Category: Uncategorized

Todd Epp from KELO Radio covered the big story on the Hillary Victory Fund dumping over 2.25 Million into the SDDP for laundering, only to be returned to the Hillary Clinton Campaign, coming after the Politico Donna Brazile story where the former Democrat Chairwoman called the practice unethical:

State Republican leaders call it money laundering for the Hillary Clinton for President campaign.

The South Dakota Democratic Party says the nearly two and a half million dollars that circulated through the state party in 2016 is business as usual.

The state’s Democratic Party got caught up in the firestorm of former Democratic National Committee Chair Donna Brazile’s book excerpt in Politico this morning. Brazile essentially accused the Hillary Clinton Presidential campaign of usurping the DNC–including fundraising.

South Dakota was one of 32 states that was part of a joint fundraising agreement with the DNC. Brazile suggests it was a dodge to get around campaign donation limits for individuals versus higher limits for contributions to political parties.

and…

“It is unprecedented that a national presidential campaign send over $2.25 million to a South Dakota political party for purposes of washing funds to make them “legal” to return to the candidate,” said S.D. GOP Chair Dan Lederman. “It also shows how much their party was controlled by Hillary Clinton.”

Read it all here.

The thing you need to listen to is the audio of the interview with SDDP Executive Director Sam Parkinson, as he justifies the practice since Democrats consider it ‘business as usual,’ and admits that they are “going to do it again.”

Yes, political parties are going to conduct joint activities with their national parent. But the Democrat’s extreme money laundering aspect of it – passing 2.25 Million – through a local political party for purposes of avoiding campaign finance limits is unheard of, and utterly unprecedented in South Dakota.

And it deserves all the scrutiny that it has placed Democrats under.

Good morning readers!

Since we pointed out yesterday how Ann Tornberg’s South Dakota Democrat Party pledged fealty to Hillary Clinton and was one of 32 states the Clinton Campaign used to avoid campaign finance limits, washing over 2.25 MILLION for the Clinton campaign, I thought it might be worthwhile to point out that this isn’t the first time for South Dakota Democrats at the money laundering rodeo.

In fact, there was quite a thing to do over a similar scheme on a smaller scale 11 years ago back in 2006. (which is like 100 years in blog years).

During a month which had us talking about JAIL for Judges, the MAINstream Coalition, and Here from the SDWC Vault is how South Dakota Democrats helped an individual Minnesota donor try to wash $600,000 to a candidate:

Interesting… Minnesota Blog accuses SD Dems as being involved in a Minnesota DFL Money Shuffle
*Updated*

Captain’s Quarters, which is throwing around an interesting accusation involving the South Dakota Democrats that I don’t think has ever come up in South Dakota political conversations before:

The DFL has been sent reeling by the meltdown of party leader Matt Entenza, who withdrew from the Attorney General race after having spent the last week tapdancing about oppo research he’d run on a fellow DFL member and the current Attorney General, Mike Hatch. Both men had already received endorsement for the statewide offices for which they campaigned — Hatch is the nominee to run against Governor Tim Pawlenty in his bid for re-election — and the meltdown may kneecap the DFL in both races.

And….
Entenza got out just as another scandal started to heat up in St. Paul. Someone anonymously sent records, including deposits and cancelled checks, that show Entenza and his wife may have shuffled money around to get past donation limits and financial disclosures. In 2004, Entenza ran afoul of election law by donating $300,000 to a 527 that essentially laundered his money back into Minnesota DFL campaigns. Now it looks like Entenza and his wife sent $600,000 to South Dakota Democrats in order to launder it back into Minnesota. (my emphasis – pp)

The Democrats have tried to make a “culture of corruption” their rallying cry nationwide. Here in Minnesota, we have all of the corruption and dirty politics we can handle, thanks to the DFL.

Read it all here. Someone within the DFL must not care for Mr. Entenza, because you’ve got to be pretty close to the source to get ahold of that kind of information.

Now, while the SD Dems might be part of the equation, I would note that given the “relaxed nature” of South Dakota’s campaign finance laws, I don’t think they would necessarily have done anything wrong under this state’s laws for the assist, depending on who or what organization moved it here.

I couldn’t find it in a quick 5 min check, so I might have to do some more digging tonight to see if I can find it on their financial reports.

Stay tuned. I’m sure there will be more information to come on it. (Or at least a ton of rhetoric.)

*UPDATE* Okay – here are the updates from my poking around (and the flurry of e-mails I’ve gotten on it) and from the link provided by “anonymous” to http://www.minnesotademocratsexposed.com/, which had the scoop sent to them by an anonymous faxer.

As Minnesota Democrats Exposed reported was written in the Pioneer Press:

The documents, sent from a Kinko’s copy shop, included copies of canceled checks through which Entenza’s wife, Lois Quam, gave $55,000 to two South Dakota political action committees in early 2003. The documents purport to show that much of the $55,000 went through the PACs to the South Dakota Democratic Party, then to the Minnesota DFL Party and eventually to the Minnesota House DFL campaign committee that Entenza led. The document also alleged that Quam donated another $45,000 to a South Dakota Democratic House campaign committee.

In December 2004, Entenza acknowledged that he and Quam made about $600,000 in contributions to various campaigns during the two years leading up to the 2004 election. He apparently did not include the $55,000 Quam gave to the South Dakota committees.

But it appeared, at least initially, that while the donations were unusual there was nothing illegal about them or the route the money allegedly took to the House Democratic campaign.

And as contained in the fax, checks were written to the Wanalain PAC, and the Capitol Committee PAC.

Now, I don’t want to one to cast dispersions here, but I have one question that maybe someone can help me with.

Why are the checks written out to these political action committees, when neither one can be found anywhere in any of their PAC Reports?

Because the next time you see any evidence of this money is not in either of these committees.

The next time you find evidence of this money is directly in the SD Democratic State House Fund.

If you look, you find not two donations from Lois Quam for $15k and $30k, but just the collective donation for $45k

Pardon my asking, but can PAC’s endorse over checks to a third PAC without a paper trail being reported on the financial reports?

It’s probably meaningless, as it looks like that $45k was out the door in short order straight to the SDDP.

I’m not finding the documents where it went out from them, so it likely went into their federal account from there, and on to the Minnesota DFL.

Regardless of the correction those three PAC’s should probably file with the Secretary of State’s office, this really isn’t anything other than political theatre and a momentary evening diversion trying to trace the money on this side of the Minnesota/South Dakota State line.

Because over here, there’s nothing on the books about moving amounts of money back and forth between various state party political action committees.

If you’ve ever looked at a Democratic Party filing, you’d know what I mean with the shifting of money back and forth. If you didn’t have the checks as some helpful Democrat provided to the Minnesota media and blogs, we’d never have known that the two pacs had endorsed those checks over to the third.

Ultimately as stated in the Pioneer Press:

…. while the donations were unusual there was nothing illegal about them or the route the money allegedly took to the House Democratic campaign.

“It’s a lot of paper shuffling, and I can’t see a reason to do it,” said Edwin Bender, executive director of the National Institute on Money in State Politics, a Helena, Mont., campaign watchdog group.

But Bender said the alleged transactions did not appear to be unlawful.

Read that all here.

No matter how much things change… they seem to remain the same.

(Sorry. Couldn’t help but flash back to my auctioneer days.)

The Attorney General’s race seems to be showing some signs of growing from the field of the 4 current candidates. The word on the street is that Charles McGuigan, Jason Ravnsborg, Lance Russell and John Fitzgerald might be joined by former Butte County States Attorney Jim Seward, who’s most recent public service was as general counsel to Governor Dennis Daugaard from 2011 through 2016.

The word I’ve been hearing since this weekend is that Seward is making phone calls and testing the waters to see if there’s room for him to enter the already crowded field.

A Rapid City Journal article on his departure last year had Governor Daugaard praising Seward’s work during his tenure.

If you caught the post below, the House rolled out it’s tax reform package today, and Congresswoman Kristi Noem was one of those featured:

This just popped up in my RSS Feed. Apparently “super tough” Steve Jarding just filed a FEC Report for a new group whose domain (http://www.superheroesforamerica.com/) is parked but not in use for a group calling itself just that; SuperHeroes for America:

superheroes for america by Pat Powers on Scribd

The filers noted that “This committee supports/opposes more than one Federal candidate, and is NOT a separate segregated fund or party committee” and provides the following statement

This committee intends to make independent expenditures, and consistent with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decision in SpeechNow v. FEC, it therefore intends to raise funds in unlimited amounts. This committee will not use those funds to make contributions, whether direct, in-kind, or via coordinated communications, to federal candidates or committees.

Interesting. The big questions are whether the group is going to operate in South Dakota races, and where are they plan on getting their funding?

Just one to keep an eye on.

South Dakota Democrats responded to the charges by Donna Brazile Politico article about the Hillary Clinton takeover of the Democrat National Committee, as evidenced by the Argus Leader Headline:

Write it down Bernie Sanders supporters… Clinton PAC transfers are how Presidential Campaigns work.   

Especially when Hillary Clinton has assumed control of your party.

Thune, Senate Health IT Working Group Members Reintroduce Legislation to Improve Meaningful Use Program

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sens. John Thune (R-S.D.), Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), Pat Roberts (R-Kans.), Richard Burr (R-N.C.), and Bill Cassidy (R-La.) today reintroduced the Electronic Health Record (EHR) Regulatory Relief Act (S. 2059), legislation that would provide regulatory flexibility and hardship relief to address compliance burdens faced by EHR users. Similar legislation was introduced in the 114^th Congress.

“Health information technology, especially the advancements in electronic health records, is an integral part of the future of America’s health care delivery system,” said Thune. “Our bill ensures that unnecessary regulatory burdens do not continue to negatively affect providers’ ability to leverage technology to improve patient care. With such strong and continued support for this legislation, I’m hopeful it will lead to swift and meaningful action in the Senate.”

“The American Medical Association says that for every hour doctors spend with patients, they spend two hours on electronic health records and desk work,” said Alexander. “This legislation will help reduce the regulatory burden doctors and hospitals have faced under the Meaningful Use program so they can instead focus on treating patients. I encourage the Senate to pass this bill to take a step towards getting our electronic health records system out of the ditch.”

“The use of electronic health records in our health care system has the potential to revolutionize patient care,” said Enzi.“But if we want electronic health records to work for providers and patients, we have to provide relief from unrealistic and burdensome requirements and build flexibility within the program. This bill will let hospitals and physicians maximize their use of electronic health records and allow our health information technology systems to move in to the future with a focus on the needs of patients.” 

“Health information technology holds the promise of improving patient care and better utilizing taxpayer funds,” said Roberts. “However, the meaningful use program has made health information technology nearly unworkable for our doctors and hospitals. This legislation provides much needed regulatory relief to the program so our health care professionals can spend more time focusing on what they do best – caring for patients.”

“Electronic health records have the potential to greatly improve care and these common-sense policies can help achieve that goal,” said Burr. “I am pleased to be working with my colleagues to provide greater flexibility to hospitals and doctors to support their efforts to provide quality care to all North Carolinians.”

“As doctors, we best spend our time looking into a patient’s eyes to make sure that she knows even though she has cancer, she has hope — not clicking on a computer screen to document something unimportant to her, but required by someone far removed from the exam room,” said Cassidy.

The senators’ legislation would shorten the reporting period for eligible physicians and hospitals from 365 days to 90 days, relax the all-or-nothing nature of the current program requirements, and extend the ability to apply for a hardship exception from the meaningful use requirements. Additionally, as implementation of the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System continues, the legislation would direct the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to consider forthcoming recommendations from the Government Accountability Office with respect to ensuring flexibility in assessing physician performance.

Click here for a summary document of S. 2059, here for legislative text, and here for information on past work by the Senate’s health IT working group, Re-Examining the Strategies Needed to Successfully Adopt Health IT, of which Thune, Alexander, Enzi, Roberts, and Burr are original members.

 ###

Noem: Tax Reform Means Stronger Families and a Stronger Future

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Rep. Kristi Noem today announced the release of a once-in-a-generation tax reform package which aims to strengthen families and offer a stronger future for all Americans. The legislation was drafted by the House Ways and Means Committee, on which Rep. Noem is the first South Dakotan in history to serve. For the latest information, please visit Noem.House.gov/TaxReform

“People deserve a break,” said Noem. “For years, we’ve watched as energy, food, healthcare and child care costs increased, but people’s paychecks remained largely unchanged. Small businesses have had a hard time expanding in that type of environment, and families have struggled to achieve the degree of financial independence they’re aiming for. In order for America to move beyond this, we need a tax code designed to strengthen our families and offer a more optimistic future. While no proposal will be perfect in everyone’s eyes, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act would make the tax code much more simple and fair, delivering family-friendly credits, lower tax rates, small business incentives, and, ultimately, a full and permanent repeal of the Death Tax. It’s taken years to get to this point, but I’m encouraged by the progress and look forward to continuing this debate in upcoming committee meetings.”

The tax reform package released today would:

• Substantially simplify the tax code so an individual or family can file their taxes on a form as simple as a postcard.
• Significantly lower individual tax rates for low- and middle-income Americans to Zero, 12%, 25% and 35%. High-income Americans will maintain the 39.6% rate.
  • 0%: Married couples making less than $24,000 / Single filers making less than $12,000 (the increased standard deduction protects these families from taxation)
  • 12%: Married couples making $24,000-$90,000 / Single filers making $12,000-$45,000
  • 25%: Married couples making $90,000-$260,000 / Single filers making $45,000-$200,000
  • 35%: Married couples making $260,000-$1,000,000 / Single filers making $200,000-$500,000
  • 39.6%: Married couples making more than $1,000,000 / Single filers making more than $500,000
• Nearly double the standard deduction to $24,000 for married couples and $12,000 for single filers.
• Provide unprecedented support for families.
  • Increases the Child Tax Credit to $1,600 per child (60% larger than under current policy).
  • Eliminates the “marriage penalty.”
  • Creates a new Family Flexibility Credit, which provides a credit of $300 for each parent and non-child dependent.
  • Preserves the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit (also known as the Child Care Credit) to better support working parents.
• Phase in full and permanent Death Tax Repeal by doubling the Death Tax exemption levels for the first six years and then fully repealing the Death Tax by 2024.
• Preserve and strengthen the Earned Income Tax Credit with provisions to stop widely reported fraud.
• Preserve the Home Mortgage Interest Deduction for existing mortgages and maintains the home mortgage interest deduction for newly purchased homes up to $500,000.
• Retain popular retirement savings options, such as the 401(k)s and Individual Retirement Accounts.
• Streamline higher-education benefits.
• Continue the deduction for charitable contributions.
• Exclude the Indian Health Service’s Student Loan Repayment program from tax to help in recruiting. It’s based on Noem’s 2016 legislation.
• Allow businesses to immediately write off the full cost of new equipment, which is critical for South Dakota’s agriculture community.
• Create a separate and historically low small business tax rate.
• Lower the corporate tax rate to a globally competitive 20%.

Noem was selected for the House Ways and Means Committee in January 2015. Just over a year later, the committee released a blueprint for tax reform that outlined what a pro-growth, pro-family tax plan would look like. Over the course of the next year, Rep. Noem sat down with hundreds of South Dakotans to discuss the plan – both in the state and in her Washington, D.C. office. Noem also participated in more than a dozen formal Ways and Means Committee hearings on tax reform and brought South Dakota farmer Scott VanderWal to the table to testify on tax reform’s impact on agriculture.

All in all, the House Ways and Means Committee has been working on this proposal for more than six years, holding more than 40 public hearings since 2011.

South Dakota Leading the National Fight to Bring Tax Fairness for Local Retailers

PIERRE, S.D. – Attorney General Marty Jackley is pleased to announce that 36 Attorneys General are supporting South Dakota’s position that sales tax obligations should be applied fairly to both internet and main street businesses. Colorado has filed a “friend of the court” brief in support of South Dakota’s petition to the United States Supreme Court asking that Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992) be overruled.

“South Dakota is leading the national fight to bring tax fairness for our local retailers and to help support main street businesses. I want to thank Colorado Attorney   General Cynthia Coffman and my other Attorney General colleagues for their overwhelming support in seeking tax fairness for local retailers. Nobody enjoys paying taxes, but if necessary a tax should be fair and equal,” said Jackley.

In Quill, the U.S. Supreme Court required that a retailer have a “physical presence” within a state before a seller can be obligated to collect and remit that state’s sales taxes on purchases delivered into the state.

South Dakota passed a law in 2016 that would require out-of-state retailers to collect and remit sales tax similar to in-state retailers. The law applies to out-of-state retailers if they have more than $100,000 in sales or complete more than 200 transactions per year within South Dakota.

Given the controlling precedent of Quill, on October 2, 2017, the Attorney General’s Office filed a petition for certiorari asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the South Dakota Supreme Court decision in State of South Dakota v. Wayfair, Overstock and Newegg.

-30-

South Dakota Democrat Party Laundered Millions of Dollars for Hillary Clinton

In a damning report today, former Democrat National Party Chairwoman Donna Brazile explained on an op-ed on the Politico website that the Hillary Clinton Presidential Campaign used Democrat state party organizations including the South Dakota Democratic Party chaired by Ann Tornberg as a way to get around campaign finance limits.  According to reports filed by South Dakota Democrats with the Federal Elections Commission, South Dakota Democrats allowed the Clinton campaign to directly funnel over $2.25 million through the State.

South Dakota Republican Party Chairman Dan Lederman issued a statement “calling for South Dakota Democrat leadership to publicly disclose exactly what the terms were of the financial arrangements with the Clinton campaign in light of receiving virtually no funds, spending almost no money on joint activities, and the former Chairwoman Brazile claiming the arrangement was ‘unethical.’”

Lederman noted “It is unprecedented that a national presidential campaign send over 2.25 million to a South Dakota political party for purposes of washing funds to make them “legal” to return to the candidate. It also shows how much their party was controlled by Hillary Clinton.”

According to the Politico report, the state parties received little of the funds raised, and the Bernie Sanders campaign criticized the financial arrangement alleging that “Clinton’s campaign was “looting funds meant for the state parties to skirt fundraising limits on her presidential campaign.”

“Not that Republicans are complaining, considering South Dakota Democrats suffered historic losses at the time, but it seems that they were little more than a financial clearinghouse for the Clinton campaign,” Lederman said.

###