SDGOP hits back at lying liars of Represent.us

While the lying liars of Represent.us are trying to portray events such as the REALTOR/Home Builder Chili Oyster feed as a champagne reception…

The South Dakota Republican Party came out with a video of their own, hitting back at their false claims.

Tomorrow, the Senate is scheduled to decide if it’s going to side with the Massachusetts dark money group that spent millions to push an unconstitutional measure over on South Dakotans to fund the political campaigns of liberal democrats, or if they’re going to side with their friends and neighbors who come to Pierre, and make sure that State Government does no harm as part of the legislative process.

22 Replies to “SDGOP hits back at lying liars of Represent.us”

    1. Jaa Dee

      Just the first claims–
      the independent Ethics Commission is, in effect, a fourth branch of government which violates Articles 2 and 4 of the SD Constitution.
      The Ethics Commission violates the doctrine of separation of powers.
      It unconstitutionally delegates legislative authority by giving the Ethics Commission rule-making authority to replace or modify statute.”
      —————
      Maybe she should tell all the states that have had this kind of ethics commissions for years.. this is garbage.

    2. Jaa Dee

      “Supporters of IM22 were told over 18 months ago it was constitutionally flawed, yet they ‎chose not to fix those flaws before gathering signatures to place the measure on the ballot.”– That is about the goofiest excuse these people use…. Of course those like her would be whining it is unConstitutional—- they are NOT judges, their opinion is like me—everybody has one…

      Have the elected gov. corruption supporters using that nonsense line answered the question—-why they voted for bills they knew had absolutely been declared unConstitutional in the highest courts? Mr. Deutsch?

  1. Anonymous

    Among the groups planning the “lavish” appreciation night is the SD American Legion.

    Attacking part-time citizen legislators is one thing, but when Represent.Us attempts to throw mud at our state’s veterans, they have really crossed the line.

  2. anon1

    There’s one important point at the end of their misleading ad about lavish banquets… It says that “it doesn’t leave much time for the people of SD”… It’s actually just the opposite.

    Those events are the place where legislators see the people!! They see the lobbyists at the Capitol every day, and that wouldn’t change. But, if you ban those events, the people from back home lose contact, no lobbyists… The events like the oyster feed are hosted by the realtors from back home… You hardly know the lobbyist is around.

    This ad has taken their lies to a new level…

  3. Anne Beal

    It’s too late.
    The time to defeat IM 22 was last summer.
    Rambling objections about out of state money don’t impress anybody and were the weakest argument against the bill presented. It was also one of the only arguments presented. The South Dakota Republican Party’s message about the measure had 7 bullet points against it and the first four were about where the money came from. After the first three, most people stopped paying attention. The party’s efforts to defeat IM 22 with complaints about out-of-state funding reflect the parochial out-of-touch mentality of the State Party which can’t comprehend anything outside of Pierre.
    This is a fiasco which could have been prevented.
    I would like to see the legislature just drop it altogether. Go to your Crackerbarrels and coffees and explain to the angry mob that the judge threw it out and we no longer have any campaign finance laws and that’s the way it’s going to stay.

    1. WD

      I agree, Anne. Voters don’t want to see this right now…its good to see something from the GOP, but this message isn’t going to satisfy everyone. Voters want to know their voice was heard, but they don’t understand that the law won’t work as it is written. I believe the best thing the GOP can do at this point is to let South Dakotans know why it is unconstitutional and how they are going to replace it.

      Like Fred said, Representative Duvall has a good explanation. It would be good to see more of that.

    2. Jaa Dee

      “the judge threw it out”—- Barnett said he was handing it up to higher courts….. There is a judicial system……it doesn’t end with the first judgement or informal opinion…

  4. Troy Jones

    Anon1: Exactly. And, this is the issue which should be highlighted to illustrate how anti-democratic the proponents of IM22 actually are.

    1. Anne Beal

      Right. How many people are going to notice that among all the complaints about out-of-state money???

      Nobody gives a rat’s ass about where the money came from!! Nobody at the legislative forum asked about that!
      They need to throw that and back in the can and make another one with no mention at all about where the money came from. Address the issues people here care about. Nobody cares about out of state money!!!

      1. Jaa Dee

        “How many people are going to notice that among all the complaints about out-of-state money???”—- Obviously you people don’t care if it is out of state money pouring in to the SDGOP.

  5. Anne Beal

    Hey guys why don’t you rule up the people of South Dakota by telling them that Proctor and Gamble are headquarters in Cincinnati and all the ads they see for Charmin are paid for with out-of-state money! Mr Whipple never lived here!

  6. William Beal

    From my inbox today, is the message we’re trying to overcome:

    Governing Magazine: “Don’t Like the Ballot Measure Voters Approved? Just Ignore It, Some Lawmakers Say.”

    “This is the voters saying ‘our government is not working for us right now,’ and the government is saying ‘we reject the rules that you have imposed on us.”

    Anything the SDGOP does that does not address that message, is a waste of time and resources.

    Whining that the opposition doesn’t fight fair, sends a message that the SDGOP doesn’t know how to fight.

    http://www.governing.com/topics/politics/gov-ballot-measure-voters-lawmakers.html?utm_term=Don%27t%20Like%20the%20Ballot%20Measure%20Voters%20Approved%20Just%20Ignore%20It%2C%20Some%20Lawmakers%20Say.&utm_campaign=Don%27t%20Like%20the%20Ballot%20Measure%20Voters%20Approved%20Just%20Ignore%20It%2C%20Some%20Lawmakers%20Say.&utm_content=email&utm_source=Act-On+Software&utm_medium=email

  7. MC

    The court of public opinion is such a fun place. Let’s distort the truth even more, then no one will know anything

    1. Tara Volesky

      MC, are you a judge…….then I don’t think you or the Legislator is qualified to tell the voters IM22 is unconstitutional…….let the Supreme Court tell us.

  8. Troy Jones

    I think the argument is too focused on the hypocrisy of Weiland saying he wants to end “dark money” while getting his funds from “dark money” sources. 70% think hypocrisy is a attribute of the politics that is inherent. Yelling about it is like yelling about football being violent. Well duh.

    Frankly, people care less about the “who” is funding vs. the “what” the legislation intends to do to them. When people yell about Soros or Koch Brothers et. al., nobody cares. They care about what they are advocating.

  9. Troy Jones

    Jaa Dee,

    The ethics commission as constituted by IM22 is independent of the Executive Branch, Legislative Branch and Judicial Branch. Article 2 of the SOUTH DAKOTA Constitution only gives authority to these branches. Maybe the other states allow additional branches but South Dakota’s does not.

    The ethics commission has powers to implement the certain laws and authorities described in IM22. Article 4 restricts the implementation of the laws of SD to only the Executive Branch.

    The exceptions to the above are related to authorities given to entities enumerated in the Constitution such as the Attorney General, Secretary of State, other Constitutional Offices, Public Utilities Commission, Board of Regents, etc.

    If other states have independent “Ethics Commissions” they either have different Constitutional provisions or placed the “Ethics Commissions” under an authorized branch of government.

  10. Troy Jones

    P.S.

    Jaa Dee: ““the judge threw it out”—- Barnett said he was handing it up to higher courts….. There is a judicial system……it doesn’t end with the first judgement or informal opinion…

    Well, at least you are finally admitting Barnett ruled against IM22 on constitutional grounds. And, I agree Judge Barnett’s ruling is subject to review and jurisdiction of the SD Supreme Court.

    Question: Because time is of essence because of the deadline of the Legislatures adjournment in early March, proponents have the right to demand a timely ruling. Why aren’t the proponents slow playing their appeal instead of pushing the Supreme Court to rule while the Legislature is in session?