Author: @SoDakCampaigns

Floridian Peter Waldron files complaint against State Rep. Steve Hickey. But shouldn’t the AG finish the petition investigation already on his plate first?

@SoDakCampaigns

Gordon Howie is posting this AM that his Bosworth allies from out of state, specifically Peter Waldron, have filed a formal complaint against State Representative Steve Hickey, based on the Argus Leader article that ran the other day coming via Lora Hubbel’s claims.

This is the same Peter Waldron who filed a complaint with the FEC where he shamelessly lied about the Annette Bosworth prosecution involving a “Hutterite Colony Raid” which arrived in “a convoy of official state vehicles,”  and falsely claimed that 3 people interviewed by DCI didn’t vote when records show they did.

But, Howie & Waldron might have to stand in line, because the Attorney General already has a pending petition matter on his plate.   No, not Annette Bosworth. That one is almost done. I’m referring to her husband, Chad Haber.

If you recall what I wrote about it back in August of 2014:

Part of what Annette Bosworth is being prosecuted for is attesting on several petitions that she witnessed people signing them in South Dakota while she was halfway across on the other side of the planet, in the Philippines.  In other words, she signed off that she circulated nominating petitions during a time when she and Chad were in the Philippines from January 5 through the 15th.

In the batch of petitions for Annette Bosworth, there were several signed off on as having been circulated by her husband, now candidate Chad Haber.

And one of the petitions attested to as being circulated by Haber seems to have the same air of impossibility as those that have his wife in dutch:

Bosworth Nominating Petition-Haber_Page_1 Bosworth Nominating Petition-Haber_Page_2If you look on the petition, Chad signed off, under oath, that he “circulated the above petition,” and “that each signer personally signed this petition in his presence….”

Yet the date that the voters signed is marked as January 7, 2014, a date when he was said to be across the world.  The exact same thing his wife is currently in trouble for.

Read it all here.

Long before the Attorney General should even consider looking into the claims that the Bosworth people are ginning up against State Representative Steve Hickey, they have an already pending petition matter to finish.

I’m sure they have most of the evidence already in hand, so that should be an easy one.

And frankly, I suspect that the people of South Dakota are happy to have our Attorney General out prosecuting murderers and rapists first before they devote an inordinate amount of time to petition prosecutions.  I’m sure they’ll get to looking at them all eventually.

But as Howie presses for more attention to be devoted to a petition matters on a retaliatory basis, he should remember who’s first in the queue.

Rounds Criticizes EPA Proposal to Radically Alter Ozone Standards

@SoDakCampaigns

Rounds Criticizes EPA Proposal to Radically Alter Ozone Standards

“EPA’s ozone plan could be the largest regulatory burden in history.”

WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), a member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW), today at a hearing questioned Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposal that would dramatically alter ozone standards in the U.S.

“This hearing was especially important to understand the impacts of what could be the most costly regulation ever imposed on the American people,” said Rounds. “These regulations could force South Dakotans to pay to control ozone emissions that could have originated thousands of miles away overseas or are naturally occurring in our environment. It could impact the ability of businesses to expand and construction projects to continue, without achieving any tangible health benefits beyond the current standard. It’s not based in common sense.

“Once again, EPA proves why it’s necessary to pass my RESTORE resolution, which would bring much-needed congressional oversight to the sweeping, costly regulations being imposed by federal agencies. As a member of the Senate EPW Committee, I will continue efforts to prevent these dramatic, costly new ozone standards from taking effect.”

Under current law, the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ground-Level Ozone is to be reviewed every five years. The current standard is 75 parts per billion, set in 2008. Under EPA’s current proposal, the standard would be lowered to 65-70 parts per billion. These new standards could be the most expensive regulations in history, with projected costs of $1.7 trillion and 1.4 million in lost jobs. EPA is expected to issue a final ruling in October 2015.

Video of his questioning is available here:

Thune Introduces CASE Act at EPW Committee Hearing

@SoDakCampaigns

Thune Introduces CASE Act at EPW Committee Hearing

“This bipartisan bill is a reasonable way forward to prioritize smog in the most polluted areas while not imposing undue costs on the American economy and workforce.”

WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) today at a hearing before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW) introduced the Clean Air, Strong Economies (CASE) Act, a bipartisan bill that will balance economic growth and environmental progress by requiring the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to focus on the most polluted areas that are in non-attainment with its current smog standard before it can implement a lower one.

Thune’s statement (as prepared for delivery) is below, and video is available here or by clicking on the image above.

“Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Boxer, for giving me the opportunity to speak in front of the committee this morning and I want to thank all the members for giving me the chance to talk about a bill that I’ve introduced called the CASE Act.

“It’s a bipartisan bill–introduced with Senator Manchin, that would prevent the staggering blow that a lower ozone standard would deliver to the economy at a time when many of our industries are seeking to turn the corner. 

“After an area is deemed in non-attainment with the smog standard, communities face stiff federal penalties, increased business costs, restrictions on infrastructure investment, and lost highway dollars. 

“When businesses are restrained by regulatory overreach, they can’t expand, jobs are put at risk, and innovation is stifled. 

“Areas in non-attainment, or even those in marginal attainment, will face steep challenges in promoting economic development or attracting new businesses. 

“In fact, it was for these exact reasons—‘regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty’—that the Obama administration withdrew a similar proposal in 2011. 

“The cost of a lower smog standard has hardly lessened, and the hit this could have on manufacturing and other economic sectors nationwide would be unprecedented.

“The bipartisan CASE Act strikes a balance between economic growth and environmental progress by requiring the EPA to first focus on the most polluted areas that are in non-attainment with the current standard before it can implement a lower one. 

“We have made great progress in cleaning up our air, and pollution levels are at an all-time low. 

“However, 40 percent of Americans live in the 227 counties that have not yet met the 75 ppb standard that was set in 2008. 

“The CASE Act would require 85 percent of these counties to achieve compliance with the existing 75 ppb standard before the EPA can impose a stricter regulation like the one proposed in November. 

“The EPA needs to focus its efforts on areas already struggling with attainment, where smog remains a consistent problem. 

“We should first tackle smog where it is the worst, in places like Los Angeles, not go after regions like the Great Plains, where there clearly is not a smog problem.

“The EPA contends that a lower standard will benefit public health, yet most of these benefits will come from the reductions of other criteria pollutants, like particulate matter, which are already subject to their own regulations. 

“Moreover, the EPA would be well-served to acknowledge that it has not yet sufficiently implemented the existing 2008 standard and prioritize its efforts to combat smog in the most polluted areas.

“The CASE Act would also require the EPA to consider the cost and feasibility of a lower standard, which it currently does not consider. 

“At a standard of 65 ppb, approximately 75 percent of the projected costs are attributed to unknown controls, or technologies and emission reduction strategies that have yet to be developed. 

“Hinging a regulation of this magnitude on unknown controls could hamper economic growth with staggering costs for years to come.

“I want to thank you for the opportunity to come before this committee and introduce the CASE Act today. 

“I hope you will agree that this bipartisan bill is a reasonable way forward to prioritize smog in the most polluted areas while not imposing undue costs on the American economy and workforce.

“Mr. Chairman I appreciate the opportunity to present this legislation and I encourage its consideration.

“Thank you.”

###

Want to ask for money for a campaign? Make it personal.

@SoDakCampaigns

Candidates – There’s a great article that just came out from Campaigns and Elections that it’s worth taking 5 minutes to read that won’t only benefit you in fundraising, but in campaigning as a whole. It’s about Making Fundraising Personal:

Rarely do they volunteer the information that a contributor wants to know: Can you win and how will you win? Candidates often mask their discomfort with asking for money. They enjoy talking to constituents, going to meetings and being part of events, but put off whenever possible doing fundraising. Fundraising doesn’t have to be a negative experience — and it won’t be, if you make it personal.

Sure, asking for money doesn’t come easy to most people. To ask, you need to be ready to answer the question: Why should I give you money? And responding to the question requires a candidate to talk about his or her qualities. Most people have a difficult time talking about their qualities.

But if a candidate gets comfortable talking about himself or herself, fundraising will be a much easier and more pleasant task. Moreover, once that comfort level is achieved, here are some ways candidates can help grow their fundraising hauls.

Read the entire article here.

Delegation Urges USDA to Take Responsibility for Pautre Fire

@SoDakCampaigns

Delegation Urges USDA to Take Responsibility for Pautre Fire

Twenty-Six Months Have Elapsed Since Out-of-Control Fire Consumed 10,000 Acres of Land

WASHINGTON, D.C.– U.S. Sens. John Thune (R-S.D.) and Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) and U.S. Rep. Kristi Noem (R-S.D.) today urged the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service (FS), and Office of General Counsel (OGC) to finally take responsibility for the Pautre fire that beginning on April 3, 2013, consumed standing grass on more than 10,000 acres of public and private pasture land, and damaged and destroyed fences, bales of forage, buildings, and trees.

“We strongly urge you to recognize and quickly take responsibility for the negligence that resulted in this out-of-control fire and ensuing damages, and that you timely resolve and approve all reasonable claims,” the delegation wrote. “Twenty-six months is ample time for USDA, FS, and OGC to investigate and make necessary determinations.”

Full text of the letter can be found below:

Secretary Tom Vilsack
U.S. Department of Agriculture
1400 Independence Ave., SW
Washington, D.C. 20250

Dear Secretary Vilsack:

On April 3, 2013, the U.S. Forest Service (FS) conducted a prescribed burn located southeast of Hettinger, North Dakota on the Grand River Ranger District of the Dakota Prairie Grassland.  This prescribed burn was intended to cover 130 acres of dead crested wheatgrass; however, due to the unsafe hot, dry, and windy conditions present at the time of ignition the fire (known as the Pautre Fire) quickly escalated out of control and consumed more than 10,000 acres of FS land, grazing association controlled land, and private land.

Along with the grass and rangeland destroyed, fences, bales of forage, buildings, and trees were also damaged and destroyed by this fire; and cattle confined to the smoke created by this fire suffered respiratory damage.

As you are aware the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) provides claimants two years from the date of an incident to submit claims against the government.  The FTCA generally holds the federal government liable when federal employees commit acts of negligence in the course of their employment.

Twenty-six months have elapsed since date of the Pautre Fire, yet to our knowledge no action has been taken by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), FS, or Office of General Counsel (OGC) to accept liability and process claims.

We strongly urge you to recognize and quickly take responsibility for the negligence that resulted in this out-of-control fire and ensuing damages, and that you timely resolve and approve all reasonable claims.  Twenty-six months is ample time for USDA, FS, and OGC to investigate and make necessary determinations.

Sincerely,

###

A wild night in local elections. 2 incumbent mayors turned out. Do we have an anti-incumbent mood in the state?

@SoDakCampaigns

This bears a little watching. 2 incumbent mayors turned out in elections last night from two of South Dakota’s largest communities.  In Mitchell, Mayor Ken Tracy was defeated 58 to 42 percent by challenger Jerry Toomey. In Rapid City, 2-term mayor Sam Kooiker lost to former police chief Steve Allender.

Does this indicate unhappiness and a general voter malaise of with the status quo? Or are there unique reasons for each one’s demise?  For those involved in statewide elections next year, the mood bears watching, but this years’ elections might not be the best indicator. Lacking many other top level races to judge it against, I’d argue that it is driven individually.

Ken Tracy presided over a couple of disasters related to oversight of the Corn Palace; the alleged theft/conversion of gift cards belonging to the corn palace after an audit showed something was going on with it’s finances. And, a lawsuit that came up right before the election regarding the new person hired over whether he quit or was fired. Anyone looking at it from the outside had to be left wondering “what is going on there?”

Sam Kooiker had long been at odds with others in City Government, and rose to the office of Mayor on the basis of fighting “the man,” exposing alleged corruption, and cutting government. But in the face of being “the man,” being tied to the losing civic center expansion, facing general economic malaise and unrest in race relations in the state’s second largest city, it proved harder for him to capture the same lightning in a bottle that he was able to use previously to propel him to two terms as mayor.

It might have been a wild night – but each election stood or fell on it’s own merits.

* Bonus Election News:  Speaking of falling, in case you were curious, here are the results from Aberdeen where the blogosphere’s Cory Heidelberger “went Volesky” in his race, withdrawing last week after absentee voting had long been underway:

(78.3% to 21.6% in case you’re wondering).

Rep. Hickey responds to Argus Story on 2012 Petitions

@SoDakCampaigns

From my e-mail, Rep. Hickey responds to Jonathan Ellis’ story at Argus Leader.com on questions about his 2012 Petitions:

hickeyThe following is neither an admission nor an apology, it is merely a statement. No hard feelings towards the Argus; Jonathan Ellis is a good reporter and someone I like, and he did his job well when someone who doesn’t like me handed him red meat. And I take no issue with Hartford city council people who’ve said what they’ve said. I want them to be honest and it’s always been important to me that I am as well.

Of course I’m bummed at anything that undermines my integrity and especially the trust of the people here in District 9. I do hope I have been sufficiently transparent and truthful in my years in office such that it is believable when I say now if I was aware of any monkey business with my petitions I would have not turned them in. I’m not sure how to explain that some who signed the two contested sheets say I was the circulator and others who signed say I was not. It was three years ago and of what I do remember , I remember feeling good about my petitions, was glad to have meet the deadline, was glad they were certified by the SOS and obviously they weren’t challenged that election year.

It is important to me that everything relating to me is above board and I welcome at any point for people to challenge me if something seems amiss. No one in my district is under the impression I have no flaws. I’m thankful even for these unpleasant days and the things I’m learning. The trust the voters put in me I pledge to never betray.

SH