Over the course of the last year, Slick Rick Weiland and Don Frankenfeld have been trying to convince us that South Dakota is among the most corrupt states in the nation, and among their demanded reforms, they tell us that we desperately need to fund politician’s campaigns with tax dollars to solve this conundrum. 

However, a 2014 study from one of Don’s alma maters, Harvard, proves that all of their campaign’s claims of a hopelessly corrupt South Dakota are nothing more than bullsh*t. (Which you can find in certain areas of my alma mater, SDSU, aiding in smelling it from a distance.)

There are other problems with measuring corruption by using conviction data, too. Over the three decades between 1980 and 2010, for example, South Dakota appears to be the most corrupt state—two and a half times more corrupt than New Jersey—as judged by federal convictions. This is quite surprising since the Dakotas were among the leading states in the movement against corruption in government that started in the late 19th century and continued through the 1930s. Prairie states such as the Dakotas, Minnesota, and Wisconsin are historically the least corrupt in the U.S. In fact, the only perceptions-based index measuring state level corruption in the U.S. ranked South Dakota as the least corrupt state in 1999. Any index based on convictions standardized for population is likely to be more variable in states with small populations, like the Dakotas, because a handful of cases will affect rates much more there than in, say, New York or Texas.

Read it here.

The evidence is clear that their whole campaign around the issue of corruption is utterly and completely manufactured garbage to try to prop up the unpopular idea of robbing the state treasury of taxpayer funds to put them towards political campaigns.

On Tuesday, there is only one logical response to their campaign’s outright lies. 

Vote NO on Initiated Measure 22.

You know you’re dealing with out-of-staters in this instance. Because people from South Dakota would probably know who “John Daschle”…  I mean “Tim Daschle”..

I mean they’d know who the guy on the right is.

According to public radio today, A group of Western South Dakota legislators have signed a pledge to not raise taxes. 

Although, at the same time, Governor Dennis Daugaard points out that there is no tax increase planned for the next session.

Lance Russel signs a pledge against tax increases next to the Ronald Reagan statue in Downtown Rapid City Thursday afternoon. Seven legislative candidates aligned with the group South Dakota Citizens for Liberty signed the pledge to abstain from increasing taxes during Governor Dennis Daugaard’s administration.  

And..

Russel says the governor’s office has raised taxes substantially in the last two years. But a spokesperson with the governor’s office says the numbers Russel is using are unfounded. Tony Venhuizen says none of the candidates at the event have spoken with the governor’s office about a budget shortfall.

“The governor’s history clearly shows that when he was confronted with a deficit his first year in office he balanced the budget—not through a tax increase but through cuts—and each year thereafter proposed and passed a balanced budget,” Venhuizen says. “The only time new taxes were considered was when it was to add new spending in a particular area, not to balance the existing budget. The council of economic advisors has said we should expect slow growth over the next year. So, that will be what the governor considers as he prepares his budget for next year.”

Read the entire story here.

From KSFY comes another story of the out-of-state money from liberal donors flowing in to rewrite South Dakota’s Constitution and election laws.

With polls showing a tight race, and time running out to reach undecided voters, the Republican Party is stepping up efforts to oppose Amendment V.

The GOP is contributing 70,000 dollars to the ‘Vote No on V’ effort.

And…

Ads are being paid for by huge campaign donations that Republicans say are coming mostly from out-of-state donors.

“It is truly being pushed by out-of-state groups trying to change the way that we do things here in South Dakota,” Republican Party executive director Ryan Budmayr stated.

The New York based group Open Primaries has donated more than $800,000 to the effort.

Read it all here, and make sure you tell all your friends to vote against this awful measure.

My friend Todd Epp had an observation yesterday on the KELO Radio website about Jay WIlliams that I can’t argue with one bit:

Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Jay Williams is a tomato can.

He’s far from an actual tomato can (he’s a successful business person, a former Naval aviator, and a Vietnam War veteran) but he will do as well as a tomato can in next week’s election against incumbent Republican U.S. Sen. John Thune.

That’s because anyone the Democrats put up for statewide office in the post-Tom Daschle/Tim Johnson era is going to do as well as the proverbial tomato can.

and..

Until the state Democratic Party figures out that it can’t continue to see Republican and Independent voter registrations surge while Democratic registrations stagnate; that until it can’t continue to be ruled by rural interests; that it can’t ignore the new “cube farm” economy; that it can’t ignore Minnehaha and Lincoln Counties; and until it stops the revolving door of party leaders, Democratic tomato cans will be all we’ll see on election days to come.

Read it all here.

(I think Troy Jones calls that the dead dog bounce, or something like that.)

Remember the 1.3 million raised from out-of-state sources that the Yes on Amendment V people are reporting? They’re quick to retort “Yeah, but Thune raises money from out-of-state.”

So, morally, who is in the right?

Friend of the blog Michael Wyland has an essay that was published today at “The Nonprofit Quarterly,” which delves into the issue, and notes that the out-of-staters have a poorer position as they try to use South Dakota as their electoral guinea pig: 

If out-of-state money is OK for a state’s candidates for the U.S. House and Senate, why shouldn’t it be OK for statewide ballot initiatives? Why shouldn’t the sauce for the goose also be sauce for the gander?

The answer is relatively simple, yet often overlooked. Senate and Congressional candidates have the opportunity to influence legislation, regulation, and oversight everywhere in the country. For example, John Thune, the current chair of the Senate Commerce Committee, is from my home state of South Dakota. As a Senate committee chair, he wields significant influence and power over commerce across the United States. His decisions have the potential to affect all industries, all professions, and much of the national economy. However, even a newly elected legislator sent to Washington votes on all bills, sits on multiple committees, and has liaison with all federal agencies. They have access to other powerful people, including their own colleagues, with the potential to exert influence and even control.

The national scope of their offices is not only an opportunity to affect all states (not just their own); it is an expectation and a duty that comes with their office. They represent not only their home state’s (or home district’s) interests; they are expected to act in the best interest of the nation as a whole.

and…

Out-of-state money donated for political campaigns, especially U.S. House and Senate campaigns, is far more reasonable in candidate elections than it is when applied to statewide ballot initiatives. The key reason is the scope of the campaign’s capacity and geography for proximate, direct effect. Therefore, it is appropriate to challenge an initiative’s expression of a state’s voters’ collective will and desires when those campaigns are financed primarily from outside its borders.

Read the entire article here at the Nonprofit Quarterly.

Michael noted to me in sending me the article that “This was a point I first made in a comment on DWC, fleshed out into a feature article.”  

Glad to see that as a monkey banging on my keyboard, I can help spark such intelligent commentary!

A few interesting developments have been swirling in the ether recently for the Governor’s race in 2018 that affect the lay of the land. And they’re related to the fortunes of Democrats.

First off, there’s Mayor Mike Huether, who seems to be his own worst enemy.

If you haven’t noticed, under the leadership of Mayor Mike Huether, Sioux Falls has gained the reputation of becoming Crime City, U.S.A.   Back in 2015, Sioux Falls was named among the Top 10 Cities Where Crime is Soaring:

While the prevalence of violent crime — which includes murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault — has declined in many of the nation’s metropolitan areas, in some regions it has increased. In Bismarck, North Dakota, the violent crime rate grew by nearly 92.4% — from 206.6 cases per 100,000 people in 2009 to 397.6 in 2013. Based on figures published by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), these are the metropolitan areas with the greatest increases in the violent crime rate.

#9 – Sioux Falls, South Dakota: 37.7% –In 2009, there were 212 violent crimes reported per 100,000 people in the Sioux Falls metro area, one of the lower rates nationwide. By 2013, the rate had risen to 292 violent crimes per 100,000 people, an increase of nearly 38% — the 10th largest increase among U.S. metro areas. City officials last year attributed part of this spike in crime to population growth. Yet, this does not fully explain the higher crime rate. Some crimes are also becoming more common than others. Methamphetamine-related crimes, for example, have risen dramatically in the area since 2009. Despite the increase in crime rate in recent years, however, the city remains significantly safer when compared to the national violent crime rate of 367.9 per 100,000 people, and the local economy is relatively strong. Just 3.3% of the area’s workforce was unemployed in 2013, one of the lower rates nationwide.

Read that here.

Between that, and anecdotes of Sioux Falls’ autocratic executive branch doing things just because they can, such as shaking down the local swim team for cash, and then reneging on an agreement, his dogged pursuit of more and bigger city offices for the administration,  and continued instances where people are noticing he’s taken to calling himself as “the mayor of South Dakota”  don’t paint Huether in a favorable light even among Democrats.

At this point, Huether may struggle coming out on top in a Democrat primary, much less competing on equal footing to the Republican primary winner in a deep red Republican state.

Writing off Huether at this point (whether he runs or not), there’s the other person who has been widely talked about in the race.

Former Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, who moved down to Sioux Falls herself a few years back has long been looked as as being the Democrat’s best (or possibly only) chance to give a respectable run for the highest state office for her party.

But, surprise! She may have entirely different plans than most people have been superimposing on top of her resume after looking at her family history.

A couple of weeks back on Facebook, a few people were chatting about Stephanie, and asking when she was going to announce her entrance into the Gubernatorial contest for 2018. In response , a Democrat County Party chairperson for one of the larger counties in the state replied that they were told that very day that as opposed to the Gubernatorial contest, Stephanie “would rather take on Mike Rounds.”

As in Stephanie challenging United States Senator Mike Rounds for that office in 2020.

That wasn’t a possibility anyone had mentioned before. But, it makes sense.  She hasn’t had a terribly high profile for a while. In fact, it’s as if she’s purposefully keeping it on the down low. Which allows her time to maximize her income before she takes a year off to campaign.

South Dakota hasn’t elected a Democrat as Governor for a long, long time. But we’ve put Democrats in Washington, as she well knows.

In considering her opposition, the Republicans running for Governor in 2018 have bigger campaign bank balances at the moment. And she can raise cash for a US Senate run from Liberal DC allies far, far easier than she can for a race for Governor in one of the least populous red states in the nation.

If you’re looking at it from her personal standpoint, running for US Senate in 2020 makes all the sense in the world.

Between Huether’s arrogance and awfulness, and Herseth possibly taking a pass, the outlook for the future just became far bleaker for Democrat hopes for Governor in 2018.

Democrats may find themselves defaulting again to someone like they did to Susan Wismer in the last contest, or Jay Williams for US Senate this year. There’s jut not any good options for them, and they may once again be left in a situation of running someone who was unfortunate enough to draw the short straw.

From Bob Mercer this morning, Bob chronicles how redistricting had nothing to do with the awfulness of the South Dakota Democrat Party:

South Dakota Democrats didn’t get into their horribly deep hole overnight. It took 40 years of ups and downs to finally bomb this bad.

But after seeing 30,000 of their registered voters disappear in the past eight years in South Dakota, while Republicans and independents surged to record heights for this Tuesday’s election, the question must be asked.

What happened?

First, let’s look at what didn’t happen. The popular, but erroneous, claim is Republicans used legislative redistricting every 10 years to punish Democrats.

Read it all here.

As I noted yesterday, the leadership team of the South Dakota Democrat Party is the worst it has been in years. A continuous trend of mismanagement and abdicating their role as a political party has contributed to their continued downhill slide in numbers.  And unless they come to the realization they’re a political party, and not a small ballot measure company, it’s not going to change anything anytime soon.

Trump increases lead, Ballot Measures Lose Ground

NATIONAL AND STATEWIDE RACES

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump widens his lead in the most recent Nielson Brothers Polling (NBP) South Dakota Survey (Nov. 1-2, 2016).  As undecided numbers drop, respondents are largely deciding against the various ballot initiatives and amendments in this survey.

Donald Trump leads Democratic challenger Hillary Clinton 52* to 36 percent (Libertarian Gary Johnson – 5 percent, Constitution Party candidate Darrell Castle – 2 percent, undecided – 6 percent).  In NBPs October survey Trump led Clinton 49 to 35 percent.  This November survey went into the field following James Comey’s letter to selected Republican House chairpersons.

Other statewide races show little change between the October and November NBP surveys. Incumbent US Senator John Thune’s support dropped a point, and he now leads Democratic challenger Jay Williams, 53 to 33 percent, with 14 percent undecided.

Incumbent US House member Kristi Noem’s lead over Democratic challenger Paula Hawks remains unchanged at 51 to 41 percent, with 8 percent undecided.

Public Utilities Commissioner incumbent Chris Nelson’s support increased one point. He now leads Democratic challenger Henry Red Cloud 56 to 28 percent, with 17 percent undecided.

BALLOT MEASURES

Amendment T (redistricting authority moves from the state legislature to a nine person commission) has support drop from 42 percent in the October survey to 39 percent. Opposition climbs to 30 percent, compared with 27 percent in October. 31 percent remain undecided.

Initiated Measure 21 (limits annual loan rates for certain lenders at 36 percent)  has support increase two point to 41 percent in this survey, but opposition rises to 35 percent from 26 percent in October, with undecideds dropping to 24 percent from 36 percent.

Amendment V (removes candidate party affiliation except for president) which was holding even in the previous NBP survey, now has 42 percent of respondents saying they will vote against it (compared with 38 percent in the previous survey), 37 percent support it (compared with 38 percent), and 22 percent undecided.

Amendment U (allows unlimited interest rates for written loan agreements), drops a point to 23 percent of voters saying they will vote for it, while opposition rises from 45 to 51 percent, with 27 percent undecided.

Initiated Measure 23 (gives corporate and nonprofit organizations the right to charge a fee for any service they provide) has 20 percent support, 55 percent opposed, and 25 percent undecided.

Referred Law 20 (lowers the state youth minimum wage to $7. 50 an hour for non-tipped employees under age 18) has support rise by one point to 32 percent, as opposition rises two points to 53 percent, with 15 percent undecided.

The fate of each measure still depends in large part on the high numbers of undecided voters.

NBP