Author: @SoDakCampaigns

Got this press release in my inbox tonight, where Janet Brekke didn’t like it when Mayor TenHaken told her to quit bugging city employees about putting a yard sign up.

But I don’t think it helped her:

April 4th, 2022 – Sioux Falls – “This morning, at 9:04 am, Mayor Paul Ten Haken texted my personal cellphone with a message regarding ethics and my campaign activities in a failed effort to intimidate me,” said Councilwoman Janet Brekke. “As Sioux Falls taxpayers know, I am not easily intimidated, nor am I one to back down from protecting our civic right to engage in fair and open elections.

Ten Haken’s Text Message: “My staff and city employees continue to get text messages from your campaign asking to place signs at their homes. I am choosing not to expose this ethics issue but if it continues I will have to do so.”

“There has been a pattern of intimidation toward individual city council members and candidates in this and recent elections, and it must stop,” added Brekke. “Therefore, instead of responding only to Paul Ten Haken’s text message personally, I am answering his message publicly so this and all further conversations related to it may be public and transparent.”

“Mr. Mayor, here is my answer to your text message: Expose away. I welcome a public examination by the Board of Ethics.”

FACTS:
1. I hired a nationally recognized communications firm specializing in direct communications with voters.
2. The nationally recognized firm is known for the legal use of text messaging and other direct-to-voter methods, a practice that’s hardly a novel concept in elections.
3. The nationally recognized firm used legal, commercially available contact information, including cellphone numbers, to contact each cellphone as required.
4. Voters were manually contacted with no automation.
5. A simple opt-in/opt-out option was included with each message.
6. The message had the appropriate paid by line.
7. I possess documented and timestamped records of each communication, outbound and inbound.
8. This campaign has not sent a text message in over seven days.

So Janet send out a preemptory press release in hopes of deflecting some possible negative press for bugging city employees for putting up yard signs.

But as part of that process, Brekke declares “I possess documented and timestamped records of each communication, outbound and inbound.” So, like they claim about Santa Claus, she’s telling everyone she knows exactly who she sent text messages to, and who did or did not reply.

I’m not seeing how that helps put City employees at ease over concerns that she’s not making a list and checking it twice as far as which city employees did or did not put up a yard sign for her.

Rounds Issues Statement on SCOTUS Nomination Vote

Audio statement attached

WASHINGTON – Senator Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) issued the following statement announcing his intent to oppose the nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court of the United States:

“While I acknowledge and appreciate the historic nature of this nomination, for there has never been an African American woman nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States, the Senate’s responsibility to provide ‘advice and consent’ on executive nominations requires full scrutiny of the nominee’s judicial record and philosophy. As part of my deliberation on this nominee, I reviewed her record of judicial decisions and met cordially with Judge Jackson in my office. I believe her judicial approach would promote legislating from the bench, rather than applying the law as written. Based on her written decisions and my personal conversations with her, I will not support her nomination.”

###

Rounds Submits Comment on “Product of USA” Label
Invites Public to Submit Comments Today 

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) responded to a solicitation for comments from the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) regarding the “Product of USA” label in the Federal Register. FSIS is currently seeking feedback to determine the value consumers place on the “Product of USA” label. Full text of this comment can be found below. Interested parties can submit their comments on this petition here.

“While I am pleased that the USDA is undertaking a review to strengthen the “Product of USA” label, I am concerned that the department is not acting quickly enough to adopt new standards for this label,” Rounds said. “Consumers deserve to know where their food is coming from. When South Dakota families purchase beef labeled “Product of USA,” they should know with certainty that it is coming from one of our top-quality domestic producers. The solution to this problem is simple – only beef born, raised and slaughtered in the United States should receive the “Product of USA” label. This issue must be resolved for the sake of consumers and our hardworking producers. I urge you to take action to update the “Product of USA” label as quickly as possible.”

Full text of his comment:

I write today regarding the Notice of Request for a New Information Collection published in the Federal Register by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) on February 1, 2022, entitled “Analyzing Consumers’ Value of ‘Product of USA’ Labeling Claims” (Docket No. FSIS-2021-0031). Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on an issue of critical importance to both consumers and producers.

While I am pleased that the USDA is undertaking a review to strengthen the “Product of USA” label, I am concerned that the department is not acting quickly enough to adopt new standards for this label. In particular, I fail to see the need to develop a consumer survey, and to request comment on the methodology of this survey, to confirm what even the White House has acknowledged:  a new label is necessary so “consumers can better understand where their meat comes from.”[1]

Our farm and ranch families work hard to deliver the safest, highest-quality and most affordable food products in the world. American consumers recognize this, and are demanding to know where their food is coming from. For far too long, South Dakota producers have been exploited as their high-quality, American-raised beef has lost value as it is mixed with foreign products that are raised and processed under different, and often subpar, standards. This attempt to intentionally deceive consumers in regard to a beef product’s rearing and country of origin is wrong.

Additionally, the survey proposed by the USDA and for which comments are being requested is unnecessary since it is clear that consumers value knowing the source of their meat. As noted, even the White House has acknowledged the need to provide consumers greater information about the meat they buy.  As a result, this survey, and the current request for comment on the methodology for this survey, should be scrapped in favor of a more direct rulemaking that accomplishes the simple goal of achieving fair and accurate truth in labeling standards for beef products that enter the U.S. market.

FSIS notes it is seeking information on the following questions, the answers to which are either already known or are unknowable until greater information is provided.

1.      Do consumers notice the “Product of USA” labeling claim?

Yes, it is clear that consumers notice the “Product of USA” labeling claim, or producers would not utilize this voluntary label. Consumers want to know the true source of their food. It is long overdue to fix the “Product of USA” label to restore transparency and fairness for consumers in the marketplace.

2.      Do consumers understand the current “Product of USA” definition and other “USDA” labeling (e.g., “USDA Choice”) as it relates to country of origin?

Consumers often do not fully understand the current “Product of USA” definition and deserve greater transparency when making purchasing decisions. South Dakotans frequently contact my office expressing frustration with the gaping loophole that is allowed under the current standard for a product to bear the “Product of USA” label. The most accurate way to describe “Product of USA” would be to allow its use only if the product is born, raised and slaughtered in the United States. The USDA’s allowance for foreign beef to continue to use a “Product of USA” label simply because it is processed in the U.S. defies logic, and I urge the USDA to use this opportunity to make a meaningful change for American consumers and producers alike.

3.      How much are consumers willing to pay for meat products bearing the “Product of USA” labeling claim for the current definition and potential revised definitions (e.g., if the meat were from an animal that was born, raised, slaughtered, and processed in the United States)?

We will not know for sure until we have greater transparency and proper labeling standards in place. The value in more comprehensive beef labeling stems from the consumer’s ability to understand the origin of the product, the culture and practices associated with raising the animal and the ultimate quality and safety of the final meat product. Consumers spending their hard earned money in the grocery store deserve to have accurate labeling that allows them to make the most informed purchasing decisions possible for themselves and their families.

Consumers deserve to know where their food is coming from. When South Dakota families purchase beef labeled “Product of USA,” they should know with certainty that it is coming from one of our top-quality domestic producers. Unfortunately, without clear parameters, the current “Product of USA” label is misleading and can result in imported beef being labeled as though it is of U.S. origin. The solution to this problem is simple – only beef born, raised and slaughtered in the United States should receive the “Product of USA” label. This issue must be resolved for the sake of consumers and our hardworking producers. I urge you to take action to update the “Product of USA” label as quickly as possible.

###

There’s a few more candidates who have come in late, changing the landscape of the races somewhat, including giving the GOP the opportunity to fill an amazing 105 seats – all of them – in historic numbers in an amazing show of strength for the party.

Who do we have filling out the last entrants into the legislative races? It’s kind of like the old Clint Eastwood movie. The good, the bad and the ugly.

The Good:

Laska Schoenfelder nephew and namesake of the Lyon political family, County Commissioner Ralph Lyon threw his name into the ring to fill out the final seat Republicans needed for a full set of 105 this year in 28A.

Box Elder Mayor Larry Larson has also thrown his name in the ring for District 35 House, improving chances that one, if not both, of awful legislators Tina Mulally and Tony Randolph will be sent down the highway.

The Bad:

The other half of the twin curbstops of conservatism, Jodie Frye, is again joining her sister Julie Frye (D30 Senate), on the ballot (in District 34), running for the House where Jess Olson and Mike Derby will handily defeat her again.

And of course, The Ugly:

After his defeat in the last District 31 Senate Primary election, former Legislator and cop-fighter John Teupel is climbing back on the horse for another run.  (Yes, I’ll be revisiting the 2020 post I did on this race between now and the primary, and I also have a hilarious update.)

Stay tuned…

Sorry if I’ve been a little quiet on the posting side, I’ve been waiting for the candidate petitions to come in as my highest priority, as there are some amazing things going on, not the least of which is the GOP has candidates in literally every state legislative race.. which might be an all-time record, if not at least a 50 year record.   Big kudos to the GOP.

There’s also the other part, where I’m crazy busy on the campaign materials side, culminating in a call this AM that the already awful prices for yard sign stakes are going to nudge up again after doubling from last election.  And now the base coroplast sign material which has been largely been stable from the last election (heavy coroplast and opaque coroplast already was up) is now set to take an increase in price.

Which, I suppose isn’t a shocker as they’re plastic.  So, If you haven’t gotten your signs, they’re not going to get better.

Paper materials have not been too bad, but shipping and some base prices are definitely up, as is postage slightly from last election. And after the primary, I believe there’s already a penny or two increase built in for July from the USPS.

Just like the price of hamburger and used cars, the costs of campaigning are moving in an upwardly direction.

Stay tuned, we’re just starting up the roller coaster!

It’s hard to believe, but it’s now been more than three years since the 2018 farm bill became law. As the old saying goes, though, there’s no rest for the weary, something South Dakota agriculture producers know better than anyone. We’re still more than a year away from needing to pass the next farm bill, but it’s time to start thinking about it now.

During my time in Congress, as a member of both the House and Senate Agriculture Committees, I’ve worked on four farm bills, and I’m particularly proud of the nearly 20 measures I was able to get included in the 2018 farm bill. Among other things, I authored provisions to improve the Agriculture Risk Coverage program, improve the accuracy of the U.S. Drought Monitor, and include soil health as a research priority at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. I also secured approval for a new, short-term alternative to the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) – the Soil Health and Income Protection Program – to provide an option for farmers who don’t want to take their land out of production for the 10 to 15 years required under CRP.

I would never have been able to get all this done without the input of South Dakota farmers and ranchers. These provisions were a direct result of extensive conversations with South Dakota producers, who provided insight into the challenges they were facing and what improvements could make things easier in this demanding way of life.

As I look to the 2023 bill, I will once again be relying on South Dakota farmers and ranchers to lend their firsthand knowledge to this effort. I recently held the first of a series of roundtables I’m planning to hold in South Dakota to hear directly from producers. The roundtable focused on the commodity and crop insurance titles of the next farm bill, and I was grateful to be able to hear from representatives of South Dakota Farm Bureau and South Dakota corn, soybean, and wheat producers, as well as crop insurance industry representatives.

I will be holding additional roundtables to cover other farm bill priorities, including livestock, conservation, and forestry issues. And, of course, I will also continue to rely on the many informal conversations I have with South Dakota producers as I travel around the state. There’s nothing worse than having “experts” in Washington come in and dictate to the real experts – the farmers and ranchers who spend every day producing the food that feeds our nation.

The life of a farmer or rancher is a challenging one. The work often starts long before the sun rises, and concludes long after the sun has set. And the labor can be backbreaking. Not to mention the deep uncertainty that goes along with this existence. The food we eat every day depends upon their work, and our country would not long survive without them. I am very proud to have the honor of representing South Dakota farmers and ranchers in the Senate. And I will continue to work every day to ensure that their needs are addressed.

I look forward to ensuring that the 2023 farm bill reflects the priorities of South Dakota farmers and ranchers, and farmers and ranchers around our great country.

###

This week, President Biden announced a two-part plan to increase America’s oil supply. While the plan may appear good on paper, he is not fooling anyone.

Part one of the plan is to increase domestic oil production by imposing fees on companies that have unused approved permits. President Biden expressed frustration with companies not drilling, but obtaining a permit doesn’t mean they can drill immediately. Some leases are going through a complex regulatory process or are held up in litigation—Western Energy Alliance says they are currently defending 2,200 leases in court. And just because the permit has been approved doesn’t guarantee the well will produce oil and gas.

Part two of the plan is to release one million barrels of oil each day from our oil reserves for the next six months. The goal is to reduce gas prices in the medium-term while the administration attempts to re-bolster domestic energy production to the levels we saw under the Trump Administration. The Department of Energy plans to use the revenue from the oil released from reserves to restock the reserve in the future.

This dilemma becomes more complicated when you consider that our Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) is at its lowest level since 2002. Republicans even pushed to replenish the SPR in March 2020, when oil was at a much lower price, and Democrats opposed it.

Despite the Biden Administration’s calls for renewable energy plans in the past, the new plan seems focused on two options—oil and electric. I have been vocal about the need to utilize alternative energy sources such nuclear, biofuels, solar, wind, natural gas, and other traditional fuels to bolster our energy supply. Homegrown energy sources like biofuels have reduced our dependence on foreign oil – and they’re a lot cleaner, too. The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) has decreased our imports of gasoline by more than 80% and have helped cut our imports of crude oil by nearly 50%.

This week, I led a letter with 28 of my colleagues to President Biden, urging him to reinstate year-round availability of E-15 and uphold the RFS. A recent poll indicated 72% of Americans support increased availability of E-15, and 83% support increased renewable fuel production.

Implementing an all-of-the-above energy approach is crucial to cultivating a sustainable and reliable energy infrastructure. President Biden’s oil vs. electric proposals are setting our independence and economy back. He can say his plans are going to solve the problems, but they aren’t fooling me.

###

April marks Month of the Military Child, an annual celebration where communities across the country lift up the sons and daughters of our military heroes. During this time, we remember that the men and women in uniform are not the only ones who sacrifice for our country – their families sacrifice time together. Sometimes they even sacrifice the life of their loved ones.  

Throughout the month, there will be several events and special recognition days where you can participate in bringing joy to our military families. If you’re not sure where to begin, here are a couple of places to get you started: 

·         Friday, April 8^th: Purple Up! For Military Kids Day in South Dakota. Service Members, families, youth, schools, and community members are encouraged to join the SDNG Child & Youth Program, Ellsworth Air Force Base, and communities everywhere in wearing PURPLE as a visible way to show support and thanks to our military kids. 

·         For a full list of events and special discounts for military families this month, go to https://ellsworthfss.com/special-events/month-of-the-military-child. 

This month comes at an important time as veterans and military families in South Dakota face an uncertain future with veterans’ health services. In mid-March, the Biden Administration announced it was looking to close or cut several key veterans’ health care facilities around the state.   

South Dakota is the number one state for veterans to live and work. We’re also ranked in the Top 5 states for veterans to retire. Why is that? Because we honor our veterans for their service and sacrifice. We honor them not just with our words; we back it up with action.  

My administration started the Fallen Heroes Bridge Dedication program to honor South Dakotans who lost their lives in the line of duty. And we built the first-ever State Veterans Cemetery to give a final resting place to those who served our nation in uniform. We respect the occupational license of active-duty military and their spouses so they can go right to work when they move to South Dakota. We’ve improved readiness facilities and capabilities for our nationally top-ranked National Guard units. We help veterans to receive free technical education classes, and active-duty soldiers and their families get in-state tuition at all our campuses. 

South Dakota also ranks Top 5 for health care for veterans, but that ranking will be tough to hold onto if the Biden Administration follows through on its proposal to downsize and close veterans’ health facilities across our state. In South Dakota, we will continue to back up our support for veterans with action. I will do everything in my power to fight the Biden Administration on this proposal.  

On March 29^th, our nation honored National Vietnam Veterans Day to pay tribute to the brave soldiers who came home from that difficult conflict. More than 27,000 South Dakotans served during the War in Vietnam. Some of them didn’t receive a friendly welcome home. In fact, National Vietnam Veterans Day wasn’t recognized until 2017 under then-President Donald J. Trump. 

That is a powerful reminder that we can always do more to honor those who served on our behalf. We can give them more time; we can give them more thanks; we can give them more energy. Many of our veterans come home scarred in body and mind. Let’s show them that their sacrifice was worth it through our actions. After all, actions speak louder than words.  

I hope you will each take the time to thank our active-duty service members, their families, and our veterans. Find ways to give back or volunteer with organizations that support veterans and military families.

This month let’s all take some extra time to assess how we can give back. Let’s celebrate Month of the Military Child, but then let’s take it a step further and find ways to give back to our veterans. By volunteering to support those who sacrifice everything for our freedom, we can build an even stronger America. 

 

### 

Well, I couldn’t be happier today. Among the crazy environment going on, I sealed the deal for an item that I’ve wanted for months and have never seen outside the State Cultural Heritage Center’s archives.

I managed to find a near mint version of this broadside/map from the 1889 State Capital fight.

Except, as noted, the one I just sold my soul for is in near mint condition, no chunks of paper missing, and with paper that remains in remarkably good shape for being 125 years old.

The state museum’s copy above, and the one I purchased have the same front, but different reverse sides. This museum’s has newspaper editorials about Pierre as Capital closer to the election, and the one I purchased is more generally promotional, leading me to believe mine might have been an earlier version.

Interesting anecdote I found out today is that there are two known examples of this broadside advertisement that are known to exist in German.

Great piece of South Dakota History that I am very excited to get coming in my direction.

Democrats are in the media today, explaining how they’re “targeting” as they abandon running people for 2/3 of the seats in the state legislature:

“The GOP’s dedication to building in-roads in communities across South Dakota has allowed the party to make historic moves ahead of the midterm elections,” he said in a statement.