Deb Peters has the Golden Ticket for SD v Wayfair

Pat Powers

State Senator Deb Peters who has done extensive work on Main Street fairness legislation has a historic ticket for the arguments in SD v. Wayfair being heard in the US Supreme Court today:

16 thoughts on “Deb Peters has the Golden Ticket for SD v Wayfair”

  2. I heard the news story on a few national radio broadcasts this morning and she had a great interview.

  3. i’ve heard so many national pundits yell about the ‘effort to enact a national internet tax’ when they refer to this. it’s so easy to get the facts right. sheesh.

  4. Good. Hope she gets some acclaim for this, given that Jackley’s been basically taking credit for her work since he started his campaign for governor.

  5. It is a shame Congresswoman Noem had to send out a press release to criticize Marty for his Supreme Court appeal. Her statements were used in Wayfair’s brief to hurt South Dakota. She put her own political gain before South Dakota.

    1. Politicians are at their best when they don’t care who gets the credit. That goes for all 3. Deb did her part. It was only part. Marty is doing his part. It’s only part. Noem would look better if she said something nice once in a while.

      The starvation for credit and acclaim is a common human weakness.

  6. Yep, there is nothing better than a legal precedence which empowers the state of California to tell South Dakota businesses what they must do in the future…. 50 federal governments? Isn’t one enough?

  7. When did we start supporting new taxes like those being pushed for online sales? And why is this something we should be proud of?

  8. GOPer,

    1) This isn’t a new tax. Current state law provides for taxation of these transactions. It just isn’t being collected.

    2) This isn’t a new revenue source or will not increase tax revenue to the state. In 2016, the Legislature passed a law which automatically adjusts the sales tax rate down in direct relation to online sales tax collections.

    3) This is about correcting perverse incentives. Why should we give a competitive advantage to online, out-of-state businesses (online in-state businesses pay the tax currently) verses our in-state businesses who employ our citizens?

      1. Marty is philosophically in the right here, but he straight-up said in the oral argument that he prefers a solution whereby each state can levy retroactive tax across their borders (page 10 of the transcript), which doesn’t seem like the way to get at conservatives’ hearts.

  9. Relative to this issue, why aren’t we just enforcing the current use taxes that we have on the books. And if such taxes are hard to enforce, then why should those who abide by such a law be penalized by continuing to pay such a tax?

  11. I wonder how Deb felt when Marty took credit for her law on page 58 of the transcript:

    “It’s a situation where it’s this Court’s decision in Quill that’s basically striking down every state statute, including mine, no matter how non-discriminatory, no matter how low the burdens are.”

  12. Congratulations to Sen Peters on getting a ticket…I bet they are not easy to get on days of oral arguments.

    1. I wonder if Marty gave her a ticket or if she had to stand in line with everybody else. I heard he was being stingy with tickets so he could take the limelight.

Comments are closed.