The Yes on Amendment V forces are trying to hide the fact that they’ve taken ridiculous amounts of money from out of state to promote this awful measure, and have sent out an appeal to raise money from South Dakotans.
And they have a couple of rich guys making the pitch.
I’m not sure where to start on this thing. Rich guys Joe Kirby from Sioux Falls, and Stan Adelstein of Rapid City start out the letter by stating “if you are a principled Republican like us…” Which seems a bit ironic. I can’t speak to Mr. Kirby’s background, but principled isn’t a word I’d use in the other case. Stan Adelstein has tried to buy more races than a gambling addict at the race track, with a pile of that money going towards Democrats.
Regardless, in case you did want to read it, here’s the letter where rich guys need money. In case you’ve thrown it out already.
Defeat 22 Coalition Welcomes Senators Thune and Rounds, Congresswoman Noem, and Governor Daugaard
Governor and all members of federal delegation join coalition opposing taxpayer funded elections
Sioux Falls, S.D. – The Defeat 22 coalition today welcomed aboard Senators John Thune and Mike Rounds, Congresswoman Kristi Noem, and Governor Dennis Daugaard. The state leaders are the latest members of a broad coalition opposing taxpayer funding of elections, as called for in initiated measure 22.
“We applaud Senators Thune and Rounds, Congresswoman Noem, and Governor Daugaard for taking a stand against taxpayer funding of elections and joining the Defeat 22 coalition,” explained Larry Rhoden, Spokesman for Defeat 22. “These state leaders know that our taxpayers deserve better: tax dollars should pay for schools, public safety, and law enforcement – not robocalls, television ads, and junk mail. We hope other politicians will join with them and tell the Massachusetts special interest group supporting Measure 22: no thank you!”
U.S. Senator John Thune says: “Tax dollars aren’t the government’s money, they belong to the people. Using tax dollars to fund political campaigns is the wrong idea for our state.”
U.S. Senator Mike Rounds says: “Measure 22’s taxpayer funding component fails the common sense test, and I expect most South Dakotans will admit as much when they go to the polls November 8th. Dumping our tax dollars into political campaigns will waste their hard-earned money and make a mockery of responsible spending.”
U.S. Representative Kristi Noem says: “Here in South Dakota, we know what’s best for our state. We shouldn’t be taking advice from out of state special interest groups when it comes to using our tax dollars and changing our election laws, which is why I oppose Measure 22.”
Governor Dennis Daugaard says: “I oppose Measure 22 because the state’s budget simply can’t afford it. Taking $12 million from the state’s general fund and using it for taxpayer funded elections would hurt other South Dakota priorities.”
Defeat 22 is a coalition of more than a dozen South Dakota businesses, charities, political leaders, and organizations who agree that tax dollars shouldn’t fund political campaigns. They have released multiple radio ads and two mailers to supplement a grassroots door knocking effort. The coalition plans to continue heavy grassroots advocacy and paid media through November. All details about the coalition-led effort can be seen at www.defeat22.com.
The allegedly “non-partisan” League of Women Voters has been blasting out a particularly partisan message against Amendment V via robocalls across South Dakota. Take a listen:
The South Dakota League of Women Voters is a branch of the national “non-partisan” group. So, in addition to hiding political affiliation, what other issues are they taking on? (all from LWV.org)
I thought they hosted debates? What does so-called “climate change” have to do with voter education?
Ozone standards? Again, what does that have to do with voting? I’m starting to think this is a liberal special interest group.
Again, what does that have to do with voting? It sounds more like “EarthJustice” or another one of those environmental groups.
and….
Oh, come on! Am I to gather that the League of Women Voters has nothing to do with voting and voter education, and everything to do with liberal propaganda & indoctrination?
What other issues do they advocate for?
I’m seeing a trend…
I think there’s enough evidence at hand to draw conclusions. I’m not thinking the League of Women Voters has as much to do with non-partisanship, as much as adopting far-left of center positions, and promoting them under their umbrella.
Obamacare, Supporting the Obama administration on illegal immigrants, actively fighting and advertising against pipelines, climate change and cheering the shutdown of coal plants? That doesn’t sound very “non-partisan” to me. As much as representing liberal views on just about every issue being discussed – especially since they’re on the wrong side of issues that are important to South Dakotans.
If they’re wrong on the issues and aligning with liberal Democrats on Obamacare, Keystone, and Coal, what are we to think when they jump right in and tell us we need Amendment V?
I think we need to take a critical look at what the organization has become. And take every word they have to say with a liberal dose of salt.
Thune-Schumer Bill to Eliminate Team USA Victory Tax Set to Become Law
WASHINGTON —U.S. Sens. John Thune (R-S.D.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) issued the following statements after the Senate passed the USA Olympians and Paralympians Act (H.R. 5946), companion legislation to the Senate bill they introduced earlier this year that will exempt Team USA athletes with an adjusted gross income of $1 million or less from being taxed by the Internal Revenue Service on medals or prize money received from the U.S. Olympic Committee on account of the Olympic or Paralympic Games. This would apply to medals and prizes won at the Rio Olympic and Paralympic Games. This bill will now be sent to the president for his signature. Their Senate bill originally passed the Senate in July.
“I can’t think of anything more unpatriotic than the federal government profiting off of the success of Olympic athletes,” said Thune. “Now that this tax on Olympic success will finally be a thing of the past, the medal-winning athletes who’ve returned home from the Rio games can continue to focus on what’s most important – sharing their victory and celebrating with friends, families, and communities across the United States.”
“I am happy to announce that our Olympic and Paralympic athletes who competed in Rio will receive tax relief on their prize money and medals,” said Schumer. “Many countries subsidize their athletes to represent their country; the least we can do is make sure our athletes don’t get hit with a tax bill for winning a medal. After making sacrifices to train and volunteer to represent their country on the world’s stage, it’s just not right for the U.S. to welcome these athletes home with a tax bill on their medals and prize money.”
The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, of which Thune serves as chairman, oversees the U.S. Olympic Committee and other sports organizations. Thune and Schumer are both members of the Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over tax and revenue measures.
The USA Olympians and Paralympians Act, which was first introducedin the 113th Congress, is cosponsored by Sens. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), Jerry Moran (R- Kan.), and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).
Kristi Noem Endorsed By NRA, Local Gun Rights Advocates
Earns A-Rating for Record Protecting 2nd Amendment
Sioux Falls, SD – Rep. Kristi Noem has been endorsed by gun rights advocates as a leader in defending our Second Amendment rights.
“As a small business owner whose operation is reliant upon citizens using their Second Amendment rights, I keep a close eye on our state’s leaders and what they are doing to protect our gun rights. With Kristi, we have a strong advocate for the Second Amendment and her record is second to none,” said Kristi Hoffman of Black Hills Ammunition.
“Anyone who has had more than one conversation with me probably knows I’m an avid hunter. Most days, I would rather be out in the field hunting with friends and family than anywhere else. While in Congress, I have firmly and consistently defended our Second Amendment rights, which are essential to our liberty and a core constitutional value,” said Noem.
Noem has been endorsed by:
National Rifle Association (Noem is a lifetime member and has an A-rating) Charlie Carter, Kones Korner Guns Jim Claseman, Vice President, Thunderstik Lodge Nancy First, Chief Executive Officer, Jack First Gunshop Jeff and Kristi Hoffman, Black Hills Ammunition Brandon Maddox, Owner, Dakota Silencer Gregory Vecchi, Owner, Deadwood Guns
“I am honored to receive endorsements from the NRA and local South Dakota business leaders and gun rights advocates who have put their trust in me to protect our right to bear arms,” said Noem.
I’ve been hearing anecdotes for the last week within GOP circles that early voting is nearly 4 times as high as it had been last election. Today, the Secretary of State confirmed that early voting is occurring at a near record pace, and could comprise a staggering 35% of the vote:
Friday was the busiest day in the history of early voting for county auditors.
South Dakota Secretary of State Shantel Krebs told The Greg Belfrage Show Wednesday that she expects 30 to 35 percent of all voters this fall to vote by absentee ballot.
Attorney General Jackley Joins Challenge to Federal Government Withholding of Education Funds over Transgender
PIERRE, S.D.- Attorney General Marty Jackley announced that South Dakota has joined 18 other State Attorneys General and the Governors of Kentucky and North Carolina in an amicus or “friend of the court” brief, challenging the federal government’s withholding of education funds over transgender.
“President Obama’s directive that children of opposite sex must be required to share locker rooms and bathrooms under the threat of lawsuit and withholding of education funding has been halted by a nationwide federal preliminary injunction.
Unfortunately, the federal government continues to act on its threat by forcing this extraordinary intrusion upon our schools. The Attorneys General are again stepping forward to protect children by asking the United States Supreme Court to allow school districts to avoid placing young children of opposite sex in the same bathroom or locker room,” said Jackley.
The brief was filed in the United States Supreme Court in the case of Gloucester County School Board v. G.G., Mother Deirdre Grimm.
The case involves a school board in Virginia making accommodations for an individual born as a girl that self identifies as a boy wanting to use the boys’ bathroom in school. The Federal District Court entered a preliminary injunction requiring the school board to allow the girl to use the boys’ bathroom after it was directed by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals to afford controlling deference to the Department of Education and Department of Justice letter that makes it discriminatory for a school to separate male and female bathrooms, unless each student is allowed to select either bathroom in accordance with that student’s asserted gender identity. The United States Supreme Court has stayed the 4th Circuit Court mandate and the District Court preliminary injunction, pending the disposition of a petition for certiorari from the school board.
South Dakota had previously joined 24 other states in parallel lawsuits filed in Texas and Nebraska against the U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department of Justice. The challenge was initiated by a letter threatening states with loss of all educational funding under Title IX unless every public school in the country allowed students to select restrooms, showers and dormitories based on their expressed gender identity. A federal district court in Texas recently entered a nationwide preliminary injunction prohibiting the enforcement of the letter, and withholding of education funding, which applies nationally.
There is no cost for South Dakota to join these proceedings.
Senator Soholt just posted this video on her facebook page about her support for Roads and Bridges.
It’s very nice, and professionally done. She spent some money on having this produced for Social Media.
If you’re a candidate, should you do this? My answer is “Depends on how much you have in your campaign account.” I suspect Senator Soholt, running against an independent, with no Democrat in the race, has enough of a budget to do so. If you’re a beginning or challenger candidate, you probably don’t. If you want to do a video, by all means, do so. But shoot it on your phone, and use free editing software.
Thinking in a “campaigny” mode, The money you would spend on a professionally shot and produced video would also get you pretty far on a postcard that’s directly targeted to people you know will vote, versus a professionally produced video that I’m seeing up in Brookings, and don’t have that person on the ballot.
It’s the sniper approach versus the scattergun approach. Both have value, but it depends on what you’ve got to spend.
Social media videos, newspaper ads, tv, they all encompass the scattergun approach where you blast messages out there and hope you hit a voter (much like goose hunting). They’re tried and true techniques, and have been used for years.
Coe Crawford for US Senate postcard, 1908
But so have Postcards, robocalls, e-mail campaigns, etc. They’re of a directly targeted nature – a laser or sniper approach – where you go exactly to the person you know who has a history of voting in, say 3 of the last 4 general elections. They’ve been around almost as long as political newspaper ads have been.
Why target? Odds are, if you have a targeted voter who has pulled the lever in several elections, you can count on them voting again. So you need to get your name in front of them, even if it’s for a moment when the card passes from their mailbox to the trash.
(Yes, I do quite a few postcards through my business Dakota Campaign Store. They work and they aren’t going away anytime soon.)
To me, targeting your message is of foundational importance in a political campaign. Think of it as a cake. A targeted message would be a layer in the cake. There is also a layer for traditional newspaper and broadcast advertising.
And if you can afford it, there’s a place for social media videos. They’re like icing to make it pretty, polished and professional looking. Possibly sprinkles.
How does it fit into your campaign? I’ll close by saying that there’s no rights or wrongs, it all depends on what you can afford, and what you want to emphasize.
Kristi Noem Endorsed By NRA, Local Gun Rights Advocates
Attorney General Jackley Joins Challenge to Federal Government Withholding of Education Funds over Transgender