So, that’s where the party hiders of Amendment V are getting their funds

Had an interesting chart passed my way today.

Someone went through, and charted out the sources of all the funding that Rick Weiland has mustered to hide party labels on the ballot, and to create a primary system that shuts out Independents and third party candidates from the November election.

So, who is footing the bill?



John Timmer and De Knudson are the only donors identified on their pre-primary report (1.3%), and fully 92.2% of it comes from undisclosed donors. 76% of all donations are coming from out of state entities.

What do you think? Why do all these out-of-staters want to hide party labels on the ballot, and to shut down indy candidates from appearing on the November Ballot?

26 Replies to “So, that’s where the party hiders of Amendment V are getting their funds”

  1. Anonymous

    Pick me pick me….because they can’t win under the current system and so they have to try and trick voters in an effort to win. This is outrageous…they want to take money out of politics (IM 22) but then they use it from hidden sources themselves to pass this BS.

    NO on V!

  2. Wazzzuupp

    Secret Democrat plan? That’s a smokescreen. Joe Kirby, De Knudson, Casey Murschel, Chuck Parkinson (a Reagan and Bush appointee) and a few other high profile GOP names along with Indies and Dems on their leadership committee. Someone hijacked the GOP and forgot to tell the South Dakota GOP Establishment. Good luck telling 100,000 plus independents they shouldn’t have the right to vote in all our elections — people hate paying taxes and then being told to go pound sand. V is building a lot of momentum and it sounds like the Establishment is hitting the panic button with their typical hyperbole.

    1. Anonymous

      Dream on…..If they want us to be more like Nebraska …wait till Independents find out about Nebraska’s system and how they have a STATE INCOME TAX, PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX AND HIGH VEHICLE TAXES…..

      A measure sponsored by Rick Weiland and funded by out of state money from New York……

      NO ON V!

    2. Dave R

      First, there are no “high profile Republicans” supporting V. The supporters you mention are, well, RINOS. This is pushed by Democrats, the petitions were organized by Democrats, paid for by Democrats, and circulated by Democrats. This is not even arguable. I tracked them. This is Wieland’s little strategy. Wieland is a Democrat.

      Second, it has been my experience that Independents don’t want to be bothered with party politics. That is why they didn’t join a party. Parties are private organizations. If you want to participate in a private organization, you have to join it. Taxes do not support parties, that argument is silly.

  3. Anonymous

    So hypocrisy question of the day… How much money has John Thune, Kristi Noem and Mike Rounds raised out of state disclosed or undisclosed?

    Why does it matter if it’s in state or out of state for a direct act of democracy( citizens voting on one law) but it doesn’t matter when we vote for one person that votes in hundreds of laws? So much for the party of small government and giving power to the citizens.

    1. Anon

      Pretty sure every dollar Thune, Noem, and Rounds have raised is disclosed. And a far greater amount of it comes from in-state than Slick Rick’s group.

      And that’s besides the point. How is people from the East Coast giving Rick Weiland money “giving power to the citizens”?

    2. Anonymous

      All federal candidates have to disclose their donations through the Federal Elections Commission…

      Better to be thought a fool, than open one’s mouth and remove all doubt….

      It matters when out of state groups fund deceptive marketing campaigns and try to ram through these horrible laws. How is the 23 campaign not deceptive? Have you seen those ads? Have you read it? It is an IM to force people to pay union dues but they never say that in their marketing campaign funded by over $200k from out-of-state.

      How is it not deceptive that the T folks are claiming that 3 out of the 4 last redistrcting plans have been challenged in court…oh wait the last one is the one that was not challenged and so there hasn’t been a challenge in nearly 20 years and this is a problem…..PLEASE!?

      How is it not deceptive when you take the party labels off, WHEN NO OTHER STATE DOES THIS, and then the proponents are claiming NEBRASKA DOES THIS…but they don’t they only do nonpartisan elections for legislative seats, NOT statewide race where they have traditional primaries and to vote for these offices and the legislature you still pick a party… you only take a non-artisan ballot if you don’t want to vote for these higher offices….

      How is it not deceptive to have 34 pages of an act forcing the taxpayers to fund elections while not providing enough money for the “democracy credits” and so only 12/50 (approx) of the people to allocate their “Democracy credits” Oh and how about hypocrisy of getting hundreds of thousands of dollars from an out-of-state group from Mass. all the while yelling GET THE MONEY OUT OF POLITICS

      Yeah let’s talk all day about hypocrisy and deception with these ballot measures…they don’t stand alone they are a collective effort. NO on T, V, 22 and 23.

  4. Springer

    People deserve to know the political philosophy/leanings of the candidates. If they are registered as a D or an R then we at least know where they lie on the political spectrum. Without that, one conservative idea might give voters the impression that the candidate is a solid conservative and would vote that way, when in reality the candidate is a liberal on every other position. Some people say they vote for the person and thus prefer no party labels; I don’t know what they mean by this other than they will vote for a friend or a person they know regardless of what that person believes philosophically. However, I believe most people vote for the candidate who believes the way they do on issues. We NEED and DESERVE to know the political leanings of all the candidates.

    And South Dakota does not need to be a guinea pig for out of state interests; we are perfectly capable of running our state ourselves! If the Dems are not winning in this state, they need to look inward at themselves and their platform. The far left is making it hard for the Dems. Maybe they should look at the old adage “physician, heal thyself,” instead of blaming everyone else for their failures.

  5. Anonymous

    There are two main arguments of this post. One is that out of state money is bad. The second point is that it’s undisclosed. Let’s take these point by point. Since people previously just latched on to the undisclosed portion of the argument I’ll break them down for everyone.

    1. Outside money is bad – this measure has around $250k of outside money. For perspective for your outrage on outside money…not including PAC’s Thune in his 2004 race had over $5 million in out of state money and Noem has raised nearly that already out of state. If you’re going to fein outrage please be consistent. Out of state money can’t be ok for candidates you like and bad for measures you don’t. This is direct democracy bc every citizen can read the exact language like Thune can on a bill and vote yes or no. In my opinion it’s much worse to have outside influence for voting for one person that turns around and votes on a ton of issues but either way if outside money is bad it has to be bad for all situations. So if that’s how you feel ill look forward to hearing your calls for Thune, Noem and anyone else democrat or republican to return those donations. Otherwise please move on to the merits of the issue.

    2. Undisclosed money is bad no matter what in my opinion. But the same people that are now pissed off about this undisclosed out of state money have had no issues with Citizens United and the gaping hole that created with campaign finance. Again I f you’re going to be outraged please be consistent.

    Thank you all and have a wonderful day!

  6. Anonymous

    In full disclosure i took this from Democrat Cory Heidelberger’s Blog…..he says and I quote

    “New laws and constitutional amendments don’t have to win the Legislature’s support. But they should have some grassroots support. As Kolbeck points out, that in-state support hasn’t materialized for Amendment S, suggesting South Dakotans see no problem with existing laws protecting crime victims. The only people cheering for Amendment S in South Dakota appear to be those who are paid to cheer.”

    He is arguing against Amendment S….but the same would apply against V , 22 and 23….all out of state, no in state grassroots support…just paid out of staters coming her to change our state to how they think it should be….no thanks NO ON EVERYTHING IS LOOKING MIGHTY ATTRACTIVE THIS MORNING.

  7. Michael Wyland

    Comparing funding for state initiatives with funding for Congressional elections is based on a fallacy. State initiatives affect the state and its citizens, so there’s a reasonable argument that the legitimacy of such a ballot issue can be tied to its in-state funding sources.

    Federal office elections are different. A district’s voters elect House members and a state’s voters elect U.S. senators. [In South Dakota, we have only one congressional district so the state’s voters elect our lone House member.] However, senators and representatives affect what happens everywhere – not just what happens in their home state. Other states and their residents, businesses, unions, etc., have a legitimate interest in opposing or supporting what John Thune or Nancy Pelosi may do.

    The in-state vs. out-of-state funding question should be influenced not by who votes, but by the subject’s scope of influence.

  8. Anonymous

    I agree Michael…shouldn’t the citizens of SD want to change or not change their constitution, not someone from NY or Mass!

  9. David Bergan

    “If they are registered as a D or an R then we at least know where they lie on the political spectrum.”

    Hi Springer,

    I don’t think this is true. Nothing prohibits a liberal from registering as a Republican, or a conservative from registering as a Democrat. In fact, in the current system, candidates are encouraged to adopt the party that better aligns with their district… because they stand to gain 10-20% of the vote from inattentive voters who do nothing but mark the candidates that the ballot declares are from their favored party.

    There are a lot of RINOs in South Dakota, and this is why.

    If V passes, there will be less incentive to game the system in this manner. Inattentive votes will be distributed more or less randomly amongst the candidates.

    So I think if we want candidates to be encouraged to adopt party labels that honestly reflect their positions on the issues, then we should support Amendment V. Candidates will be required to define their political positions throughout their campaign rather than don the R and let voters make (false) assumptions about where they stand.

    Kind regards,

    1. Anonymous

      David, passing V will only force the parties to have their own pre-selection process and make the establishment stronger….V is not the answer to the problem you describe.

      NO on V

      1. David Bergan

        Hi Anonymous,

        If the parties internally do their own pre-selection process (e.g. smoke-filled rooms), they wouldn’t pick a RINO/DINO to represent them. Thus, the parties would be better represented by candidates who align with the party platform. Compare that to the current system, which has no vetting at all and lets anyone run in the Republican primary, from ultra-right-wing to flaming-liberal-in-sheep’s-clothing. And it gives them an incentive to do so, to pick up votes from inattentive voters in R-heavy districts.

        Again, if we want candidates to be encouraged to adopt party labels that honestly reflect their positions on the issues, then we should support Amendment V. Candidates will be required to define their political positions throughout their campaign rather than don the R and let voters make (false) assumptions about where they stand.

        Kind regards,

        1. Springer

          This amendment is NOT going to stop people from being a liberal or conservative “in sheep’s clothing.” They can pick one or two issues that they know will get the voters’ attention and run on those and ignore the other issues, they can still lie about what they will do when elected, nothing changes….except the voter’s ability to identify a candidate’s true political leanings by the candidate’s identifying with one party or the other. If Weiland didn’t think this would benefit his ability to get elected, would he even be supporting it? Answer is NO!

  10. David Bergan

    “except the voter’s ability to identify a candidate’s true political leanings by the candidate’s identifying with one party or the other.”

    Hi Springer,

    I’d say it’s a lot easier for a candidate to trick inattentive voters into believing they’re conservative when the ballot has an R next to their name.

    Amendment V isn’t going to flip the legislature from conservative to liberal. Politicians would still be elected by voters and the population of SD is solidly conservative (and becoming moreso). No true conservative needs an R by their name to prove their political leanings. They are proud to enumerate their conservative credentials. It’s the fakers who need the R on the ballot, so that they can pick one or two issues that they know will get the voters’ attention and run on those and ignore the other issues… and let the R give voters a false assumption for all the other issues.

    Without the R, candidates have to define themselves, point-by-point right down the line. And which true conservative is scared of that?

    Kind regards,

  11. Anonymous

    OR liberals would trick the voters as they do in other states by loading up the ballot with straw candidates…David are you getting paid to promote this BS?

    1. David Bergan

      Hi Anonymous,

      I agree that “straw candidates” is a game that can be played under Amendment V. And both parties can play it. It takes a lot of resources and coordination to play that game, it’s not guaranteed to work, and no one is sure specifically who will benefit from it. (e.g. Did former Republican Pressler’s candidacy take more votes away from actual Republican Rounds or Democrat Weiland?)

      However, “fake conservative/liberal” is a game that is embedded in the current system. It takes zero resources and zero coordination to play. And it often wins the candidate 10-20% of the vote.

      Kind regards,

      PS I haven’t been paid to do anything on this or any other issue. Just offering my thoughts.

  12. Anonymous

    V is an anti-choice measure….it eliminates choices from the voter…Why can’t we have 4 choices in the fall? or more……. We should not be limited to just 2 choices….

    Having a credible independent in the race such as Sen Pressler added some excitement to the race, knowledge on the issues…he did get over 47,000 votes

    This measure does more harm to Independents than good. I appreciate the debate but i will be voting NO on V.