From the Argus Leader today, among a flurry of Mayoral news blips, one of the hotter fights is among the campaigns for Governor.
An article at the Argus Leader had the Jackley campaign taking aim against the Noem campaign on Noem having comments cited in the Supreme Court internet tax case, and the Noem campaign coming back at the Jackley camp criticism:
Rep. Kristi Noem undermined South Dakota’s effort to overturn a U.S. Supreme Court case that bars states from taxing out-of-state internet purchases, potentially hurting the state’s chances at a favorable ruling, a spokesman for Attorney General Marty Jackley said Tuesday.
and…
During oral arguments in last week’s hearing, George S. Isaacson, a lawyer representing Wayfair and other internet companies that opposed South Dakota, quoted a press release that Noem’s office issued earlier this year when the court agreed to hear the case. In that release, Noem said that a victory for South Dakota could force small businesses in South Dakota to comply with 1,000 different tax structures nationwide – an argument online retailers have made for why they shouldn’t be forced to collect taxes in other states.
“That’s from a high official representing the state of South Dakota,” Isaacson said during the hearing.
Joe Schartz, a spokesman for Jackley’s campaign for governor, said it was “shocking” to hear Noem’s words used against the state. Noem and Jackley face each other in the June 5 GOP primary for governor.
and…
Justin Brasell, Noem’s campaign manager, said Tuesday that Noem supported the case, but the press release referenced by the Jackley campaign called on Congress to enact changes that would simplify tax systems and make it easier for out-of-state businesses to remit taxes to states where they don’t have a physical presence. Noem is the sponsor of a bill that would do that.
“It’s not that she opposed the court case,” Brasell said. “It’s so that Congress would act.”
Brasell said Noem approaches the issue as a small business owner “and someone with common sense, not as a lawyer.”
So is it true (what she said) or not? Should a business in BFE have to be able to figure out if I live in White or Brookings (4% or 6%, or whatever Brookings is up to now)? If I ship a Christmas give to myself (for me to give to my wife) while we’re in California or Massachusetts visiting family for Christmas, should I pay their higher rates for a product that will be used in South Dakota? Should a Mom & Pop business or Ebay seller have to hire an accountant to figure this all out?
I would agree with the guy who said (of Kristi): Her comment sounds like someone with common sense, not as a lawyer.
Brookings Radio had audio of Jackley’s oral arguments. He sounded whiny, and the lady justice, whom I have little respect for, handed him his hat by asking if the court should overturn precedent just because it would be good for “your state”.
Except Noem tried and failed to force this on us on Congress. She supports the tax.
Schartz is a great name.
Common sense isn’t that common.
It is strange that this is an issue in the GOP primary. Daugaard might be able to get elected to a 3rd term after all.
I agree it’s a fairness issue. That said I dont know that the average person cares or understands that its not a new tax.
If the point is that Noem is ineffective and lacking in accomplishments it’s a good point to make.
But if Jackley fails in the Wayfair case… he’s also ineffective and lacking victories by your definition of a single standard.
Jackley has done what for South Dakota beyond trying a SCOTUS case that he’ll likely lose? And he publicized the crap out of it for him to use for his campaign. Both GOP candidates are lackluster… vote for Billie Sutton- a true conservative!
I don’t believe a thing that comes out of Noem/Brasell’s mouth.
Well it’s good to know they both support the plan to make us all pay more taxes.
Sickening, isn’t it?
It’s not a new tax. You are already responsible for paying this tax, but many do not. The law Noem supported (e.g, the correct approach of changing the law) would have been to legally change the law to require out-of-state vendors to collect this tax on South Dakota’s behalf. It rightly failed, since it’s overly burdensome on those vendors.
Jackley’s approach it to try to get some judges to say that the law says something other than what it actually says, because it would somehow be more “fair”.
They’ve both on the wrong side of this, in my opinion. Noem’s approach left legislating to the legislative branch, where the process worked (again, IMO, since they agreed with me!). Jackley’s approach is to ask the judicial branch to legislate. Additionally, he came off as whiny.
I’m not saying this is indicative of either one being a better person or a better servant of South Dakota. Noem’s in the legislature, she legislated. Jackley’s a lawyer, he sued. In the case the legislature was the correct approach. Jackley knows this, but he’s campaigning so he’s swinging for the fences. Did I mention he sounded whiny?
Noem’s got just enough common sense to fail in every business venture she’s tried. the only place she’s made money is as a professional politician in D.C.
As an engineer and a lawyer, Jackley takes a massive pay cut to serve the public.
Who would you rather have as Governor?
Ok Schartz-
Jackley’s taking a big pay cut, eh? Maybe the meth traffickers should help him out by cutting him in on the profits since their business has been booming under his tenure as attorney general.
Meth comes to South Dakota from the southern border. When we’ve got an open borders liberal like Noem as our representative, it’s no wonder we can’t build the wall
I wish there was a better option, but I’ll take Jackley over Swamp Creature Noem.
Noem always gets hit for being connected to DC, but nobody ever mentions how the huge DC retail groups bankrolled Jackley’s litigation. They literally spent millions developing the legislation (across the country, not just South Dakota’s) and hiring the professional lawyers to argue the case. But then Jackley let his ego get in the way and refused to let the professionals do their jobs. Predictably, he tanked under the pressure. One wonders how the retailers feel about their investment in Marty.
Noem is a loyal Paul Ryan crony. That truth is undeniable. She hitched herself to his wagon early on and has been rewarded by the swamp at every turn.
Jackley did a terrible job arguing this case, just read any national business media that followed this case as many did. They all say the same thing essentially he was inept. I applaud him for making this issue a priority, like it or not this will even the playing field for all businesses, but he should have put his ego aside and allowed a qualified business attorney argue this case.
Why are Noem and Jackley trying so hard to get the credit for making it harder for small businesses to compete. It does bother me that Jackley used this to promote himself for Governor.
Some misconceptions need to be cleared up here. First, if your business is small meaning you’re operating out of your home or have a small retail shop you will be exempt from charging tax. I don’t recall the limits.
Second, South Dakota has spent a lot of time streamlining our sales tax in alignment with the national streamlined sales tax initiative. You’ve probably heard of the streamlined sales tax project in the news over the previous several years.
The businesses will receive a free copy of the software that computes the correct amount of tax based on their location that also insulates them from an audit. Not only that they will receive a stipend for collecting the tax. You have already heard that you are currently required to remit the use tax to the state but more importantly you will continue to see increases in taxes like we’ve already had to cover the loss of revenue. You have already heard that you are currently required to remit the use tax to the state but more importantly you will continue to see increases in taxes like we’ve already had to cover the loss of revenue to fund our government. If the day ever comes where we start receiving this revenue I would hope to see the repeal of the half penny sales tax that was placed on last year.