Author: @SoDakCampaigns

Howie back making excuses for Bosworth, but proves he just doesn’t bother to read.

@SoDakCampaigns

This morning, Gordon Howie, who might just have schlepped himself out to Pierre for one of Bosworth’s free hotel rooms that she was offering is writing this morning without the benefit of information, accuracy, or a brain to guide him as he makes his daily excuse for Annette Bosworth’s poor judgement:

As I sat watching, it was hard not to wonder about the intensity with which the Jackley team attacked Bosworth in their attempt to convict her of 12 felony charges over petition errors which her defense maintain were “honest mistakes”.

It was also hard to wonder where Jackley was when then Republican Speaker of the House Brian Gosh purposely violated the law by notarizing his own signatures on his own petitions. Nothing. No consequence. The Attorney General did not marshal a team of lawyers and engage the director of the DCI to launch an investigation. There was no consequence whatsoever, even though Gosh is an attorney himself and should reasonably have known better.

Why this obvious double standard?

Read it here.

First off, as Howie should have noticed by the testimony yesterday, there are distinct and separate parts of the petition. The Declaration of candidacy. The portion where voters sign, and the attestment of the circulator (The part Bosworth is in trouble for).

Howie is mewling & trying to say “but..but…but… Brian Gosch did it too” – a statement which is completely and utterly false.

For the petitions that Brian Gosch had circulated on his behalf, he had filled out the top portion, where he declared his candidacy. Someone else circulated the petitions, and returned them to Gosch, signing in his presence. What Gosch did was to notarize the petitions, which is an attestment to the fact that the person signing the oath that they were circulator appeared in his presence, which he confirmed.

A completely, and utterly legal act…. as Stephanie Strong found out to her detriment when she tried to use the court system to gin up the issue.  It had been legal, and was quite legal at the time when he did it. The legislature has changed the law since, but at the time, it was just fine.

But, don’t bother getting Gordon Howie to try to accept troubling little things like facts.

Day 1 of the Annette Bosworth Trial (#BozTrial) – Thoughts, Winners & Losers.

@SoDakCampaigns

In between running to Lowe’s and listening while painting my deck, I caught the lions share of the Bosworth Trial coverage on KELOland’s live feed.

My reaction? Much of the first hour or so was predictable – opening statements, etc. Moving into testimony, it was a review of procedure from Former Secretary of State Chris Nelson, who reiterated what people had heard from Secretary Gant all along during the process – that the Secretary of State was a filing agency, had set procedures in place, and had no authority to contest the validity of signatures.

Nelson laid it out very concisely, and even critics of Gant had to begrudgingly admit in on-line chatter that it was handled as it was supposed to be. This was followed up by more SOS related testimony, as well as those who had signed petitions being called as witnesses, noting how the petitions in question had been circulated to them.

The testimony later moved to Bryan Gortmaker with DCI. And here the trial moved from very mechanical yes and no information to what was difficult to listen to.Especially for the defense.

After presenting evidence that she was in the Philippines during the time the petitions were being circulated, they introduced the April 17, 2014 Greg Belfrage show from KELO-AM. To say this was devastating to Bosworth’s case for all watching or listening is an understatement.  It was bone-crushing. In her own rambling wandering manner, through the radio program Bosworth’s radio confessional to Belfrage, she seemingly painted her as anything but sympathetic, and did nothing to bolster the credibility and sympathy her attorney attempted to imply in his opening statement.  If anything, it eroded it, while Bosworth listened, and at times visibly appeared on the verge of tears.

It was like she was testifying live without the benefit of her attorney imploring her not to say anything stupid.

It was commented on-line that this would be a good time for the prosecution to drop the microphone in triumph. Because as things wrapped up, the general impression is that this was a bad, bad day in court for Annette Bosworth.

Otherwise, today’s Winners & Losers?

Winner: Ben Dunsmoor and KELOland’s coverage.  Second to none, especially with cameras being allowed in the court room. This was incredibly well done in the cramped space, and they deserve tremendous credit for letting the story tell itself.

Loser: Argus Leader. Where the hell were you and your “Real Reporters?” Probably watching KELOland with the rest of us.  Sorry guys, but you whiffed this one.

Winner: Twitter. Second only to KELOland, Twitter was reasonably active today on the court case. Ken Santema did a good job covering things, while we had to pick through Cory Heidelberger’s self-aggrandizement to find what was worthwhile.

Winner: The State of South Dakota (As prosecutor). See Above.

Loser: Team Boz. Again, see above. It was a bad, bad day.

Attorney General Explanation for Initiated Measure Petitions Relating to Alcohol and Tobacco Released; Says may be challenged in court on Constitutional grounds

@SoDakCampaigns

From a Press Release from Attorney General Marty Jackley:

Attorney General Explanation for Initiated Measure Petitions Relating to Alcohol and Tobacco Released

PIERRE, S.D.- South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley announced today that two Attorney General Explanations for initiated measures have been filed with the Secretary of State. These statements will appear on petitions that will be circulated by the sponsors of the measures. If the sponsors obtain a sufficient number of signatures on the petitions, as certified by the Secretary of State, the measures will be placed on the ballot for the November 2016 general election.

1. An initiated measure to criminalize the transfer of alcoholic beverages

2. An initiated measure to criminalize the transfer of tobacco and tobacco paraphernalia

Under South Dakota law, the Attorney General is responsible for preparing explanations for proposed initiated measures, referred laws, and South Dakota Constitutional Amendments. It is anticipated that additional Attorney General Statements for initiated measures and initiated constitutional amendments will be filed in the near future. Specifically, the explanation includes a title, a clear and simple summary

Editors Note…. And the explanations were provided as as follows:

ATTORNEY GENERAL’S STATEMENT
Title: An initiated measure to criminalize the transfer of tobacco and tobacco paraphernalia

Explanation:

The initiated measure prohibits a person or business from transferring tobacco, tobacco pipes, or tobacco rolling paper to another person or business in this state .. In the measure, “tobacco” means cigarettes, cigars, cigarellos, or loose tobacco. “Transfer” includes the sale, delivery, trade, or gift. A transfer of tobacco or tobacco paraphernalia in violation of this measure is a crime. The severity of the maximum criminal penalty increases based upon the quantity of the tobacco or tobacco paraphernalia transferred. In addition, a civil penalty up to ten thousand dollars may be imposed.

If approved, this measure will result in a loss of state and local tax and license revenues. Also, this measure will likely be challenged in court on constitutional grounds. If the challenge is successful, the State of South Dakota may be required to pay money damages, attorney fees and costs.

ATTORNEY GENERAL’S STATEMENT
Title: An initiated measure to criminalize the transfer of alcoholic beverages

Explanation:

The initiated measure prohibits a person or business from transferring any alcoholic beverage containing more than one percent ethyl alcohol to another person or business in this state. “Transfer” includes the sale, delivery, trade, or gift of the alcoholic beverage. A transfer of an alcoholic beverage in violation of this measure is a crime. The severity of the maximum criminal penalty increases based upon the quantity of the alcoholic beverage transferred. In addition, a civil penalty up to ten thousand dollars may be imposed.

If approved, this measure will result in a loss of state and local tax and license revenues. Also, the measure will likely be challenged in court on constitutional grounds. If the challenge is successful, the State of South Dakota may be required to pay money damages, attorney fees and costs.

Rounds Introduces RESTORE To Permanently Address Regulatory Reform

@SoDakCampaigns

Rounds Introduces RESTORE To Permanently Address Regulatory Reform
“It’s time to end regulation without representation.” 

*Floor schedule pending, Sen. Rounds plans to address RESTORE during his maiden speech at 5 p.m. ET today. Watch HERE*


WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) today introduced a resolution to permanently address overregulation in America. The bipartisan Regulation Sensibility Through Oversight Restoration (RESTORE) Resolution would establish a Joint Select Committee to conduct a comprehensive review of rules enacted by federal agencies and analyze the feasibility and options for creating a rules review process in congress. The committee would also hold hearings on the effects of these rules and recommend ways to reduce the regulatory burden on the American people.

“The cost of federal overregulation affects every single American,” said Rounds. “It is a hidden tax that for too long, has been dictated by unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats in Washington rather than elected representatives who our founders intended to be the voice of the people. The regulators have essentially become a fourth branch of government and de-facto legislative body.  It’s regulation without representation, and it’s wrong.

“The cost of federal regulations last year was nearly $1.9 trillion, far more than Americans paid in individual federal income taxes. This compliance cost is crushing the can-do American spirit that founded our nation, settled the West, won two world wars and put a man on the moon. And it’s killing the American dream. RESTORE seeks to reinstate the people’s role in the rulemaking process and provides a path to eliminate the bad ones. It offers a permanent solution to overregulation in America and restores the representative democracy our founders envisioned.”

Original cosponsors include Sens. Joe Manchin (D- W. Va.) John Thune (R-S.D.), Jim Risch (R-Idaho), John Hoeven (R-N.D.) and Shelley Moore-Capito (R-W. Va.). Because it is a resolution, if passed by the House and Senate, RESTORE would be implemented without requiring the president’s signature.

Background:

The RESTORE Resolution would create a Joint Select Committee consisting of members of both the Senate and House of Representatives. The committee would:

  • Analyze the feasibility of a permanent joint rules review committee to

o   Review all rules causing an annual impact on the economy of $50 million or more before the rule is enacted; and

o   Delay the imposition of rules for review to the Permanent Joint Rules Review Committee.

  • Analyze the feasibility of requiring each federal agency to submit each proposed rule over $50 million to the appropriate committees of Congress for review before the rule is enacted.
  • Conduct a systematic review of rules enacted by federal agencies;
  • Hold hearings on the effects of current rules and look for ways to reduce the regulatory overreach;
  • Submit to Congress recommendations for a process to sunset overly burdensome and unnecessary rules, as well as a process for federal agencies to submit rules to Congress for review before they are enacted;
  • Submit to Congress recommendations for ways to reduce the financial burden these regulations place on American families;
  • Recommend whether Congress should overturn rules by enacting a joint resolution of disapproval; and
  • Submit a list of rules that should be repealed.

By the Numbers: Federal Regulations Today

 ###

Congresswoman Kristi Noem named by CQ Roll Call as one of 25 most influential women in Congress

@SoDakCampaigns

Noem_onetowatch

In a book released today by Congressional Quarterly, Powerful Women: The 25 Most Influential Women in Congress, released as an e-book and in print, Congresswoman Kristi Noem has been named one of the 25 most influential woman in Congress.

According to a release from CQ Roll Call:

Though women have been represented in Congress for nearly 100 years, it has been a long journey to the top. Powerful Women will give readers a brief history of women in Congress and provide an inside look at who has heft in Congress, why they do and how they wield their power, with in-depth profiles of the 25 women on the list and exclusive color photographs. The book will also look at the five freshmen on the rise, women lawmakers who are making their mark in Congress in their inaugural terms in Washington.

“As the leading news organization covering Congress, it’s fitting that these change-agent lawmakers are the subject of CQ Roll Call’s new eBook line,” said David Ellis, chief content officer at CQ Roll Call.

and…

The 25 women named in the book, and the five freshmen on the rise, will be honored at the Rewriting the Rules reception on May 19, 2015, sponsored by Procter & Gamble, in the spirit of their Always #LikeAGirl Rewrite the Rules campaign, focused on empowering young women.

Read it here.

noem_influence_Page_1The book touches on Kristi’s compelling story as to why she got into politics…

When her father died, Noem was 22, attending college part time, married and nearly eight months pregnant with her first child. She left school to help take over the family operation. It was then that she found out the family would be assessed estate taxes and would have to decide whether to sell land or take out a loan. Noem said the experience is what kindled her interest in politics. “It was tough for me to reconcile that because we had a tragedy in our family, now we had a financial situation, too. And that’s what got me involved,” she said.

and follows up on her crucial work on the passage of the farm bill.

When she was on the Agriculture Committee, one of Noem’s few public disputes with GOP leaders was over a five-year reauthorization of farm and nutrition programs that the committee approved in 2012. It never received a floor vote – leaders felt that conservative opposition to the bill would sink it – and programs lapsed for several months.

Noem made a public campaign for a floor vote, insisting that safety net provisions were absolutely crucial, particularly in light of severe drought throughout her state.

During the panel’s work on the bill, Noem focused on extensions of livestock disaster programs and “sodsaver” provisions, which cut back federal subsidies in order to remove unintended incentives that induced farmers to convert open prairies into cropland. Noem endorsed billions in reductions to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program but helped defeat deeper SNAP cuts favored by more conservative panel members.

Interested in reading for yourself? Powerful Women: The 25 Most Influential Women in Congress is available on Amazon.

Thune Introduces Legislation to Increase EPA Transparency

@SoDakCampaigns

Thune Introduces Legislation to Increase EPA Transparency

“It’s important for Congress and the American people to have a full understanding of the impact proposed regulations may have.”

John_Thune,_official_portrait,_111th_CongressWASHINGTON, D.C.— U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) today introduced the Real EPA Impact Reviews (REPAIR) Act, which would help facilitate a more transparent EPA regulatory impact analyses (RIA) process by requiring the EPA to include a scenario in each of its RIAs that does not contain additional proposed regulations.

“This is about transparency and accountability,” said Thune. “It’s important for Congress and the American people to have a full understanding of the impact proposed regulations may have. While including proposed regulations can be important for forecasting the future regulatory landscape, isolating a proposal’s impact without the influence of other proposed regulations will provide a clearer analysis of the proposal’s immediate impact.”

The REPAIR Act was inspired by the EPA’s draft RIA for lowering the National Ambient Air Quality Standard ground-level ozone, which was released on November 25, 2014. The RIA assumed that that numerous other regulations would be fully implemented, despite the possibility that these regulations may have been subject to delay, modification, or dismissal prior to finalization. The RIA also included in its baseline that the existing ozone standard would be fully implemented, despite the fact that 227 countries had yet to meet the existing standard. Such inclusions likely caused the RIA to significantly underestimate the true cost of a lower ozone standard.

Sens. Thune and Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) sent a letter in February to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy calling on the agency to explain why the RIA to lower ground-level ozone standards doesn’t align with a similar EPA proposal from 2011. Thune and Inhofe’s letter requested the EPA provide analysis that didn’t include co-benefits of reducing other emissions or include in its calculations any other proposed regulation.

In March, Thune reintroduced the bipartisan Clean Air, Strong Economies (CASE) Act (S. 751) with Senator Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), which would stem the economic harm from a lower ground-level ozone standard by requiring the EPA to focus on the worst areas for air quality before lowering the standard across the country. This bill has 24 cosponsors.

###

Rounds Opening Statement at Oversight Hearing of Scientific Advisory Panels and Processes at the Environmental Protection Agency and Legislative Hearing on S. 543, the Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2015

@SoDakCampaigns

Rounds Opening Statement at Oversight Hearing of Scientific Advisory Panels and Processes at the Environmental Protection Agency and Legislative Hearing on S. 543, the Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2015

WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), chairman of the Environment and Public Works (EPW) Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Management, and Regulatory Oversight, provided the following opening statement at today’s hearing, entitled “Oversight Hearing on Scientific Advisory Panels and Processes at the Environmental Protection Agency and Legislative Hearing on S. 543, the Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2015.”

Witnesses include Dr. Roger O. McClellan, Advisor, Toxicology and Human Health Risk Analysis; Ted Hadzi-Antich, Senior Staff Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation; Alfredo Gomez, Director, Natural Resources and Environment Team, U.S. Government Accountability Office; Dr. Terry Yosie, President & CEO, World Environment Center; Scott Faber, Vice President of Government Affairs, Environmental Working Group.

Opening Statement as Prepared for Delivery:

“The Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Management, and Regulatory Oversight is meeting today to conduct an ‘Oversight Hearing on Scientific Advisory Panels and Processes at the Environmental Protection Agency and Legislative Hearing on S. 543, the Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2015.’

The Environmental Protection Agency is tasked with developing environmental regulations that impact every American in every state across the country.

These regulations affect the water we drink, the air we breathe and the land we use. EPA has affirmed science is to be “the backbone of EPA decision making.”

The Science Advisory Board and Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, which are made up of scientific experts, are to supply the EPA with independent scientific and technical advice on a wide-range of topics, from hydraulic fracturing, to ozone emissions, to stream and wetland connectivity.

The EPA is to rely on this advice to assist them in crafting and issuing appropriate environmental regulations.

Unfortunately in recent years, EPA regulations have been driven not by science but by politics.

The EPA has not submitted critical Agency science or technical information to the SABs for review prior to implementing major regulations such as greenhouse gas rules for cars and trucks, new source performance standards for coal-fired power plants, and ozone regulations, despite statutory authority to do so.

Rather than allowing the science to drive the regulations, the EPA is carrying out the Administration’s political agenda through regulations with questionable science supporting them.

For example, at an EPW Subcommittee hearing yesterday we heard testimony that the EPA focused on the wrong issues when requesting the SAB review an EPA – led study that became a scientific foundation for the overly burdensome Waters of the U.S. Rule that is due out in the near future.

EPA, to achieve its goal of expanding jurisdiction, made the science fit into their preplanned agenda and the result will be a tremendous example of federal overreach.

In addition, due to not using proper science to begin with, as reported yesterday by the New York Times, the EPA engaged in its own lobbying campaign, under a questionable legal basis, to garner support for this rule.

Despite the fact that the SAB is to be an independent body that provides independent advice to the EPA, many SAB members are receiving EPA grants, which not only lends itself to conflict of interest issues, but also ties the hands of SAB members who may not be inclined to provide dissenting views or disagree with agency science.

When members do disagree with EPA science, there is little opportunity for members to express dissenting views.

We have also seen many instances in which members of these boards are reviewing their own scientific work without recusing themselves.

This diminishes any possibility that these boards will offer a truly impartial opinion regarding the validity of the science EPA is relying on.

For example, a recent CASAC review showed that 21 of 25 panelists had their own work cited by the EPA and meeting minutes did not note a single recusal.

Further, there is little opportunity for public participation or comments in these scientific reviews and there is minimal state, local and tribal representation on these boards.

The 47 member chartered SAB includes only three members from two states – California and Vermont.

Additionally, the panels tasked with advising the EPA on hydraulic fracturing and water body connectivity did not include representatives from any states.

As a result of these reviews, the EPA implements regulations that affect the entire country, yet there is minimal state participation on these boards and when there is, the vast majority of the country remains unrepresented.

  1. 543, the Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2015, aims to address these problems by inserting more transparency and accountability in the SAB process.

If passed, it will allow for more public participation in the SAB review process, more accountability for the members of the board, and provide for more transparency for Congress and the public regarding the science behind EPA regulations.

The EPA should rely on the most up-to-date and sound science as the foundation for every regulation implemented by the agency.

It is vital that this scientific review process be done in a transparent manner, undertaken by experts who can provide an impartial and independent opinion, and with sufficient representation by those who would be affected by these regulations.

I’d like to thank our witnesses for taking the time to be with us today and I look forward to hearing your testimony.”

###