Category: Uncategorized

State Reaches Settlement With SDRC, Inc.

PIERRE, S.D. – The State of South Dakota announced today it has settled its two pending civil lawsuits with SDRC, Inc. related to the federal EB-5 program and the South Dakota Regional Center for approximately $1.5 million. The lawsuits, initiated in October 2015, sought to enforce the state’s regional center administration contract with SDRC, which required indemnification funds be maintained for the state’s benefit by SDRC, Inc., as well as to recover expenses the Board of Regents incurred in connection with a California arbitration case.   

“Since 2013, the State of South Dakota has worked diligently to resolve the problems stemming from the federal EB-5 program in South Dakota,” said Tony Venhuizen, the Governor’s chief of staff. “Today’s settlement and the recovery of $1.5 million from SDRC, Inc. not only compensates the state for past EB-5 related expenses, but also ensures the state has the funds it would otherwise have had under the contract with SDRC, Inc. to guard against any future claims.” 

Under the terms of the settlement, SDRC will immediately pay $546,250 into an existing state-controlled indemnification account, with an additional $81,250 payment by Sept. 1, 2019. Since commencing its civil actions, the state separately recovered an additional $894,633.32 in indemnification funds owed to the state by SDRC, Inc. 

The state remains a party to a lawsuit in Hughes County brought against SDRC, Inc. and the state by investors in the former Northern Beef Packers project. The state’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit is still pending.                    

-30-

Click here to Register!

As part of her rollout in her race for Congress, tonight Shantel Krebs did a tele-town hall, a tool often used by Kristi Noem, as well as Scott Munsterman when he ran for Governor.

The robo-dialed call rang in to my house at about 7:35…  and by the time I was connected, I got to hear Shantel express how she was against career politicians, in favor of term limits…. aaand then the call was done.

That was fast.  I guess somebody had to be called last. (Are they trying to tell me something?)

Hot off the FEC’s press, Per the FEC Filing, it looks as if the Krebs Campaign is being run out of Georgia Hanson’s shop:

Shantel Krebs for Congress by Pat Powers on Scribd

Come on in, the water’s fine! Dusty welcomes @shantelkrebs to the race. pic.twitter.com/TbKsHsNmYX

— Dusty Johnson (@DustyJohnson) March 13, 2017

Dusty Johnson Welcomes Secretary Krebs To Congressional  Race 

Congressional Candidate Dusty Johnson has released the following statement regarding Secretary of State Shantel Krebs’ U.S. House candidacy:

“These days it seems like candidates are supposed to attack each other. Well, not me and not today.  Shantel is a friend and I welcome her to the Congressional race.”

###

As I noted last week…

And the website I had teased is also up and running.

Hot off the press, apparently this letter went out to State’s Attorneys across South Dakota, where Deputy Attorney General Charlie McGuigan announced that he’s in the hunt for AG:

The Argus is reporting this AM that Governor Daugaard is leaning against HB 1156 (An act to allow a concealed pistol in the capitol with an enhanced concealed pistol permit), and definitely plans to veto this sessions’ big gun bill, House Bill 1072 (An act to repeal and revise certain provisions relating to permits to carry a concealed pistol):

Gov. Dennis Daugaard said social media campaigns and stacks of petitions aren’t enough to change his mind on proposals that would expand the state’s concealed carry laws.

and..

Daugaard reiterated his intention to veto the second bill, which aims to let qualified people carry a concealed pistol without a permit without fear of criminal charges.

and..

As for carrying guns in the Capitol, the governor feels security there is sufficient.

Read it all here.

Looking at the roster of the people who voted against the House Bill 1072:

.. I’m not seeing a lot of people who I suspect would roll over and change their vote against the measure to override a gubernatorial veto.

And while I don’t think it matters to the Democrats, the one thing I notice is that many of the Republicans who are opposing the measure have had primary elections in the last couple of cycles, with their opponents aggressively backed by one of the groups pushing the hardest for the bill, the South Dakota Gun Owners’ group.

(Yes, the same SDGO group that just leafletted area Sheriffs for testifying in opposition of the same bill.)

The opposition of permitless carry in 2017 has enough Republicans in the legislature opposing it that overriding the Governor’s veto is probably not possible. As a result, I suspect HB 1072 is going to be a large arrow in SDGO’s quiver as they start designing their fluorescent postcards for the 2018 primary.

Attorney General Jackley Joins Challenge to the
Consumer Finance Protection Bureau’s Structure

PIERRE, S.D. – Attorney General Marty Jackley has joined an amicus brief filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia by 15 Attorneys General. The brief challenges the constitutionality of a restriction on the President’s power to remove the director of the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (CFPB).

“The State Attorneys General protect consumers and businesses through consumer protection divisions. Duplicating services with a federal agency that has been given an open checkbook and apparently answers to no one makes little sense,” stated Jackley. “We hope that the Courts continue to determine that the CFPB exists in clear violation of the Constitution and poses a direct threat on state interests.”

The brief was filed in the case of PHH Corporation v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. A three judge panel of the Court of Appeals, held that the statutory restriction on the President’s removal power violated Article II of the Constitution. The panel held that, unlike multi-member independent agencies, an independent agency under the control of a single director constitutes a violation of the separation of powers. The panel decision was vacated and the D.C. Circuit granted en banc consideration of the issue.

The brief argues the CFPB’s novel governance structure violates the separation of powers in a manner that poses a direct threat on states interests. The CFPB’s novel governance structure vests control of the agency in a single director who is not accountable to any elected official. As a result, CFPB’s action is not constrained by the “political safeguards of federalism,” which the Supreme Court has treated as an essential mechanism for preserving the role of the States within the federal system.

-30-

I had the chance to catch this great update from Congresswoman Kristi Noem yesterday via facebook. And through the magic of Al Gore’s Internet, I can bring it to you: