Author: @SoDakCampaigns

National Security: A Top Concern
Left Unaddressed at the State of the Union
By Senator Mike Rounds

In the President’s final State of the Union Address, many of us had hoped to hear him propose serious ideas for reaching across the aisle to address the challenges our country faces. Instead, we heard more of the same rhetoric that has failed to produce the kind of results the American people are looking for. It’s no surprise only 23 percent of our country thinks we are headed in the right direction. The VA is broken, Obamacare is failing, manufacturing has shrunk, our debt has skyrocketed and new regulations being promulgated by this administration are crushing the American dream.

Perhaps most importantly, our national security has taken a hit over the past seven years. During his State of the Union Address, President Obama had an opportunity to lay out a plan to mitigate growing world threats. Instead, he ignored the dangers posed by Iran which was holding 10 U.S. service members as prisoners at the time, meanwhile touting his reckless nuclear deal with Iran.

He also failed to lay out a clear and concise plan to defeat ISIS. This is particularly noteworthy given a recent CBS/New York Times poll showing that 67 percent of Americans think our fight against ISIS is going “poorly.” Americans are right to be concerned. The Islamic terror group continues to maintain significant strength and was the perpetrator or inspiration for recent attacks that killed both civilians and law enforcement officers in Paris, San Bernardino, Istanbul and Jakarta. Yet the president continues to believe our current course of limited action is working.

While we often focus on conflicts in the Middle East, it’s important that we not ignore military aggression and human rights violations occurring elsewhere in the world. I recently cosponsored a bill that would impose broad new sanctions against individuals involved in North Korea’s nuclear program and proliferation activities, as well as officials involved in overseeing the regime’s continued human rights abuses.

I also joined a number of my Senate colleagues in a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry regarding his recent assurances to the Iranian Foreign Minister that new Visa Waiver Program (VWP) restrictions wouldn’t impact Iranian interests. The VWP changes were enacted last month to help make certain terrorists cannot enter our country through loopholes in our system. Iran is the world’s largest state-sponsor of terrorism and yet this administration is seeking to assure them they will not be negatively impacted by new restrictions for foreigners coming into the U.S. We should not be apologizing to anyone for seeking to keep American citizens safe.

As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I frequently hear from top military leaders and experts on the national security risks we currently face. As we move forward, we must continue to closely monitor bad actors, including ISIS, Iran and North Korea, to make certain we are taking or are fully prepared to take necessary action to defend our country and our allies.

We live in an increasingly dangerous world. The president would be wise to take threats to the U.S. and our interests more seriously.

###

Stop the Stream of Regulations
By Rep. Kristi Noem

In 2015 alone, the U.S. government put more than 79,000 pages of new regulations in the federal register.  Add these to the list of existing regulations and the economic impact amounts to more than $1.8 trillion or about $15,000 per household annually.  The stream of costly federal regulations needs to stop.

One of the most controversial regulations finalized in 2015 was the Environmental Protection Agency’s “Waters of the U.S.” rule, or WOTUS.  The Clean Water Act enables the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to regulate so-called “navigable waters.” In the EPA’s latest WOTUS rule, however, the federal agency broadened the definition of navigable waters to include ditches, prairie potholes, and even seasonally wet areas.  Changing a few words around may seem minor, but it can have a huge impact.

As written, WOTUS could become one of the largest federal land grabs in our lifetime.  Everyday tasks – like treating your lawn for mosquitos, putting up a fence in your backyard, or spraying your crops for disease – could become federally regulated activities that carry fines worth upwards of $30,000 per day if a farmer or homeowner is found in violation.

With a potential impact that significant, it’s no wonder why thousands of people have shared their outrage over WOTUS.  The EPA did its best to camouflage that anger, however.  In fact, a December 2015 Government Accountability Office report found the EPA engaged in “covert propaganda” to create the illusion of grassroots backing.  Not only did they violate the public trust, they broke the law.  They must be held accountable for their actions.

On January 13, Congress put our stamp of approval on a bill that would stop WOTUS from taking effect.  The final step is to get the President to sign on, which frankly, is unlikely.  While a presidential veto is all but certain, I wasn’t going to be discouraged from pursuing our agenda.  We need to keep pushing forward the initiatives that are important to South Dakota and the country.

Even if the President fails to understand the burden WOTUS puts on families, farmers, and small businesses, a federal appellate court has put a temporary, nationwide suspension on the rule’s implementation.  One way or another, I’m committed to stopping this EPA expansion.

I know that sometimes the burden of federal regulations can be difficult to see – especially if they don’t impact us or our work directly.  But the reality is that federal regulations, like WOTUS, stunt America’s growth and threaten the opportunities ahead.  Bureaucrats need to be reined in.

Already this year, the House has passed legislation to reduce the overall cost of current federal regulations by 15 percent.  Our legislation, H.R.1155, would do this by forcing federal agencies to search for unnecessarily burdensome regulations, report them to Congress, and then eliminate them for good.  We’ve also passed legislation requiring bureaucrats to better communicate the purpose and impact of proposed regulations.  You have a right to know what they’re doing in clear, succinct language.

These bills build on legislation we passed in 2015 which would force any major regulation to get approval from Congress before being implemented.  We need to give the people a bigger voice in this process.

2015 was a record-setting year for federal regulations.  By one group’s count, more than 3,300 rules and regulations were finalized.  It’s gotten out of control.  Too much power is being concentrated in the hands of federal bureaucrats and it’s costing hardworking families dearly.  We have to reverse course, and I’m hopeful that will begin with stopping the EPA’s new WOTUS rule.

###

The Year To Act On Education
A column by Gov. Dennis Daugaard:

The 2016 Legislative Session began this week. This year, I am proposing that South Dakota address the issue of teacher pay.

We all know that the key to student achievement is an effective teacher.  We also know that South Dakota’s teacher salaries are lowest in the nation and have been for decades.

South Dakota competes with our surrounding states for teachers, and we are falling further behind them. Ten years ago, South Dakota’s average teacher salary was about $2,000 behind North Dakota. We were 51^st and they were 49^th. Montana was 47^th and Nebraska was 42^nd.

Today, we are still closest to North Dakota among our surrounding states. But the gap is $8,000. We still rank 51^st. North Dakota moved from 49^th to 36^th. Montana moved from 47^th to 28^th. Nebraska moved from 42^nd to 32^nd.

If South Dakota wants to maintain high student achievement, we need a new generation of high quality teachers.

To address this need, I am proposing a one half cent increase in the state sales tax. This will fund a new school funding formula that will move South Dakota’s average teacher salary from $40,000 to a target average of $48,500. At that level, South Dakota will be competitive with surrounding states.

The new funding formula will fund schools based on a target average salary of $48,500 and on a target student-to-teacher ratio for each district. That is not a measure of class size – it is a measure of all instructional staff per student.

Here is what the state is offering schools: the state will give school districts enough funding to pay the target salary, if the district reaches the target student-to-teacher ratio.

This new formula will create a more transparent funding system, based on actual costs. State policymakers will be able to see that schools receive enough money to pay their costs. At the local level, the new formula will lead to informed conversations about how local decisions impact a school’s ability to reach the target average salary.

As we ask schools to pay teachers more, we must also give them tools to be more efficient. My plan includes several measures to allow schools to become more efficient and save money. An expansion of the Statewide Center for e-Learning at Northern State University will make more high-quality online courses available to students, at no cost to their home schools.

The state will also expand successful programs that encourage sharing of services. For example, the state already negotiates centrally for Internet broadband access, and provides that service to schools. This saves schools more than it costs the state. We can expand this approach to other areas, such as purchasing, payroll administration or software licensing.

The introduction of new funding also allows the state to correct inequities. Under our current formula, property taxes are equalized across districts, so children receive uniform education, regardless of property values in their districts. However, the formula does not equalize some revenue sources, such as wind farm taxes, bank franchise taxes, the gross receipts tax on utilities and traffic fines. My proposal will treat all of these sources like property taxes, so that all schools are treated fairly.

The one half cent will generate $40 million in new revenue beyond our needs, however, so I am also proposing that this excess be dedicated to property tax relief. My plan imposes caps on school reserves funds, and limits future growth of property taxes for capital outlay. These are positive steps that benefit taxpayers and ensure that the funds we spend benefit today’s students.

We all want what is best for our children. We want to provide them with a quality education. And we know that requires a strong workforce of great teachers. This is the year to act.

-30-

From the state legislature comes a measure to legalize industrial hemp:

Industrial Pot Legalization

Industrial hemp and some varieties of pot are indistinguishable from each other – which will not be of any benefit to helping make South Dakota Law Enforcement’s job any easier. Not to mention that The United States does not currently allow the cultivation of hemp.

Under Federal Law, all varieties of pot, including hemp, are considered Schedule I controlled substances under the Controlled Substances Act, and Hemp production is controlled and regulated by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). It is illegal to grow hemp without a DEA permit. While some states have legalized hemp it for cultivation, I believe a grower still must get permission from the DEA in order to grow hemp, or face the possibility of federal charges or property confiscation, even if he or she has a state-issued permit.

Sorry, but this is yet another ill-informed backdoor measure at introducing pot to a state, with the eventual goal of it’s full legalization.

Does anyone think this measure is going to make it out of committee? Not me.  And that sounds like it’s as good a place for the measure to die as any.

From KELO-AM news, veteran political observers, even Democrat observers, are saying that the Thune race is a done deal at this point:

South Dakota Political Analyst Bob Burns wouldn’t be shocked if Senator John Thune (R) this year runs unopposed again. Thune ran without competition in 2010.

Burns, a veteran observer of South Dakota politics, says the State Democratic Party doesn’t have “much of a bench” these days for possible candidates for high office in South Dakota. His best bet seems to be that the Democrats will eventually find someone to run against Thune, with little hope of victory, but at least to provide an alternative voice on national issues.

Read it here.

“..wouldn’t be shocked if Senator John Thune (R) this year runs unopposed again”  and “eventually find someone to run against Thune, with little hope of victory”  is not exactly a ringing endorsement for Anne Tornberg’s tenure as Democrat Party Chair.

(I wonder how filling those other 105 seats are going?)

When you talk to people hanging out in the Capitol during session as much as I do, sometimes you hear “things.”   And one of the issues/rumors that you find bubbling out there is connected to the 2014 election, and a ballot measure which passed with strong support.

As part of the 2014 election, there was a measure introduced called the patient’s choice act, or IM17. As noted by the measure’s proponents:

Patient Choice allows insured patients improved and less costly access to highly qualified, quality physicians that may be better suited or more familiar and convenient than those offered by the insurance company chosen by their employer.

In some instances, a change of insurance may make it cost prohibitive for a patient to see their long-term provider.  For example, if an employer selects a new group health insurance plan from a company that uses a closed network, an employee’s longtime primary care provider may be excluded from the network if he is not an employee of the hospital system that owns the insurance company that issued the new group policy. This results in the employee paying expensive out-of-pocket costs or finding a new, unfamiliar provider.

Read that here.

Initiated Measure 17 passed on a decisive vote of 166,401 in favor of, versus 102,792 against – the highest margin of victory for the three measures on the ballot.

Fast forward to the 2016 legislative session.  I’m hearing rumors afoot that there may be a bill brought in the legislature that could potentially alter that language and void IM17 at least in part.  Upon hearing that, a phrase that comes to mind is “the will of the people.”  And for whoever decides to sponsor such a measure, bucking that electoral will could be painful.

I think back to what happened last year; in the session immediately following the elections, a measure was brought to slightly modify a minor provision of another ballot measure, the minimum wage act.  The least popular of the three ballot measures, the minimum wage act was passed 150,819 to 123,167, and was not just controversial, but strongly opposed.

The bill, which was passed, brought outrage in the state’s media, and a petition drive was initiated, where the repeal of a minor portion of the ballot measure was immediately referred for election this year. The fervor of that measure has somewhat died down over the past year, where it might not affect the election fortunes of the measure’s proponents.  At least until their opponents remind the voters of it.

That happened when a minor provision was passed to slightly alter the least popular ballot measure from 2014.  Anger and near-automatic referral. What do you think the reaction will be for the legislator who might attempt a major alteration of the most popular ballot measure from the preceding election, which had virtually no opposition at the ballot box?  Especially coming smack dab in the middle of the election year?

Based on last years’ experience, I suspect it’s going to generate a wave of negative publicity that the legislator probably didn’t contemplate when they put their name on the line to support such a measure.  And that could be a wave that might dash them on the rocks in the next election.

In that instance, taking direct aim at the will of the people in such a manner might not just be an unwise thing. It could prove to be downright painful.

South Dakota, Wyoming Delegations Urge
U.S. Forest Service to Increase Timber Sale Program for Black Hills National Forest

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sens. John Thune (R-S.D.), Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), and John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), and U.S. Reps. Kristi Noem (R-S.D.) and Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) this week wrote to U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell to request the agency increase its timber sale program for the Black Hills National Forest (BHNF) in fiscal year 2016. Increasing timber production in the BHNF will help mitigate damage caused by the mountain pine beetle, reduce fire risk, and help sustain the existing forest products infrastructure.

“Approximately 17,000 acres of trees were killed in 2015 in the BHNF as a result of the mountain pine beetle infestations, which is an increase over the 2014 acreage killed by the mountain pine beetle,” the delegations wrote. “Equally as concerning, according to recent Forest Service statements, approximately 50 percent of the BHNF remains at high risk for mountain pine beetle infestation. Salvaging and utilizing those trees is far more preferable than allowing them to become fuel for forest fires that threaten the communities and forests of the Black Hills.”

Full text of the letter can be found below, and a signed copy can be found here.

Chief Tom Tidwell
USDA Forest Service
1400 Independence Ave, SW
Washington, DC  20250-1111

Dear Chief Tidwell:

We are writing to request an increase in the FY 2016 timber sale program for the Black Hills National Forest (BHNF).  Notwithstanding the obvious successes of the BHNF’s timber sale program, we are concerned that the sawtimber volume planned for sale in FY 2016 is inadequate to sustain the existing forest products infrastructure.

Although there have been some recent successes in fighting the mountain pine beetle in the Black Hills, the epidemic is far from over.  Approximately 17,000 acres of trees were killed in 2015 in the BHNF as a result of the mountain pine beetle infestations, which is an increase over the 2014 acreage killed by the mountain pine beetle.  Equally as concerning, according to recent Forest Service statements, approximately 50 percent of the BHNF remains at high risk for mountain pine beetle infestation.  Salvaging and utilizing those trees is far more preferable than allowing them to become fuel for forest fires that threaten the communities and forests of the Black Hills.

We request an increased FY 2016 sale program, with a sawtimber target of 220,000 ccf, which would:  1) sustain the current forest products industry; 2) salvage more acres of trees already attacked by mountain pine beetles; 3) treat additional acres resulting in reduced potential for further mountain pine beetle infestations; and 4) reduce fire danger.

We look forward to your response.  Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

###

 

Rounds Joins Colleagues in Letter Urging Secretary of State Not to Placate Iran

PIERRE—U.S. Senator Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, this week joined his colleagues in a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry regarding his recent assurances to Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif that new Visa Waiver Program (VWP) restrictions would not impact Iranian interests. The letter is critical of Secretary Kerry’s attempt to reassure Iran and highlights the fact that U.S. law is not the problem, Iran’s continued support for terrorism is. The Senators ask Secretary Kerry to make this clear in future interactions with his counterpart, as well as the fact that these reforms were drafted to address U.S. national security interests, not Iranian interests.

“Iran-sponsored terrorists and militants are responsible for the death of more than 700 Americans,” the Senators wrote. “As you continue to engage with Mr. Zarif, we urge—rather than seeking to placate the complaints of Iran, the world’s biggest state sponsor of terrorism—you to press him and his government to cease its support for terrorism and provide tangible evidence that it is doing so. We also ask you to clarify to Mr. Zarif and his colleagues that these reforms to the VWP were not drafted with Iranian interests in mind, but U.S. national security interests.”

The letter, led by Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), was also signed by Sens. with Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), Shelly Moore Capito (R-W.V.), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), James Inhofe (R-Okla.), John Boozman (R-Ark.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).

Signed into law last month, the Fiscal Year 2016 Omnibus included reforms to the Visa Waiver Program that would prohibit an individual from traveling to the U.S. under the VWP if, since March 2011, they have visited Iraq or any country designated as a state sponsor of terrorism, or if they hold dual citizenship with those countries. These prospective travelers are now required to go through the standard visa application process. Iran is a designated state sponsor of terrorism, and these new restrictions apply to individuals who have traveled to Iran or hold dual Iranian citizenship. The provision allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive individuals if it is in the law enforcement or national security interests of the United States.

Foreign Minister Zarif expressed frustration with these restrictions, and the letter from Secretary Kerry assured him that the new law would not interfere with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and the “legitimate business interests of Iran.”

Full text of the letter is below:

Dear Secretary Kerry:

We are gravely concerned about your recent letter to Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif that sought to allay Iran’s complaints about Visa Waiver Program (VWP) reforms recently signed into law in the United States.

As you know, the new reforms would prohibit any national of a VWP country who has traveled to a country designated by the U.S. Government as a State Sponsor of Terrorism since March 2011, or who holds dual-citizenship with designated countries, from traveling under the VWP. Instead, these individuals would be required to obtain a visa.  Iran is a U.S.-designated State Sponsor of Terrorism.

Mr. Zarif, who described reforms to protect the Visa Waiver Program against terrorist infiltration as “absurd,” also had the temerity to ask:  “Has anybody in the West been targeted by any Iranian national, anybody of Iranian origin, or anyone travelling to Iran?”

Iran-sponsored terrorists and militants are responsible for the death of more than 700 Americans.  During the 1980s, Iran-backed Hezbollah terrorists killed over 290 Americans in Lebanon—including 241 U.S. servicemen in the Beirut Barracks Bombing of October 23, 1983. During the 2000s, Iran-backed attacks killed hundreds of Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan. On July 9, 2015, General Joseph Dunford, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Senators:  “I know the total number of soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines killed by Iranian activities [in Iraq and Afghanistan], and the number has been recently quoted as about 500.”

As you continue to engage with Mr. Zarif, we urge—rather than seeking to placate the complaints of Iran, the world’s biggest state sponsor of terrorism—you to press him and his government to cease its support for terrorism and provide tangible evidence that it is doing so. We also ask you to clarify to Mr. Zarif and his colleagues that these reforms to the VWP were not drafted with Iranian interests in mind, but U.S. national security interests.

###

This January marks the rollout of the South Dakota Secretary of State’s Campaign Finance Reporting System, and for the better part of a week, I’ve been trying to figure out the improvements from the older systems to the new one.

And before I go into my own experiences trying to work with it, it’s an appropriate time for a primer/history on South Dakota Campaign Finance on-line reporting.

As someone who spends a lot of time looking through campaign finance reports, I was hoping we’d see some improvements to the system, such as being able to sort all filings by date, so as to see “what’s new.” This was a functionality in the very first filing system that was not carried over when it was redone in 2011, that actually was very helpful to filing researchers.

In response to my query about that possibility, I was informed by Kea Warne in the elections department that “You are able to search by committee name or candidate name to search for a particular one or search all to see an entire list of committees.  You cannot search by date submitted.”

Oh, well. That would have been an improvement over the old system. So I set myself to trying to find what were the actual improvements to the system on the researcher side of things. You know, trying to figure out what enhancements have been made in the interest of public disclosure and transparency?

So, lets talk about the various systems and their history.  Having been involved in politics since 1988, I can tell you that the transparency of the documentation in South Dakota Campaign Finance has taken various forms over the past decade or so.

Originally, you would have to go talk with Darleen Gage up at the Secretary of State’s office, and she’d point you to the files, and you would be able to have a look/see.   That was fine, but it was definitely a manual system.

As technology marched on, a computerized system was created which allowed you to look up filings by name and by date.

 

There was no aggregation of names, so if you wanted to look through the Republican State Central Committee, you had to go through a few pages of them.

That system, used from about 2007 up through 2010 can be viewed here, and featured a searchable field, allowing the user to filter the results slightly.

It was primitive, and it had it’s faults, but it allowed the user to perform the research on-line that had previously been limited to the hours of 8 AM to – 5 PM in Pierre.

2011 saw Jason Gant taking over the office with a wave of modernization of data systems for which he was alternately cheered and razzed for. Among the systems that received that dual response was an attempt to make the system more publicly accessible and transparent. As it was announced, the new system was “South Dakota’s first entirely electronic campaign finance reporting system“ which “allows a campaign committee’s finances to be recorded and tracked through the use of an online accounting ledger, making reporting as simple as clicking a button.”

His CASH system, while it was not everything to everyone, it was cheered by members of the media as “a big step forward.“ But, there was discontent in paradise. Some in the media groaned it should have gone further, and a few legislators howled about it going too far. They did not like an optional campaign accounting function was attached to the system, giving them the option to store their records on-line, and some of the less technically adept preferred paper filings, and didn’t like putting things on-line at all.

But, for all its foibles, it represented the first time that donor information was digitized and searchable, and represented a significant step forward for political transparency, as opposed to the previous system’s flat file with accompanying scan of the document, with no searchable donor function.  The new system allowed for wild card text searches, and provided broad amounts of information for a person’s political activity.

Searching on one name allowed you to find out what political committees a person was attached to, committees they made donations to, and other useful information you would normally have to pick through multiple reports for to find relationships and trace donations.

Unfortunately, that required someone to enter that data, and some legislators balked at doing it themselves.

While the release promises the “first entirely electronic campaign finance reporting system,” eventually, necessity caused that the be abandoned somewhat, and the scanned documents were returned. For those that submitted the information in that manner, the donor information would be typed in by hand by staff. Inefficient, but it was one way to maintain donor transparency, and respond to the grumbling by committees and elected officials who didn’t want to spend the time to enter the information themselves.

That system brings us up to the present day, and the system rolled out in the last week or so. The latest and third incarnation of campaign finance reporting is generically titled the “Campaign Finance Reporting System,”  which you can find at http://sdcfr.cloudapp.net/Search/Search.aspx, hosted out on the Microsoft azure cloud.

What do I think?   Well…. How about I tell you about my experiences in using it?

Upon entering the system, if you’re attempting to perform a search, you’re required to drill down to a separate page:

Upon going to that page, you’re given the option of searching by committee name or type.   And upon clicking on one of them (name in this instance), you’re prompted to select committee name.

But, didn’t it say search up above? Well, yes, but it isn’t a search. Not at all, unless they mean by search, you scroll through hundreds of committees and “select” the one you’re after. The new system seems to lack an option to do a nominal, or even a rudimentary wildcard search, as had been allowed in the 2007 version back nearly a decade ago. You don’t search for a committee, as much as you are required to scroll through the list seeking the one you want.

If you don’t know the name of the committee, there’s no broader searching functionality provided, and you could have to manually peck through 460 PAC’s and Committees, with no notation of filing or dates of the election cycles, which leaves you guessing even further.

Once you select a committee, you are presented with the following screen:

The screen is reminiscent of the prior CASH system, shown below…

… but without digitized donor information available, and while the new system has added phone numbers to the committee information screen, it is in what some may consider a more basic layout.

According to Deputy Secretary Kea Warne, the Secretary of State’s office has “received positive feedback from committees that have used the new CFRS system.” When asked about additions or changes to the newly rolled out system, I was informed the office does “not have any plans for enhancements.”

I asked the Secretary of State’s office about the notation that had been on the website – up until today – on the search screen in bold red that “documents created in the new CFRS after January 4th, 2016 can be found in a search utilizing the “Date Received” and/or “Date Filed” criteria, as I was unable to find where you could do that. They replied that they “decided not to include the search function for date submitted and date filed due to not everyone filing online.”

And in response to my inquiry, they removed the language.

While the Secretary of State office claims positive feedback from filing committees using the new system, (I haven’t used it myself to enter data), enhancements in the system for the media or casual researcher are not evident. In fact, for the researcher, the system’s interface lacking the ability for any text or wildcard searches appears to be less sophisticated than the system originally introduced by Chris Nelson in 2007, and with the alternatives of endless scrolling or paging through dozens of pages of committee names, it is far, far more unwieldy to use.

What should be concerning to transparency advocates is that with the new system transparency has taken a giant leap backwards when it comes to the availability and searching of donor information that was present in the preceding system. The new system has eliminated that functionality, and returned to the roots of the 2007 system, ignoring any evidence that the State of South Dakota ever dipped a toe in the waters of that kind of campaign finance transparency.

There may be more “user friendly” enhancements on the back end which are not evident to the public researcher. I’m sure there are. But if it was a choice between enhancing the experience of a few hundred political committees, or maintaining and improving the transparency for several hundred thousand taxpaying South Dakota citizens, I’m sure you can guess which one they should have chosen.

But don’t take my opinion on it. Try all three for yourself…

Original Campaign Finance System Reports (2007-2010)

CASH Campaign Finance System (2011 – 2015)

New Campaign Finance Reporting System (2016 – )

And let me know what you think.

 

In a message to a joint session of the legislature yesterday, Governor Dennis Daugaard presented bold plans from his administration to address challenges that the administration has faced during his tenure. However, reaction to his plans have varied from support to skepticism. And that’s within the confines of the Republican caucus.

As noted by the Associated press:

Lawmakers should pass a half-cent sales tax increase to improve South Dakota’s lowest-in-the-nation teacher pay so it’s competitive with neighboring states, Gov. Dennis Daugaard said Tuesday in his State of the State address.

The sales tax increase would raise more than $100 million in the upcoming budget year, most of which would be put toward helping raise the state’s target average teacher salary to $48,500 per year. If approved, it would be the first permanent increase to South Dakota’s sales tax rate of 4 cents per dollar in nearly half a century.

and…

“To do two tax increases in a row, back-to-back is tough,” House Majority Leader Brian Gosch said, referring to fuel tax increases that lawmakers approved last session for road and bridge funding.

and…

On other issues, the governor again exhorted legislators to consider an expansion of the Medicaid health coverage program for disabled and low-income people. Daugaard’s position a departure from other Republican governors nationally who have declined to expand because they oppose President Barack Obama’s federal health overhaul.

But Daugaard has said the state’s costs for expansion would have to be covered by savings in part by expanding access to services that are fully funded by the federal government. That would free funds for boosting potential enrollment by about 50,000 residents.

Read it all here.

In reviewing the Governor’s proposals, I asked some legislators to give me some feedback on what they thought about the Governor’s State of the State address, and the Governor’s proposals. And the wariness over the proposed tax increase as noted by House Majority Leader Brian Gosch seems to be evident with other members of the GOP.

State Representative Lance Russell of Hot Springs offered an unvarnished assessment of the Governor’s proposals. When asked, he noted that to him, the State of the State address offered “More taxing, more spending, more welfare, more mandates, and no great announcements of new private industries that will contribute to the taxable value of the state’s future.  And no vision.”

Representative Jim Bolin found more to like in the address, especially in some of the points that weren’t primary focuses by the media, such as the new state park proposed by the Governor. Bolin noted, “My reaction is that we have no agreement yet with the feds on Medicaid expansion, so out of respect for the governor and his request that we withhold judgment, I will not comment at this time.  I am supportive of the effort to make some adjustments for future employees in the state pension system.  I am very pleased by the work we are doing on rail line expansion and the refurbishing of old lines.  Good for everybody.  I like the effort to push dual credit classes juniors and seniors in high school.  I like the efforts we are making to develop Good Earth State Park near where I live and the work being done in Custer Park is great.  The efforts to develop a new park in Spearfish Canyon is noteworthy as well.”

On the education portion of the package, with the Governor’s 1/2 cent of sales tax to fund high salaries for teachers, Bolin, a majority whip for the GOP Caucus, echoed what Gosch had to say on the tax proposal; that “the Blue Ribbon Task force proposal will face major hurdles as the two thirds constitutional amendment passed by the voters in 1978 makes any tax hike very difficult.  The fight over this question will be a dominant question this session.”

State Senator Deb Peters, Chairwoman of Senate Appropriations had been listening to the main proposals on Education and Medicaid develop over the last year, and was not surprised to see that they took the form that they did. Deb noted that “an important component of working on the legislation will be how they work on accountability for the distribution of the new funds, versus how it is balanced with local control,” expressing the legislature’s desire for the funds to go where they intend – to teacher’s salaries – without stepping in and usurping local control from school districts in making decisions.

Senator Peters is also watching the Medicaid Expansion proposal carefully, as negotiations have been going on for quite a while, but an agreement for the federal government to step in and take over their treaty responsibilities has still not happened yet. She noted that South Dakota’s Native American population wants the access to care, and she believes it is the right thing, but “we have to balance that against the Medicaid expansion itself.”

The next 30 days will be very telling as to what is going to happen with the Medicaid expansion in South Dakota, which is already drawing opposition from groups such as the South Dakota chapter of Americans for Prosperity, a conservative, free market group which has already begun campaigning against the measure.

With at least two major measures proving to be controversial before their bills have been written yet, the 2016 legislative session could be interesting to watch in light of the election year politics that are sure to be involved in many of these decisions for legislators.

Stay tuned.