You ever get a problem or question in your head you just have to solve?  Courtesy of my insomnia, I had one of those. A 4am mystery that was picking at my brain, which I started to talk about in the previous post, more specifically the SD Taxpayers PAC.

The group obviously has ties to the South Dakota Gun Owners, but they also have a history of hitting below the belt, and saying things about legislators that simply and demonstrably are not true. But they do them anyway.

They’ve been around for a few years, and for a long time have been associated with Ken McGregor, as noted in this 2011 statement of organization.

There’s not much out there about McGregor’s political involvement, aside from serving as the financial face of the group that raised about a half-million dollars to run Glenn Beck rallies in Rapid City and Colorado.

Campaign for Lib by Pat Powers on Scribd

Aside from being the public face for these groups, McGregor has generally maintained a low profile.

The same leadership of the SD Taxpayers PAC group was still in place as late as 2014, according to this article in the Capitol Journal which chronicled their questionable postcards.

The SD Taxpayers PAC has always tended to operate primarily in the GOP primaries to attempt to influence elections. But as noted in the 2014 Campaign Finance report, any discernible funds have come from one sole source – the South Dakota Gun Owners group, and it’s affiliated PAC, as you can see in their 2014 pre-primary campaign finance report:

2016 saw a changing of the guard with the organization, with Ken McGregor ceasing to be noted as their front man… and a new person was named as their public face in 2016.

According to this January filing, Drew Dennert, who is now serving in the State Legislature as a newly elected State Representative, was affiliated with and served as the PAC’s treasurer.  However, this was amended within a matter of days, changing the treasurer back to Ken McGregor:

From February 2016, the group moved forward, and the legislative primaries had them attacking Senator Terri Haverly and others. And they filed a pre-primary report with a new player in the game:

The 2016 pre-primary report showed that they had incurred about $7,000 in expenditures, with no receipts. A few days later, they had filed a supplemental report showing that money was coming into the organization, predictably from the only donor they’ve ever disclosed – South Dakota Gun Owners.

From here, this is where the SD Taxpayers Group starts to go down the rabbit hole, courtesy of the 10/28/16 post-primary campaign finance report:

We see their street address is 24737 Dehaven Drive in Custer, and it’s still being run by “Robert Roland.”   Now, check out the contributions. There are none. BUT… instead of making a direct donation as they had previously, South Dakota Gun Owners didn’t write a check to the SD Taxpayers PAC..

According to the report SD Gun Owners and Gun Owners PAC directly paid for it and wrote it off to SD Taxpayers PAC as an “In Kind Contribution.”  Let’s go look at the South Dakota Gun Owner’s PAC report for the same period:

The in-kind contribution from the PAC is listed (sort of).  But things do not seem to jibe with the supplemental report filed.

If you start looking closely at the reports, the numbers, and where the money comes from, you’re left scratching your head over a bit of the mess. And that brings us to where we are today. At least on the surface, it appears that the organization(s) may have some issues to address.

Issue #1: So in what form did the June 2 donation take, and how was it applied? $4004.40 was counted as a donation from a sole entity on June 2, but in the report, $4410 was counted as coming from 2 entities (SDGO PAC and SDGO). And obviously, none of the numbers seem to add up.

Issue #2: South Dakota Gun Owners (Organization and PAC) are noted on the report as having paid for both the printing and the postage on mailings, which went out under SD Taxpayers. Here’s an example of at least one:

So, how exactly did they accomplish this? South Dakota Gun Owners Organization (they claim to be a non-profit) allegedly spent $3030 on a communication coming from SD Taxpayers, which were all candidate advocacy.  It was counted as an in-kind contribution, but where’s the independent expenditure disclosure form for SD Gun Owners?

Independent Expenditures Statement – SDCL 12-27-16 states that any PERSON or ORGANIZATION that makes a payment or promise of payment totaling $100.00 or more, including an in-kind contribution, for a communication which expressly advocates for or against a candidate, public office holder, ballot question, or political party.

I don’t see SDGO on this list:

So, I have to do a form when I support Larry Tidemann on a postcard I send out for myself, but SDGO didn’t do one for a postcard that they bought and entirely financed for another PAC which seems to solely advocate against a candidate?

It all depends on your definition of advocacy.  And there might be a problem with that.

Issue #2.5 – Can one PAC legally pay to print and mail materials for another PAC with no disclaimer of the first PAC, simply by calling it an in-kind donation? If so, that’s a new loophole I hadn’t heard about.

Issue #3 – Is SD Taxpayer PAC being honest about the organization’s street address? As noted, they claim it at 24737 DeHaven Drive in Custer.

But if we decide to go vacationing, as found at Heart of the Hills Vacation Homes:

Somehow, I don’t think I’m going to get Robert Roland or anyone who knows anything about that PAC if I go knock on the door.

I’m sure I’m only scratching the surface, but it looks to me as if there’s a messy campaign finance report, two organizations entangled with each other, with both attacking Republicans, and some things on report form that aren’t all as they seem to be.

 

In case you were wondering about the flyer from the fly-by-night group “South Dakota Gun Owners,” that they’re chasing the Governor around the state with, I’ve got a copy in hand.

The flyer is based on legislation that is yet to be introduced, and a position the Governor has yet to take. Which makes it all the more confusing.

As I’ve been told, this is coming at the same time that (allegedly) the SDGO group has recently been conducting a dial-and-dump campaign, where they robodial people with a spiel about their gun rights, and then directly dump (forward) the person to their legislator’s personal phone.

This might be slightly less bizarre if there was actually legislation being debated at this time. But, the SDGO and the people who run it have never been about passing legislation, as much as attacking people.

If you recall my post from several months ago, the attacks the SDGO orchestrated in the primary largely came from out of state.   And interestingly, they also appear to be the sole source of funds and are the  money behind the South Dakota Taxpayer’s PAC, another out of State PAC*…

which in the past couple of primaries actually attacked legislators for votes they never took.  

Predictably, the SD Gun Owners are back at the attacks. Despite there not being a bill, nor an expressed opinion on it.  

Which will make it all that much harder for legitimate organizations, such as the NRA, to promote expanding gun rights in South Dakota.

(*While that’s a Colorado address, it’s a North Carolina phone number)

I just noted on Facebook that former GOP legislator Ken McNenny of Sturgis passed away today.

McNenny served in the house from 1987-2000, and the Senate from 2005-2008 for a total of 18 years.

Very sad news, as he was a really good guy. I’m told the funeral will be in Sturgis.

From my mailbox:

South Dakota needs your help. With the passage of Measure 22 last election, South Dakotans will be forced to fund political campaigns with their tax dollars. That’s why Americans for Prosperity-South Dakota is calling state legislators to Repeal 22 and enact meaningful campaign finance and ethics reforms.

Measure 22 was passed thanks to big spending by out-of-state interests. Supporters promoted it under the guise of campaign finance reform, but Measure 22 will actually take taxpayer money to fund political campaigns-to be used for things like TV ads-away from necessary budget items such as education, public safety, and transportation infrastructure.

These are not ethical ways to approach campaign finance reform. In fact, a judge has already suspended Measure 22, stating that it is unconstitutional!  Taxpayers should not have their money spent promoting the ideas of political candidates they might not agree with or support. Individuals should not have their private donations to charities exposed to people who could use that information to target and intimidate them for supporting certain causes.

 Ask your legislators to repeal 22. You can make your voice heard by clicking here to call your state representative and senators.

Encourage them to pass constitutional reforms that will address campaign finance and political ethics without putting people’s privacy at risk or using tax money to fund political campaigns.

In Liberty,

Ben Lee
State Director
Americans for Prosperity-South Dakota

From Facebook:

South Dakota Gun Owners are on a pre-emptive attack against Governor Daugaard for constitutional carry legislation that has yet to be introduced, much less be facing a Gubernatorial veto just yet, as noted by Jordan Mason on facebook, who was handing out orange SD Gun Owner postcards at Daugaard speaking events yesterday.

Senate Bill 59 has been filed – one of the first initiated measure reform measures from individual legislators to try to fix the grand mess that we’ve been going through over the past several cycles.

This first reform bill gives the legislature and state government a chance to prepare for the impact of such measures, such as through rule-making authority and changing law to comply with the measures (especially poorly written ones), by making them effective on July 1 of the following year, and not at the time the canvaSs is completed:

Thoughts?

State Representative Don Haggar is prime sponsor of a measure to create a system of whistleblower protections under state law for government employees who report misuse of funds, as well as other affronts to the public trust:

What do you think? Does this tie the hands of State Government in the case of a malcontent employee, or does it provide a protection that isn’t there now?

There’s a bill which is part of the Attorney General’s package of legislation which is causing a minor bit of controversy in the halls of the legislature. Senate Bill 25 would allow for the release of booking photos – or mugshots – to the public, as an open government/open records measure.  As noted by KDLT news:

South Dakota is one of only two states in the nation that does not allow for these mug shot photos to be released to the public or the media. The only exception is when someone is considered a fugitive. In that case, law enforcement has the authority to release a photo of the suspect.

But a bill in the state legislature could change that.

Senate Bill 25, requested by Attorney General Marty Jackley, would give authorities permission to release criminal booking photos.

and..

“I’m supportive of being open, I’m not resisting public access to our mugshots, I wish there was some way to better control mugshots of people in particular who end up not convicted or charges dismissed, because that thing could count them for the rest of their lives,” he said.

Read it all here.

The measure blew through the Senate, but it wasn’t unanimous. It was a 20-12 split, with the opposition coming from some conservative Republicans, along with a smattering of the few Democrats in the chamber.

I suspect it’s that part about the mugshots being released regardless of innocence or guilt having yet to be determined.

If someone has been tried by a court of their peers, and determined to have done something against the law, it’s a lot easier to say “that’s ok,” than it is for someone who might have inadvertently gotten caught up in a bad situation who was arrested but later exonerated. Should that bad photo taken at 2AM now follow an innocent party for the rest of their professional careers?  That’s a tough burden for someone to shoulder.

It’s a lot like the laws on civil forfeiture (which are slowly being reformed across the country), where the police or government seize cash under the auspices of it being part of a criminal enterprise without having to go through the formality of a conviction. I understand and sympathize with the “why”…. but there’s something that just doesn’t seem right.

We’ve always been taught that in this country since the time we were small children that under the American system of Justice that we are “innocent until proven guilty.”  Either we accept that as Gospel, or we don’t. And if we don’t, then what do we believe?

Tough questions to ponder when we consider how Government should treat the innocent in the face of an open system of government.

The Argus just posted this story, which has the Governor poking back at legislators who would like to see fewer blue badges (government lobbyists) on the 3rd floor as the Senate prepares to make a decision tomorrow whether to banish them from their midst:

“If they differ from my attitude with something, let the ideas win the day. Let the best idea win the day,” Daugaard said. “If those who are afraid to have my attitude or my employees’ attitude be aired then I would say if you can’t defend your ideas, maybe they’re indefensible.”

and..

Sen. Ryan Maher, R-Isabel, brought the rules change last week that would restrict state employee lobbyists from the Senate chamber and adjacent hallway during working hours. He said lobbyists who enter the chamber or look on from the hallway to one side of the chamber have become too much of a distraction to lawmakers that don’t have offices at the Capitol and often work at their desks.

and..

“You don’t learn more by talking and listening less. So I don’t understand the rationale behind the feeling that they should not interact with the executive branch. It doesn’t make sense to me,” he (Governor Daugaard) said.

Senate Majority Leader Blake Curd, R-Sioux Falls, has said lobbyist presence on the Senate floor and in one of the hallways adjacent has at times been “destructive and a distraction” to the legislative process.

Read the entire story here.

What do you think about the war against 2nd floor lobbyists on the 3rd floor? And as I’ve already weighed in on, what do you think about their proposal to shield themselves against lobbyists of all types?

A month or so back, someone was advertising this set of pins made for the Hillary Clinton election night victory party. They just struck me as a bit too cocky, and I love ironic humor, so I had to have them: