Another postcard arrived in PO Boxes in the Aberdeen Area this weekend on the District 3 State Senate race, pointing out the differences between Senate Candidate Al Novstrup, and darling of the SDDP, Cory Heidelberger:
Anti-Transparent and Out-of-State, Yes on V’s Campaign Mirrors the Measure
Yes on V got 85.7% of Contributions from Out-of-State, while 78.3% came from Dark Money Groups
Fort Pierre, SD – October 28, 2016 – The pre-general campaign finance report for Yes on V showed a massive influx of out-of-state, dark money flowing to the campaign. To date, Yes on V has raised 85.7% of its money from out-of-state and 78.3% from Dark Money groups that do not disclose their donors.
“Amendment V is an anti-transparent, out-of-state plan that is wrong for South Dakota. The Yes on V campaign hides the source of its money just like Amendment V would hide party labels from voters,” said Will Mortenson, Chairman of Vote No On V.
The vast majority of Yes on V’s campaign donations have come from outside South Dakota. Yes on V has raised $1,323,068 from out-of-state, including $1,122,720 from a single, dark money donor in New York City, NY. Amendment V would install a California-style primary in South Dakota’s constitution.
“Amendment V is being pushed by dark money from Manhattan. South Dakota works best when we govern ourselves. Amendment V is an out-of-state plan pushed by out-of-state cash,” Mortenson added.
To date, Yes on V has raised a total of $1,543,350 to support their attempt to overhaul South Dakota’s constitution.
Vote No On V reported raising $100,623. Over 99% of the funds raised for Vote No On V came from in South Dakota and over 98% of donations came from individuals or groups that disclose their donors.
##
I’m planning on taking my dad to early vote today, or sometime next week. And in querying him where he sits on these ballot measures, I received a somewhat terse “I’m voting no on ALL of them.” I also spoke with a good friend of mine yesterday out in the Hills, and asked him what he thought. He indicated that he early voted already, cast a ballot in favor of Amendment R on the tech schools… and was consistently no on all the others. I believe a daughter who was here to early vote this past week was also a no vote on just about everything.
I’m sensing a trend of NO, which I suspect is going to be the case more than people may think via the polling that’s out being conducted. With already reported long lines, I just don’t people are going to mess around.
How did I vote? If I recall, I believe I was a Yes on R, and a Yes on S. I don’t recall specifically, but I may have also been a Yes on U, simply because I think people should have the ability to make their own choices on how they conduct their business.
But the rest of the field fared pretty poorly with literally a no vote on everything else.
Where are you falling on all of this?
Tim Reed is hitting mailboxes around the Brookings area (since Brookings is self-contained in the District) and telling people what he stands for:
This postcard hit mailboxes this week on Against Amendment V. Obviously, I didn’t design this one, as it’s too small (about 4×6), and too subtle. (There’s no time in the election for subtlety).
Has anyone seen the bizarre new Yes on V commercial? I’m watching it, and I had to rewind it and watch again. The voices are out of synch with the video, making it look like you’re watching the actors in a 1950’s Godzilla movie.
Attorney General Jackley Addresses Research and Development for Medical Marijuana Derivatives with the FDA and DEA
PIERRE, S.D. – Attorney General Marty Jackley continues to work with the FDA and DEA to address research and development for medical marijuana and its derivatives.
“As Attorney General, I am hopeful that research will conclude marijuana derivatives will help treat a child experiencing seizures or the pain of a cancer patient. I am urging the FDA and DEA to consider accelerated research of marijuana for treatment purposes. If marijuana is determined to provide a medical benefit, I believe safeguards for public health and safety can be put in place which include FDA approval, a South Dakota doctor prescribing the drug, and a South Dakota pharmacist dispensing the drug,” said Attorney General Jackley.
On August 19, 2016, Attorney General Jackley provided correspondence to the DEA and FDA urging consideration of an accelerated research and development process for marijuana derivatives. While Attorney General Jackley made clear he was not endorsing a particular area of research or marijuana use, he believes that the public health aspect justifies both the DEA and the FDA revisiting the research restrictions as it relates to marijuana with an eye towards medical research in a controlled environment.
The DEA response on October 13, 2016, outlined several steps that have been taken to address the FDA approval process including with Cannabidiol (CBD). The DEA set forth that “while the DEA shares your desire to facilitate research with CBD, and to carry out any scheduling actions that are supported by the medical and scientific evidence, as you undoubtedly recognize the protection of the public health and safety must remain of paramount consideration.”
Attorney General Jackley agrees and believes three important conditions must be satisfied for public health and safety reasons: 1) FDA approval for marijuana or one or more of the derivatives as a safe and effective drug; 2) A South Dakota doctor to prescribe the drug; and 3) A South Dakota pharmacist to dispense the drug.
In December 2015, the DEA adopted a new policy to waive certain regulatory requirements to those who are conducting research with CBD to include those conducting trials with CBD no longer have to request approval from the DEA before implementing changes to their research protocols.
In August 2016, the DEA adopted a new policy whereby additional entities may apply to become registered to grow marijuana for the purpose of supplying researchers. In addition, the DEA continues to assess the current regulatory requirements for conducting research with CBD to determine whether it can take further steps to reduce the regulatory burden while continuing to protect the public health and safety.
The DEA recognizes the possibility that drugs containing CBD might be proven to be safe and effective for the treatment of certain conditions and with FDA approval for marketing. The DEA closed the correspondence with their assurance they will strive to make it easier for research while keeping the public safe.
Links to letters below:
http://stage7.atg.sd.gov/docs/Medical%20Marijuana.DEA.pdf
-30-
There always should be one story that makes you laugh out loud. Tonight’s is about Jay Williams:
According to our KELO TV scientific poll, if the election were held today, Thune would defeat Democrat Jay Williams by a wide margin, 65% to 27%, 8% are still undecided.
Only Williams doesn’t see it that way.
“Maybe the polls are trending, because I just saw a poll yesterday where it had 58% to 38%, I had virtually the same numbers as Secretary Clinton had, which I hope is the case,” Williams said.
Man, is Jay Williams going to be beaten badly. So is Paula Hawks:
According to our KELO-TV scientific poll, Noem leads her Democratic challenger Paula Hawks 59% to 35%, 6% of the voters are still undecided.
The National Rifle Association sent out an alert tonight to it’s South Dakota Voters, as it views the awful IM22 as a direct attack on organizations such as itself, designed to prevent them from communicating about political issues without disclosing personal and private information of their members and donors
Of course, you can read it for yourself:
Remember the big story a few weeks back when the Secretary of State clearly noted that it was illegal for outside groups to use ballot measures to raise money?
The Vote Yes on V campaign took contributions from two outside groups, Open Primaries and TakeItBack.org, that raised and collected money explicitly to back the ballot measure. While outside groups are free to donate money to ballot committees like Yes on V, state law forbids those organizations from contributing money that was “raised or collected by the organization for the purpose of influencing the ballot question.”
and..
Secretary of State Shantel Krebs said state law requires organizations like Open Primaries and TakeItBack.org to register as ballot question committees if they raise or collect money for a ballot measure.
“If they solicited specifically for a ballot question, then that is against state statute,” she said.
Now, remember the e-mail I posted last night? It had a PS..
It directly and clearly states that people need to send Slick Rick money to “Win these Initiatives.”
I’m not sure how many more direct statements by the “takeitback.org” group have to be for someone to take state law seriously. They are absolutely raising money under the pretense of it going towards the ballot initiatives. And supposedly, that’s against state law.
The question is, is anyone going to do anything about it?