Category: Uncategorized

Slick Rick Weiland’s front group for his public campaign finance scheme filed their campaign finance form this past week. And it contains some VERY interesting information.

Did you know that the donor list for this group contains nearly NO South Dakotans? They provided it, down to donations of $1. And out of 103 pages of donors, I counted 17 citizens from SD. 

Even more surprising… out of the $1,297,091.97 raised, do you know how much came out of South Dakota? $718 or  .055%.

Yes. 55 Thousandths of a percent of their funding came from South Dakota.

Committee Chairman Don Frankenfeld was only in for $100. But, the big South Dakota donor was Committee spokesman Darrell Solberg who wrote a check for $300.

Of course, Don and Darrell left the heavy lifting to people such as Henry Pincus of NY who was in for $75K. And neither Don nor Darrell could keep pace with people like Jeffrey and Katherine Abrams of Beverly Hills, who were in for $100k. Jonathan Soros of NY, NY pitched in $25k. Mark Gallogly & Lisa Strickler living on Central Park West in NYC were in for $100K. Sean Eldridge of Garrison, NY was the biggest individual donor at an incredible $275,000.

And as we’ve grown to expect, the out of state group RepresentUs was the big donor at $633,383.20.

But, South Dakotans did donate $713. Including a $3 donation from a woman in “Fart Pierre.” If they can’t even spell that right, you can’t help but have doubt raised as to how “South Dakota” this group is. And we have to keep reminding ourselves that the group is supposedly called “South Dakotans for Integrity.”  Instead of “Almost NO South Dakotans for Integrity.”

And if you doubt one word of what I have to say? Please. I invite you to read it all for yourself below. In Black and White. 

Almost No South Dakotans for Integrity by Pat Powers on Scribd

This was recently left in a comment on my website, and offers a unique view from a Californian who – living under a similar system – believes Amendment V would create the worst election system in the nation.

He notes it sets up both incumbents and rich people to dominate elections in the state.

Take a few minutes and check it out.

I’ve had multiple reports from Aberdeen starting yesterday over Nikki Bootz, Democrat House Legislative Candidate for District 3, regarding her campaign finance report.

If you recall, Bootz is the candidate who earlier found her theater class for Northern State University a little too challenging, and expressed her dislike of the institution in a rather profane manner (pardon the language, it’s her’s not mine.):

Now it looks like Bootz should have paid more attention in Math Class as well.

According to the Campaign Finance Disclosure Statement for The Brown County Democrats, they handed Bootz a check for $500.  But if you look at her campaign finance report….

In fact, if you look at her complete Campaign Finance Report, according to Bootz, she raised nothing, and spent nothing.

Bootz Sdcfdisclosure by Pat Powers on Scribd

So, if that’s the case, who paid for her $25.00 T-Shirts back in July?And what about her “ActBlue” Donation(s)?

If I’m reading it correctly, there appears to be at least $600 in donations that are missing from the report as in addition to any expenditures. Doesn’t she have ads or yard signs?

Given her track record, I have a suspicion that Bootz’s next tweet might be #F_CampaignFinanceReporting!

Something This Broken Cannot Be Repaired
By Sen. John Thune 

When I’m home in South Dakota, I spend a lot of my time traveling the state to hear from farmers, ranchers, small business owners, and moms and dads about the issues important to them. It’s the best way to cut through the noise and hear directly from the people who are impacted by the decisions made in Washington, D.C. I frequently hear about the mountains of federal regulations that are stifling growth for businesses and private landowners and how the government’s out-of-control spending is saddling the next generation of Americans with unsustainable debt. And almost without fail, I hear about the federal government’s takeover of the nation’s health care system and the financial strain it’s creating. 

Obamacare is broken, plain and simple. I understand how difficult it is for Democrats to concede that point since they consider it one of their top accomplishments, but pretending that it isn’t broken will only cause more pain for the American people in the future. Objectively speaking, it just didn’t work. Democrats said it would lower costs, but premiums and deductibles are skyrocketing. Democrats promised that all Americans could keep their existing health care plans and doctors, but that wasn’t true either. Obamacare had lofty goals, but Democrats overpromised and underdelivered, and the American people have been left holding the bag.  

Democrats are quick to point out that millions more Americans are insured today than before Obamacare was signed into law – the result, in part, of a law that forced law-abiding Americans to purchase a product, whether they wanted it or not. Democrats conveniently forget to mention the nearly 30 million Americans who remain uninsured and the millions who lost the doctors and coverage they enjoyed before Obamacare became the law of the land. Today, some Democrats are slowly starting to admit Obamacare’s failures, primarily because the facts can no longer be ignored.

In a brief moment of candor, former President Bill Clinton recently called Obamacare the “craziest thing in the world.” Many South Dakotans would agree. And the Obama administration recently conceded that Obamacare premiums would rise by an average of 25 percent in 39 states across the country next year. Here in South Dakota, premiums will rise by 37 percent, according to a study by Congress’ Joint Economic Committee. That’s the eighth highest premium increase in the United States. South Dakotans can’t afford such an extreme hike in costs. 

The version of Obamacare that Democrats dreamt about seven years ago is just that, a dream that’s unrecognizable to the American people today. Obamacare is the perfect case study in what happens when one political party ignores the other and implements a big-government takeover of a large portion of the U.S. economy. It didn’t work, and something this broken cannot simply be repaired. The sooner my Democrat colleagues admit it, the sooner the two parties and a new president can get to work on policies that actually fulfill the needs of the American people by lowering costs and increasing access to care. 

###

The (Un)Affordable Care Act
By Senator Mike Rounds

The skyrocketing cost of healthcare has made the Affordable Care Act (ACA) unaffordable for many Americans. The Department of Health and Human Services recently announced that in 2017, premiums will rise an average of 25 percent for those covered on plans under the ACA. South Dakotans have it even worse: those of us covered under the ACA will see insurance rates increase by nearly 37 percent, according to Congress’ Joint Economic Committee.

The ACA was intended to provide all Americans with quality, low-cost healthcare but instead it has had the opposite effect. More and more insurers are declining to participate in the exchange, leaving consumers with few options ahead of this fall’s open enrollment period. Despite the growing problems surrounding the ACA, the president continues to maintain that the law has been a success. The hundreds of South Dakotans who call my office telling me that they have to choose between paying outrageous rates or pay a fine to forgo healthcare coverage all together—just so they can afford to pay their mortgage—would probably disagree.

I have repeatedly called for the ACA to be repealed and replaced with a patient-centered, market-based plan that is truly affordable for all Americans. This can be achieved by enacting transparent, step-by-step reforms. I support common-sense initiatives, like expanding Health Savings Accounts and creating pools, such as the Multiple Employers Welfare Trust, in which small businesses can unite to secure better rates. The worst parts of the ACA, such as the employer mandate, individual mandate and the Independent Payment Advisory Board, should not be included in a replacement plan. 

We can cut costs by reforming medical liability laws as well. Our current system encourages frivolous lawsuits which come at a high cost to doctors, taxpayers and truly injured patients who deserve timely compensation. Lastly, we must hold insurance companies more accountable by increasing transparency, standardizing paperwork and helping those with pre-existing conditions maintain access to care. 

We’ve long suspected that the ACA would eventually crumble under its own weight, and now that is exactly what is happening. Americans can no longer afford to abide by this costly law. I will continue working with my colleagues in Congress to replace the ACA with a plan that is effective and affordable for all Americans. 

###

In a Pinch
by Rep. Kristi Noem

People are feeling pinched right now, caught between rising household costs and stagnant – or in some cases, falling – wages.

In recent days, we’ve learned that healthcare premiums under Obamacare are once again set to rise – this time, by a staggering 25 percent nationwide, a number that is expected to be even higher in South Dakota.

And it’s not just healthcare costs.  The Obama administration’s motor-vehicle rules are expected to push the price of a new car up by nearly $3,000 over the next decade.  The cost of common household products – including fluorescent lamps, microwaves, air conditioners, and dishwashers – are also set to rise by around $1,600 per household as a result of onerous regulations.  Meanwhile, regulatory-related expenses are now responsible for almost 25 percent of a new home’s final cost.  And if you’re looking for a break on the utility costs, the administration’s latest environmental push promises to skyrocket energy bills.

At the same time, our economy remains at a standstill.  According to a recent Bureau of Economic Analysis report, America’s real GDP grew an average of just 1 percent during the first two quarters of 2016.  That has a real impact on families.  By some estimates, the prolonged economic stagnation has cost the median American family a total of $69,000 in lost income over the last eight years.

People need relief on both sides of the equation.  To help reduce a family’s weekly expenses, regulatory reform should be one of the first federal policy changes. One proposal I’ve backed, the REINS Act, would introduce more accountability into the regulatory system, requiring that any major regulation is reviewed and approved by Congress before it takes effect.  This is just a start.  Repealing big-government mandates, including Obamacare, and replacing them with consumer-driven approaches would also help cut your monthly bills.

Just tackling expenses, however, won’t be enough.  Families need their incomes to rise as well.  Through a tax plan House Republicans proposed earlier this year, the economy could grow 9.1 percent over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation which also found that Americans of every income group would pay less in taxes under the plan.  This growth, fueled by a simpler and fairer tax code, would help raise Americans’ wages and create an environment where 1.7 million jobs could be created.

Additionally, investing in job-ready training for young people and opening new markets around the world for products grown or made in America could also help increase employment and incomes, while securing our borders can help protect opportunity at home.

It almost doesn’t matter where I am or who I’m talking to, people feel like they’re constantly being hit from all sides.  Virtually everything seems to cost more, but few people are making more.  We know how this can be resolved: the unnecessary mandates and regulations must be lifted while we create opportunities in the economy for incomes to rise. If we can do that, we can relieve the pinch all too many families feel today.

Decisions Are Made By Those Who Show Up
A column by Gov. Dennis Daugaard:

 The presidential election is getting most of the attention this election season, but in South Dakota, voters are deciding much more.

Of course, South Dakota has general elections this fall for U.S. Senate, U.S. House and the Public Utilities Commission. We are also voting on ten ballot measures:  constitutional amendments R, S, T, U and V; referred laws 19 and 20; and initiated measures 21, 22 and 23.

One of these measures, Constitutional Amendment R, was passed by the Legislature and is now before the people for ratification. Referred laws 19 and 20 were also passed by the Legislature, and then placed on the ballot by petition. The remaining amendments and initiated measures made the ballot through the petition process.

I encourage all South Dakota voters to study and thoroughly consider these ballot measures before voting this year. Information about all ten ballot measures is available on the Secretary of State’s website at https://sdsos.gov/elections-voting/upcoming-elections/general-information/2016-ballot-questions.aspx.

Many of us have seen the paid television ads and received postcards in the mail. Those can be informative, but paid advertising only tells one side of the story. And while some ballot measures campaigns have backers who are willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to promote their view, other campaigns cannot afford much advertising.

With ten measures on the ballot, voting will take some time. I’d encourage South Dakota voters to consider voting early to avoid the lines. Early voting is available at your county auditor’s office on any business day between now and the day before Election Day.

It’s also a good idea to obtain a sample ballot before voting. Voters can study the issues at home, fill out the sample ballot and then copy their preferences onto the real ballot at the polling place. Sample ballots are printed in the newspaper and are available at the county auditor’s office, and you can also obtain one online from the Secretary of State at https://sos.sd.gov/Elections/VIPLogin.aspx .

Finally, I urge all South Dakota voters to show up and vote this fall. The tone of the presidential campaign can be disheartening, and the political advertisements can be irritating. But as Governor George S. Mickelson often said, “Decisions are made by those who show up.”

As Americans, we have a responsibility to study the candidates and the issues and to cast an informed ballot. We should never take that privilege for granted – not even in a tumultuous election year like this one. We owe it to our children and grandchildren, and to those who have defended our freedom, to show up on Election Day.

-30-

Another postcard arrived in PO Boxes in the Aberdeen Area this weekend on the District 3 State Senate race, pointing out the differences between Senate Candidate Al Novstrup, and darling of the SDDP, Cory Heidelberger:

Anti-Transparent and Out-of-State, Yes on V’s Campaign Mirrors the Measure

Yes on V got 85.7% of Contributions from Out-of-State, while 78.3% came from Dark Money Groups
 
Fort Pierre, SD – October 28, 2016 – The pre-general campaign finance report for Yes on V showed a massive influx of out-of-state, dark money flowing to the campaign. To date, Yes on V has raised 85.7% of its money from out-of-state and 78.3% from Dark Money groups that do not disclose their donors.

“Amendment V is an anti-transparent, out-of-state plan that is wrong for South Dakota. The Yes on V campaign hides the source of its money just like Amendment V would hide party labels from voters,” said Will Mortenson, Chairman of Vote No On V.

The vast majority of Yes on V’s campaign donations have come from outside South Dakota. Yes on V has raised $1,323,068 from out-of-state, including $1,122,720 from a single, dark money donor in New York City, NY. Amendment V would install a California-style primary in South Dakota’s constitution.

“Amendment V is being pushed by dark money from Manhattan. South Dakota works best when we govern ourselves. Amendment V is an out-of-state plan pushed by out-of-state cash,” Mortenson added.

To date, Yes on V has raised a total of $1,543,350 to support their attempt to overhaul South Dakota’s constitution. 

Vote No On V reported raising $100,623. Over 99% of the funds raised for Vote No On V came from in South Dakota and over 98% of donations came from individuals or groups that disclose their donors. 

##

I’m planning on taking my dad to early vote today, or sometime next week. And in querying him where he sits on these ballot measures, I received a somewhat terse “I’m voting no on ALL of them.”   I also spoke with a good friend of mine yesterday out in the Hills, and asked him what he thought. He indicated that he early voted already, cast a ballot in favor of Amendment R on the tech schools… and was consistently no on all the others.  I believe a daughter who was here to early vote this past week was also a no vote on just about everything.

I’m sensing a trend of NO, which I suspect is going to be the case more than people may think via the polling that’s out being conducted. With already reported long lines, I just don’t people are going to mess around.

How did I vote? If I recall, I believe I was a Yes on R, and a Yes on S. I don’t recall specifically, but I may have also been a Yes on U, simply because I think people should have the ability to make their own choices on how they conduct their business.

But the rest of the field fared pretty poorly with literally a no vote on everything else.

Where are you falling on all of this?