Author: @SoDakCampaigns

Slick Rick Weiland trying to fleece donors to turn South Dakota into “Liberal Land”

@SoDakCampaigns

Losing Democrat US Senate Candidate Rick Weiland just sent out another plea for money.

And it’s a doozy, as he lays out his plan to pass laws and re-write the South Dakota State Constitution to re-engineer the state into a hippy dippy liberal utopia where Democrats can win elections:

Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:03:30 +0000
From: [email protected]
Subject: Why losing my US Senate race might be for the best?


You were one of the tens of thousands of Americans who contributed to my race for the United States Senate last year and for that I will be eternally grateful – but as you know, I didn’t win.

The loss was gut-wrenching, especially since Harper Polling, a Republican firm, had me only 4 points down a month from the election and our internal polls agreed. I really thought we had a chance but I was blown away by a tidal wave of big money in the last few weeks and the rest is history.

BUT — surprising as it may seem, it may have been for the best.

Now don’t get me wrong, I wanted to be in the Senate, fighting for a more fair, more socially just America – starting with overturning Citizens United and working for better wages, fairer trade and taxes, marriage equality, stopping Keystone, working on climate change, investing in renewable energy, education and in our infrastructure – the list goes on and on and on.

But sometimes things happen for a reason, and I truly believe that I may have a greater opportunity to affect the direction of our country with TakeItBack.Org — than I would have had I won.

WHY — because Congress is gridlocked, its gears frozen in place. Inert.

The truth is, any progress we’re going to make in the foreseeable future is going to be in the states, not the federal government, and it’s the states where our organization, TakeItBack.Org, is totally focused.

Can you imagine the John Boehner’s House of Representatives passing campaign reform? Or Mitch McConnell’s Senate supporting an increase in the minimum wage? Not going to happen.

What I can imagine, however, is putting our energy and resources into fixing our country, one state at a time, and that’s exactly what TakeItBack.Org is doing.

We are using ballot measures to take our country back by supporting: 1) an “anti-corruption/big money” initiative that our new poll shows is “through the roof!” 2) an initiative to establish a nonpartisan legislative redistricting commission, ending the ability of the Legislature to draw boundaries for their own political advantage, which polls at 72%-19% in favor; and 3), a constitutional amendment that would turn the South Dakota Legislature into a nonpartisan body which is favored 59%-36%, same as has existed in Nebraska for 80 years, which just recently became the first conservative state in 43 years to repeal the death penalty.

If successful, these initiatives will transform South Dakota, and if we can pass them here, we can pass them anywhere.

We also know that we can’t do this alone. We need resources to continue to draft these ballot measures, hire paid circulators, recruit volunteers and get our message out to the voters as to why they should consider and vote next year for transformative change.

We could all sit back and let someone else fight this fight but, frankly, there is no “someone else.”

This is up to all of us, and it is why I have decided to engage in this fight to take our state and country back.

We will not be successful if you don’t join us — We need you!

Rick Weiland

Much of what he’s talking about in terms of redistricting, changing the structure of the legislature require changes in the state constitution, and seem to be little more than a liberal pipe dream thats never going to happen.

But if it helps him make a buck…..

** Bonus BS!**   Did he really say “tens of thousands of Americans who contributed to my race?”

I’d like to see proof of that.

Because I’ve looked at his campaign finance reports, and I’m not sure he hit 1000, much less “tens of thousands.”

Thune: Obamacare Is Broken

@SoDakCampaigns

thuneheadernew

Thune: Obamacare Is Broken

“While the Obamacare exchanges unravel, health insurance costs on the exchanges are soaring. More than 6 million people are enrolled in plans facing average rate increases of 10 percent or more.”

WASHINGTON, D.C.—U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) spoke on the floor of the Senate today on the double-digit premium increases many Obamacare consumers are facing and the continued broken promises of this failed law.

Click here to watch Senator Thune’s remarks on the Senate floor.

Remarks as prepared for delivery:

“The president made some comments yesterday on the upcoming Supreme Court Obamacare decision. Referring to his health care law, the president said, and I quote, ‘What’s more, the thing’s working.  Part of what’s bizarre about this whole thing is we haven’t had a lot of conversations about the horrors of Obamacare because it hasn’t come to pass.’

“Let me repeat that, Mr. President. The president thinks Obamacare is working and that negative predictions about the law haven’t come to pass. To respond to that, let me just read a few headlines from the past couple of weeks.

“From CNN: ‘Obamacare sticker shock: Big rate hikes proposed for 2016’

“From the Associated Press: ‘Many health insurers go big with initial 2016 rate requests’

“From The Hill: ‘Overhead costs exploding under ObamaCare, study finds’

“From the Associated Press: ‘8 Minnesota health plans propose big premium hikes for 2016’

“From the Lexington Herald-Leader: ‘Most health insurance rates expected to rise next year in Kentucky’

“I could go on.

“The truth is, Mr. President, not only is Obamacare not working, it’s rapidly unraveling.

“A May 1 headline from the Washington Post reported, and I quote, ‘Almost half of Obamacare exchanges face financial struggles in the future.’

“Hawaii’s exchange has already failed. California’s exchange is struggling to sign up consumers. One-third of the consumers who purchased insurance on the California exchange in 2014 declined to re-enroll in 2015.

“Massachusetts’ exchange is being investigated by the federal government. Colorado’s exchange is struggling financially and has raised fees for consumers purchasing insurance plans. Rhode Island’s governor is pushing for new fees on insurance plans to help fund the $30.9 million operating cost of the Rhode Island exchange. Incidentally, that’s $30.9 million to run an exchange that serves just 30,000 people.

“The Minnesota exchange was supposed to cover more than 150,000 individuals in its small-business marketplace by 2016. So far, it is covering 1,405 individuals, or approximately 1 percent of the number it’s intended to cover. The Minnesota exchange has cost federal taxpayers $189 million so far — $189 million, for an exchange that provides coverage for just 61,000 people.

“A recent Forbes piece notes that Vermont’s exchange, and I quote, ‘will need $51 million a year to provide insurance to fewer than 32,000 enrollees – or $1,613 per enrollee in overhead.  Before Obamacare, $1,600 would have been enough to pay the entire annual premium for some individual insurance plans.’ 

“Mr. President, while the Obamacare exchanges unravel, health insurance costs on the exchanges are soaring. Insurers have requested double-digit premium increases on 676 individual and small group plans for 2016.

“More than 6 million people are enrolled in plans facing average rate increases of 10 percent or more. Around the country, rate increases of 20, 30, 40, and 50 percent are common. One health care plan in Arizona is seeking a rate increase of 78.9 percent.

“So much for the president’s promise that his health care plan ‘would bring down the cost of health care for millions.’

“In my home state of South Dakota, proposed rate increases range up to 44.4 percent. That’s not something South Dakota families can afford.

“Mr. President, the discussion about Obamacare’s success or failure is no longer theoretical. The evidence is in, and it shows that the president’s health care law is broken. It’s time to repeal Obamacare and replace it with real health care reforms that will actually drive down costs. Five years under Obamacare is long enough for American families.”

###

Rounds Cosponsors Obamacare Replacement Plan

@SoDakCampaigns

RoundsPressHeader

Rounds Cosponsors Obamacare Replacement Plan 

MikeRounds official SenateWASHINGTON — Today, U.S. Senator Mike Rounds (R-SD) joined his colleagues in introducing the Patient Freedom Act, a conservative response to protect millions of Americans who are at risk of losing their health care coverage following the Supreme Court’s ruling in King v. Burwell. The Patient Freedom Act, introduced by Sen. Bill Cassidy, M.D. (R-LA), lowers costs, eliminates mandates, gives states the power and puts patients in control of their health care.

“The Administration has no plan to protect the American people if the Supreme Court rules against Obamacare’s healthcare subsidies, a decision that could come any day now,” said Rounds. “For 19,000 South Dakotans, that means lost federal healthcare subsidies and up to a 178 percent increase in their health care premiums. Our legislation, carefully crafted by Dr. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, is a long-term solution that is patient-centered and puts states back in the driver’s seat. It provides states with the flexibility, funding and control to determine the best health care plan for their needs and rids them of Obamacare’s federal mandates.”

Original cosponsors include Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-TX), Sens. David Vitter (R-LA), Dan Coats (R-IN), Susan Collins (R-ME), and Jim Inhofe (R-OK). A companion bill will be introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Dr. Ralph Abraham (R-LA).

Overview

The Patient Freedom Act is a market-based solution that gives patients the power by lowering costs, eliminating mandates, returning power to states over insurance, and giving patients knowledge.

·Doing nothing is not an option

o King v. Burwell will be decided this month and Republicans need a plan

o Americans expect Congress to have an Obamacare alternative for the 5-10 million people impacted

· Under the Patient Freedom Act, states have three options:

o Continue Obamacare and establish a state exchange

o Do nothing while 5-10 million people lose their health care

o Enact the Patient Freedom Act – choosing conservative, free market health care solutions

· This plan lowers costs by repealing unpopular Obamacare federal mandates, including:

o Individual mandate

o Employer mandate

o Federal essential health benefits mandate

· The Patient Freedom Act ensures health care dollars go directly to the patient:

o States could choose to receive this funding through either a per capita patient grant or a federal tax credit, depending on the state’s preference

o However, unlike under Obamacare, this funding goes DIRECTLY to patients

· Patients are empowered:

o Patients receive their money through a Health Savings Account (HSA), empowering patients to make the best decision for them and their families

o HSAs are reformed to allow patients to use their health care dollars for more options

· Patients have the power of portability, protection and price transparency:

o Patients can move between health insurance plans without penalty each year

o Those with pre-existing conditions are protected

o Providers must publish a cash price for services reimbursed from HSAs, empowering patients to make informed decisions

###

Attorney General Explanation Released for Initiated Measure Relating to Pot

@SoDakCampaigns

Attorney General Explanation Released for Initiated Measure Relating to Medical Marijuana

Marty JackleyPIERRE, S.D.- South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley announced today an Attorney General Explanation for an initiated measure has been filed with the Secretary of State. This statement will appear on petitions that will be circulated by the sponsor of the measure. If the sponsor obtains a sufficient number of signatures (13,871) on the petitions by November 8, 2015, as certified by the Secretary of State, the measure will be placed on the ballot for the November 2016 general election.

Under South Dakota law, the Attorney General is responsible for preparing explanations for proposed initiated measures, referred laws, and South Dakota Constitutional Amendments. Specifically, the explanation includes a title, an objective, clear and simple summary of the purpose and effect of the proposed measure and a description of the legal consequences. It is anticipated that additional Attorney General Explanations for initiated measures will be filed in the near future.

To view the Attorney General Explanation for the measure, as well as the final form of the measure submitted to this office, please click on the link below:

http://atg.sd.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=u6cZgrZAsnw%3d&tabid=442 

South Dakota Joins to Protect Private Property Rights from Federal Prairie Dog Protections 

@SoDakCampaigns

South Dakota Joins to Protect Private Property Rights from Federal Prairie Dog Protections

Marty JackleyPIERRE, S.D – Attorney General Marty Jackley announces that South Dakota has joined 7 other states in an amicus or “friend of the court” brief to support asking the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold a ruling striking down federal protections for the Utah prairie dog on private property.

“The States have historically managed the wildlife within their borders. Federal regulation of the white or black-tailed prairie dogs on state, local or private land encroaches on powers reserved to the States under the 10th Amendment and individual property rights,” said Jackley.

The States’ brief takes the position that federal regulation of the Utah prairie dog on private lands violates the Constitution, and that the state of Utah has the authority to manage wildlife within its borders. The States argue that Utah’s rural communities are hurt by the “uncontrolled proliferation” of the Utah prairie dog.

Prairie dogs belong to the Sciuridae family of rodents. There are five species of prairie dogs native to North America. The Utah prairie dog is a member of the white-tailed group.

South Dakota is home to the black-tailed prairie dog that is currently listed by federal authorities as a candidate for listing under the Endangered Species Act.

U.S. District Court had ruled in favor of state control by determining that federal rules protecting the threatened species were allowing prairie dogs to overtake a town.

The property owners from Utah said the small, burrowing animals damaged the airport and cemetery and interrupted funerals with their barking.

-30-

Should Republicans take a look at revising the gender enforced rules in the bylaws?

@SoDakCampaigns

North Dakota Republicans had a new state party chair elected this past weekend, but the elections for other officers didn’t pass without some controversy, specifically those regarding some bylaw enforced gender rules in the bylaws as reported by our good friend to the north, sayanythingblog.com:

You see, the NDGOP has two vice chair position. There is a Vice Chairman and a Vice Chairwoman. You can read about the definitions of these positions in the NDGOP rules, but basically the duty of the Vice Chairman is to “preside at all meetings of the State Committee” when the Chairman is unavailable while the duties of the Vice Chairwoman is to “assist the State Chairman, act as liaison between the Republican Party and the Republican Women of North Dakota, and to perform such other duties as the State Chairman may from time to time request.”

There is also a strange provision for vacancies in the Chairman position whereby the Vice Chairman succeeds the Chairman if that person is a woman, and the Vice Chairwoman succeeds the Chairman if that person is a man.

It’s all a little strange.

Anyway, I spoke with Toman about her bid and her position is that the Vice Chairman position is and should be gender-neutral under current rules. The position of some others in the party, on the other hand, is that the two sub-Chairman positions are clearly defined by gender and that the rules can’t simply be ignored.

Toman wanted to be Vice Chairman, not Vice Chairwoman.

Read it all here.

South Dakota Republicans aren’t immune to similar rules. In fact, I believe they go from the lower levels of organization of the party at the county level to the top, at the national level; where rules state if the Chair is male, the vice-chair is female.

Do gender enforced roles help keep an equal balance in the party, since men tend to be over-represented in the world of politics? Or is the gender based selection of the vice chair an outdated concept which actually prevents things, such as women serving as chair and vice chair at one time?

Your thoughts?

Another one in for the 2016 Legislative races

@SoDakCampaigns

I had a note from Eric Leggett on Friday to make note of his intent to run for the Open seat in his district in the 2016 races. 

That would have him as a candidate for Pat Kirschman’s District 15 House Seat. Kirschman is ineligible to run again due to term limits. 

Leggett was an unsuccessful independent candidate for that office in 2014, and I anticipate he’ll run as an Indy for the office again. It’s not like District 15 hasn’t elected Indys before. That’s where Jenna Haggar got her start!

I suspect Eric learned a lot on his first run, and will fare much better his second time out. Good luck!

(And keep those e-mails of intention coming!)

US Senator John Thune’s Weekly Column: Reining in the Obama EPA

@SoDakCampaigns

thuneheadernew

Reining in the Obama EPA
By Senator John Thune

John_Thune,_official_portrait,_111th_CongressI strongly believe in the outdoor heritage that makes South Dakota such an amazing place to live, work, and raise a family. Whether it’s earning a living off of the land, like so many of our hard-working farmers and ranchers, or enjoying a weekend pheasant hunt with friends and family, South Dakotans take seriously their responsibility to help protect the outdoors.

While certain protections are necessary to ensure these resources are available for future generations, there are limits to the federal government’s role. In some cases, the rules and regulations that come out of Washington, D.C., specifically the Obama Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), can often cause more harm than good in places like South Dakota.

Many of the Washington bureaucrats who write and implement these rules have never stepped foot in the states in which the rules will apply. Therein lies the problem: Rule-makers in Washington’s concrete jungle are forcing agriculture producers, homeowners, and small businesses across the country to comply with rules that will have devastating effects in rural America.

Take, for example, last week’s EPA announcement on the “waters of the United States” (WOTUS), which is one of the largest federal government power grabs over private land we’ve ever seen. The EPA’s broad new definition of U.S. waterways could classify a small ditch or creek on South Dakota farmland or housing subdivisions as a waterway, which under these new rules, could now be subject to federal permitting, compliance costs, and potentially significant penalties and fines. I am especially concerned about the EPA claiming jurisdiction in the Prairie Pothole Region throughout East River.

The EPA delivered a one-two punch to South Dakota farmers last week, when following its WOTUS announcement, it proposed new Renewable Fuels Standards (RFS) volume requirements for 2014-2016. Not only do the EPA’s proposed requirements fall short of the RFS volumes first prescribed by Congress, but they fail to provide the certainty needed to spur investment in our domestic biofuels industry.

I strongly oppose EPA’s overreach, and will continue to work with my colleagues in the Senate to do whatever is possible to block these heavy-handed regulations and help mitigate the damage they will inevitably cause to South Dakotans.

###

US Senator Mike Rounds Weekly Column: Protecting the 2nd Amendment

@SoDakCampaigns

RoundsPressHeader

Protecting the 2nd Amendment
Senator Mike Rounds
June 5, 2015

 MikeRounds official SenateAs an avid hunter and lifelong gun owner, I have always been a strong defender of the Second Amendment. We cherish our right to bear arms in South Dakota, where we have a strong outdoor heritage and lively economy based on sportsmen activity. This fundamental right is embedded in the Constitution and must be fiercely protected. That’s why I’m greatly concerned about the Obama administration’s latest attempt to circumvent congress and impose sweeping new gun restrictions on the American people. It is an assault on the Second Amendment.

The Department of Justice recently announced plans to impose these new regulations on gun ownership through executive order in the coming months. These new regulations range from imposing new requirements for gun storage to allowing the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) to impose new regulations on pistols. The heavy hand of government is once again attempting to penalize law abiding citizens. What this administration hasn’t figured out is that these proposals penalize the wrong people and ignore the Constitutional rights of citizens—an all too common theme under this president. This assault on the Second Amendment will do nothing to reduce criminal activity. South Dakota has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the country, and one of the lowest crime rates. In my opinion, that’s not a coincidence.

We all want to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals, but the administration’s proposals are too broad and threaten the rights of law-abiding gun owners across the nation. These new rules make it harder for ordinary citizens who pose no threat to society from exercising their second amendment rights. Any changes that effect these constitutional rights should be enacted legislatively. Regulations that aim to prevent serious offenders from obtaining a gun must not unfairly root out other prospective gun owners who are not a danger to society.

I’m also concerned about how broad and how far the ATF will go when finalizing these new gun restrictions. Based on the president’s previous track record of imposing intrusive regulations, I have little faith these new gun rules would be reasonable or well-received. The president knows he would not have the support of Congress if he tried to pass these new rules through legislation. He failed to convince Congress to enact new gun restrictions just two years ago and I am concerned that this is just a back-door attempt to allow unelected bureaucrats to change our gun laws. I’ve always believed that if a rule that will affect millions of Americans is a good one, it should be able to stand up to Congressional scrutiny.

I’m also concerned that President Obama’s new gun regulations could make it so onerous to purchase and own a gun that it deters law-abiding citizens from even having one. Too many of us know too well what can happen when too much government red tape stands in the way. In preventing gun violence, we must focus on the offenders, not the weapon.

Our right to bear arms is one of our most important rights as citizens. In South Dakota and across the nation, hunters, gun collectors and sportsmen alike take seriously their responsibilities of owning a gun. We must push back against President Obama’s anti-gun agenda to protect the Second Amendment. As a member of the United States Senate, I will continue to work to defend the right to bear arms and put a stop to the president’s overreaching gun policies.

###