Protecting South Dakota Kids Isn’t An Anti-Recreational Marijuana Group Anymore
By Senate President Pro Tempore Lee Schoenbeck
Right before the primary election in June I saw the logo For Protecting South Dakota Kids on a candidate’s campaign piece! Given that most people thought this organization was about fighting recreational marijuana and the upcoming ballot issue – that seemed really strange. In fact, it was organized as a “Statewide Ballot Question Committee” and says so right on the front of their publicly filed report.
Protecting SD Kids Termination Report on Scribd (Protecting SD Kids Ballot Question Committee Filing, signed May 1, 2014)
I called the group’s leader, Jim Kinyon, and asked what was going on. He said they were endorsing candidates based on the “objective” standard of their scorecard that I could “go check on our website.” I did. Jim Kinyon didn’t tell the truth.
To be clear, I oppose recreational marijuana. While their ratings obviously don’t mean much as seen below, Kinyon’s group rates me 100% A+ on the subject. In the last election, I wrote a personal check and did a bunch of radio ads in our community on why legalizing marijuana is a bad idea. Unlike Jim Kinyon, I think this issue is bigger than personal political agendas.
HOW KINYON’s FLIP FLOP CAME TO LIGHT
Rep Byron Callies
Our House member Byron Callies has a 100% A+ rating by Kinyon’s group. His website lists Byron as one the legislators they “honored!” Guess what “honored” means to Kinyon’s group? Byron had an opponent this primary that, particularly on pharmaceuticals, could best be described as odd. Kinyon’s group gave out $30,000 to candidates and the largest checks were for $2,500 according to their public report. Given Rep. Byron Callies attained their highest rating and was somebody they “honored” you would assume he got $2,500. You would be wrong! They contributed to his opponent. Byron is retired military. Pretty sure that’s not what “honored” meant his world.
Kinyon’s group is now clearly about some very different “unique” political scorecard of Kinyon’s and as you’ll see below it is even worse.
Senator Randy Deibert
Senator Deibert had a primary in June. He has a 100% A+ rating from Kinyon’s group and is described by Kinyon’s website as having “earned high honors.” Sounds like a candidate for a $2,500 highest honor contribution, right? Wrong. Zero support.
Tamara Groves
Tamara ran unopposed in the primary and has no voting record and doesn’t appear on the “objective list” Kinyon said he used. Probably no check or some nominal one, right? Nope. Maximum contribution of $2,500 ! Noticing a trend here? This PAC is not about what Jim Kinyon has been telling people it is about – but it gets worse.
Brenda Lawrence
Brenda Lawrence ran in 2020 and didn’t make the ballot due to insufficient signatures. By 2022 the old “Cathedral District” had been redistricted into a competitive district and a solid recruit stepped up to take on Sen. Nesiba. Brenda Lawrence successfully challenged the stronger candidates’ petitions, which she has a right to do. Once she knocked the solid GOP candidate out, she proceeded to barely run a campaign (turning down help) and handed the seat to Sen Nesiba.
Sen Nesiba has a voting record with Kinyon’s group of an F at 8%, tying for their worst rating in the Senate. So, no money for the Lawrence that helped the pro-pot crowd, right? Wrong. $1,000 was diverted from the fall ballot campaign to give to Ms. Lawrence’s next failed race!
Senator Helene Duhamel
Not only is Helene Duhamel 100% A+ rated by Kinyon’s group, she has been the Senate leader on this issue. The major victory Kinyon claims from the last session was a bill Senator Duhamel shepherded through the state senate – and it was no easy path.
Helene chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee and works for law enforcement as a day job. She has a tough general election coming. She sounds like Kinyon’s most obvious $2,500 contribution for the season, right? Wrong! Even though others who have hurt the cause or not proven themselves received big checks, our champion on this issue received zilch!
It gets weirder. In April, Jim Kinyon was asked by the Independent candidate running against Senator Duhamel for a signature on their petition. Given that Senator Duhamel had earned, in Jim Kenyon’s words on his website, “high honors”, you would assume he declined. You would be wrong. Jim Kinyon abandoned his group’s Senate leader on his issue and his objectives have changed.
Jim Kinyon only told a 25% truth
If you compare the public record of where Kinyon diverted the ballot money issue in races, only 25% went to those that were on his proven “objective” scorecard. Oddly, of the 25%, half didn’t get to the A+100% voting record mark – but still got some of the money that could have been spent on the fall ballot issue.
So, it is clear that these funds were disbursed on some very different standard by Jim Kinyon.
The Public Can’t Trust the Protecting South Dakota Kids group.
The original group was a Statewide Ballot Question Committee to try and stop legalizing marijuana. If you asked most of us that care, we’d still say that was their mission. We would be wrong!
In May, Jim Kinyon terminated the Statewide Ballot Question Committee and moved all their funds into a PAC he controls. The entity no longer is about stopping the recreational ballot initiative, now it is for Kinyon’s very far right political agenda.
Sadly, but a little bit humorous is that he duped the Presentation Sisters out of a check for this effort. He talked nuns out of their money, but used it for another purpose. Their political agenda does not match where Kinyon ultimately diverted the money – and anyone who ever went to parochial school can tell you that if you’re foolish enough to tell a fib to a nun, there will be some ‘splain’n to do there.
Protecting Sd Kids Pac on Scribd
And that is the sad ending to this story. The primary election campaign finance reports reveal what Jim Kinyon did to distort the battle against recreational marijuana, and he knows better. He’s the Executive Director of the Western South Dakota Catholic Foundation. He understands public trust that follows donated funds. When you pull a fast one, you don’t get that back. He and his friends didn’t need to wreck another South Dakota institution.
They could have set up their Kinyon’s Wackadoodles PAC, put the money there, and spent it the same. They wouldn’t have duped the Sisters, but they didn’t get much there. They couldn’t have misused the logo to dupe voters, and that is a good thing. More importantly, they wouldn’t have damaged the reputation of an entity for their short-term political gain.
We saw the same thing in the public report of South Dakota Right to Life. For a long time, real conservatives have complained about the erosion of important institutions – now you can see first-hand how it happens.
Looking back now I see it as a waste of time and resources especially after looking at some of the extreme candidates they donated to that stood zero chance. Funds would have been better spent on opposing the ballot measure and continuing education since the addiction profiteers will not stop.
Moral of the story… Don’t follow your leadership off a cliff.
Can you explain what your statement means? Because the point of the story is that PAC group has a false mission and took money from donors with that false mission?
In District after District, the voters were clear: NO to leftist Schoenbeck, and NO to his leftist lanckies. Despite Schoenbeck, Mortenson, and Rehfeldt’s intense fundraising to influence and interfere in SD primaries, the voters chose differently. That’s what 10:10 means by “don’t follow your leadership off a cliff.”
Are you burying your head in the sand?
You have a problem with leaders raising money to help candidates with clearly defined PACs and transparency to donors? As far as I know, none of the above mentioned took part in anything negative.
BUT you don’t have a problem with Hansen, Odenbach, May, and the freedom caucus interfering with the elections? Negative postcards, candidate recruitment against incumbents, PACs sold as something else to support their cronies, using life defense fund data and volunteers…
The difference between the two groups is clear. One transparent, one not. One positive, one negative. One shows leadership, one shows manipulation and hypocrisy.
Anon 7:04. If the story is not about who won or lost an election but is about PAC groups spending money to influence elections and lying to their donors about what they use their money for, then how can the moral of the story be your obvious chip on the shoulder? You make no point but your first or second posting except that you obviously have nothing to say about SDRTL and Protecting SD kids (both now AKA whakadoodle PACs) taking money to fight for life of the unborn or anti rec marijuana laws and using that money for Jon Hansen and Scott Odenbum for leadership.
8:01, politicians are liars, and Lee is among the best. That’s not intended as an insult, just a fact. Just as the voters rejected his candidates, so too should thoughtful decerning people reject his writing. This story is really about Lee trying to destroy the credibilty of conservative organizations in SD that support political opponents opposite of Lee’s vision for our state. There are “always” two sides to every story. Lee presents one side. But it is hard to believe that two nonprofit organizations led by many South Dakotans from across our state who serve as board members (a brief perusal of the RTL site shows some two dozen board members) would falter as Lee’s writings suggest. This story isn’t just about one person like Jim Kinyon, but its about the broader decisions his SD board made to support candidates. That’s part of politics. Many South Dakotans serving on these boards made the decison about which candidate best supports their mission. And the truth is that’s just sour grapdes to Lee.
Are you for real? You have clearly missed the point in its entirety. The groups mentioned in the article shouldn’t have been using the money to support political opponents. Certainly not political opponents running against proven candidates and legislators that have a perfect track record for the supported causes. The money should have gone to fight the ballot measures, as that was what was intended when most of it was raised. If you want to talk of dishonesty and lying, then these groups have exemplified the ideas.
While Lee may have a bias, he certainly laid out the facts of the matter. The money went to support candidates that, even if elected, won’t be in office until after the ballot measures pass. It seems as though you have a hatred for Lee that blinds you to the lack of integrity on display here. These organizations and the people behind them are destroying their own credibility. Lee is just pointing it out to people.
Odembach gave Liz Mays PAC $12k. Liz never reported the $12k on her PAC. Where did the money go and how was it spent? SOS never looked at the finance reports.
Oh lort this state is doomed if people think Lee is a leftist.
It’s really hard to explain to a voter that you worked extremely hard to protect children and families and make SD a better place for future generations…when a group like “Protecting SD kids” scores you an F (and donates to your opponent who has not taken any stance on these issues) just because they don’t like you or don’t like the leadership team.
Election fraud at its finest. I hope no one donates to this PAC or SD Right to Life for that matter. If you have a goal – state it truthfully and transparently and live or die by the merits of that goal. That is how I was raised. Others were not it seems….
For both groups – change the name of your PAC. Otherwise you are just a bunch of liars and thieves.
I’m guessing this conversation didn’t happen as frequently as “why did you want to give up my local controls for a project we don’t want” while out campaigning.
People fail to realize the pipeline is about .0005% of the topics discussed and voted on in Pierre over a two year period. Erin has been and will continue to be an advocate for her district and state… and isn’t a “one hit wonder” politician. Find something else to talk about.
Erin’s voters disagree with you.
Anon 7:06: I think every single voter would say they want transparency with what is really going on behind the scenes and donation ask/use transparency. So why would they disagree with Erin’s post above?
Voters in Erin’s district drink a lot of Newsmax Kool-Aid, and love conspiracy theories. Thats why Voita won, she’s just as whacky as they come. Her posts on Parler were pure comedy.
Local control EXCEPT for when it’s out of line with YOUR moral compass, right?
That project has no local control. It’s an interstate project with federal and state jurisdiction. Saying the quiet part out loud “voters don’t care”.
You should go try to take the interstate back from the government, see how that one works. Or better yet, pull out the water lines to your house. They all use state and federal law to help citizens
Wait, you mean a bunch of holier-than-though uptight pricks lied about what they were doing with donated funds? Jee who would’ve seen that coming?
Watch out Prairie Berry! I hear there’s a new brand of South Dakota wine made from sour grapes grown near Watertown: “Château de Schoenbeck.”
Scott – change the subject if you wish because of your own leadership sour grapes. But this truth, as burning as it is for a moral person to read, is what happened. Every legislator in the Capitol knows it. Those who sat on the good side of it will protect them (the lobbying groups) and those on the other side will say nothing or step forward to acknowledge wrongdoing.
I thought you were transparent? Voters want transparency. This is what they are getting. I think it is a good thing for people to know the raw truth.
You can’t do bad things to good people and continue to get away with it. Right?
Sorry I need to add something here too Scott. If an elderly individual donated to SD RTL, even $10, and thought that money was going towards fighting for babies in the womb…they were lied to.
That’s wrong all day long. And I feel bad that you think mockery is playable argument in this conversation about right and wrong.
Erin, you should know that there is no right and wrong to Scott. There is only Scott. The end justifies the means, as long as the end is Scott getting what Scott wants.
He’s got short man syndrome with a balding head.
He’s short Erin. A mean little short man.
Big gov Odenbach is just like big gov Obama. Stealing from the Presentation Sisters for your political gain is just as bad as Barrack suing the little Sisters of the poor. Scott “Barrack” Odenbach is only in for himself and his cronies.
So you have no response to the provided evidence and are just going to be glib about it? What do you think transformed you into such a terrible person, Scott?
The tactics of the left are being employed by the Orcs of Odenbach.
I think we all know that Scott is a major player in all of this and would rather deflect than speak to the issue.
These groups have always been shady but far too often the “non weird” SD politicians are quick to work with them for certain legislative topics. But you know what get say: if you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.
Hopefully it is clear now that these weird, religious, holier than thou groups should not be trusted or taken seriously. Let’s legislate with logic and not fantasy.
Before getting carried away with Lee’s fantasy writing, perhaps some balance with facts would be helpful: according to the SOS website, Lee’s PAC attempted to influence primary races to the tune of $150,000. The majority of Lee’s contributions were to candidates OPPOSITE the contributions made by the anti-marijuana PAC and the pro-life PAC. Don’t be fooled. Lee writes as if he were the white-knight-in shing-armor riding in the save South Dakota from South Dakotans. But the reality is this “guest column” is nothing more than Lee being Lee, trying to invent a reason and blame others why his donor’s $150,000 resulted in so many statewide losses.
Wait, does Schoenbeck tell his donors that he is going to use his PAC money for something else? Or does he fundraise to keep sanity in the SD legislature?
Wrong. The point is that PACs should support candidates that support their initiatives if that’s what they are selling to donors.
Which initiatives? Rec marijuana and pro life legislation or leadership elections?
PACS support candidates who best support thier mission. It’s possible to have a candidate with 100% pro-mission voting record but who is a pain-in-the-ass to the organization to such an extent that the organizaiton decises to support the other candidate. That’s not a crime and doesn’t mean the organization is lieing to its contributors.
Anon 8:52 Is that the rule? Because it seems like SD kids picked those who would vote for whackadoodle leadership in session 2025? And SDRTL? Seems like you’re giving some sort of innocent explanation and avoiding the obvious. We aren’t stupid. The donor list doesn’t lie.
The issue here is that the group formed as a ballot committee, and raised money to fight the issue on the ballot as far as everyone knew. Ballot committees can’t donate to candidates. But PAC’s can.
Mid-stream – and in a manner that was sneaky – they closed the ballot committee, and transferred their money to a PAC with the same name, and the PAC sent candidate checks out. And they didn’t really tell anyone they were doing this.
Do we think the nuns sent a check to a ballot committee to fight a specific issue, or a political action committee who dumped cash into candidates?
SDRTL did a very similar thing. They raised money to protect the unborn. Then transferred a pile of it to a PAC who had nothing to do with protecting the unborn, but everything to do with trying to knock out candidates.
In both cases, they went after candidates who had supported the groups and their causes – in some cases were honored as voting with the groups 100%. So it had nothing to do with the issues or how much they supported the organizations. But it had everything to do with diverting donor dollars to benefit the political leanings of a few people leading those groups.
That’s why this is a big deal.
I could not agree more, Pat. These donors are getting bait-and-switched. That’s NOT okay.
No sympathy for either side since they both hate freedom. Leave people alone, your strawman argument of “kids” is the same card that has been played since the 80’s. This has nothing to do with kids, its is your ego and delusions.
We all know Kristi’s supreme court and the legislature will invalidate the vote again on a few issues you don’t like, just like in 2016 and 2018 and on….
Now, this is a grift that Trump would be proud of!
Maybe SDRTL/SD kids should call every donor and ask if they knew what they were donating for and then return the donation before the general election if the individual doesn’t like their mission. They did that with signatures right? LMFAO
Not a bad idea really. If I gave you money specifically for one thing and you went and spent it on something else, I should get a refund.
So let me see if I understand:
Scott Odenbach and others don’t like what Schoenbeck does openly so they raise money under false pretenses (fight ballot initiatives) to oppose Schoenbeck’s candidates?
If Scott Odenbach is “a conservative” are representative of “conservatives,” how is he different than Satan who uses lies to serve his purpose?
Personally, I’d rather have a truthful person with whom I sometimes disagree representing me in elective purpose than an untruthful person in any position of power or influence.
I think you’ve got a good grip on it.
Simple Yes or No questions:
Mr. Odenbach, did you raise money for a ballot initiative PAC and transfer money to a PAC to oppose political candidates? If so, what percent of the ballot initiative funds did you transfer?
Mr. Bartscher, did you transfer money from a South Dakota Right to Life entity to a PAC to oppose political candidates? If so, what percentage of SDRL funds did you transfer? Was any of these funds used to oppose candidates with 90% or above ratings from the SDRL?
Transparent and honest answers should clear up any misunderstandings.
So wish I could insert a cartoon picture here showing:
1. nuns innocently giving money to defeat ballot amendment
2. and money being redirected by Jon Hansen (and some being put into his own pocket) and Scott Odenbumm with their little lying political smiles….
3. while mothers and children are suffering because that amendment will pass (and they did nothing to protect families in the meantime).
Just maybe those two will win their leadership election but will forever be know for the truth. Don’t forget.
I’m very pleased Lee Schoenbeck is trying to introduce some discipline and conformity, as well as good old fashioned honest dealing, back into the Republican Party.
It’ll be fruitless as long as The Dishonest One is running the party.
Boy, have you ever drunk the Kool Aid!
What about what Lee wrote here is false?
I doubt anything that the former Republican Senate Leader has written is false. Please consult the documents. It’s Mendacity (say you’re doing one thing and do another) and financial fraud. Sure, the law might be a Swiss Cheese of loopholes, and in reality, in South Dakota, a politician never has to answer for his extra legal behavior during a campaign, but that doesn’t make this fraud any less outrageous.
Again, what did Lee write here that is false?
Odenbach and Bartscher are safe from accountability and free to lie because the press would never ask the above questions to determine if they morally (not criminally) defrauded donors.
Remember what is legal is not always moral and what is illegal is not always immoral.
Scott and Dale have perfected the former and in reality have no compass connected to the moral.
Erin Tobin is brilliant and fierce.
Scott Odenbach is selfish and divisive.
Ms. Tobin is a very swell young lady.
Mr. Odenbach is a bit of a leprechaun, insaner than most, and giving money to Ms. May who is insaner than most but very, very dull shows you the real value of Mr. Odebach’s rainbow pot.
What is the education background of Voita? Another product of completely unregulated homeschooling? There is a clear lack of education and along with other single issue primary candidates that won. After watching Rumble videos of Voita I see her in the Freedumb Caucus and a friend of the Marijuana industry.