and September will look like still remains to be seen. One thing that is certain is that those decisions will be made by those who know their students and teachers best: local school board members and administrators. What works best in Sioux Falls might not be what’s best in Rapid City, and what works in Spearfish might not work in Sisseton. The people who know their communities best will make the best decision for their communities.

This time of year, our main street businesses are usually holding their summer crazy days, clearing out inventory to make room for a new season. Prior to the March outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, our economy was soaring. Jobs were being created, unemployment was at record lows and wages were rising. But when businesses needed to isolate for health safety due to the virus, our economy took an immediate and sharp downturn.

So this July, instead of our hospitality industry being at the height of its activity, we’re just moving toward reopening our economy and getting people back to work. South Dakotans have done a good job of distancing to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and we must continue to take precautions to open our economy safely and effectively.

We will need to be prepared to continue to deal with this public health crisis until our scientists and doctors successfully develop, test and deploy vaccines and therapeutic treatments to combat COVID-19.

It’s halftime, South Dakota. We’ve had a tough first half, but the year is not over. This year has been a game unlike one we’ve ever played. We need to dig deeper than we have before, and figure out how to put in our strongest effort during this challenging time. We come from tough stock, and I know we can do it.

###