As we have advertising contracts that have about run their course, the SDWC has space available once again to help you put your message in front of our State’s opinion leaders and decision makers. It’s a great way to grab their attention, especially if you want to raise the profile of your issue with them in the run up to this years’ election, or next years’ legislative session.

(If I was running for Governor, Attorney General, Congress, or a host of other offices in 2018, it’s a good way to gather potential volunteers, and to put yourself on the map. But, that’s just me. 🙂  )

Advertising on the Dakotwarcollege.com website is based on a first come, first serve basis for the available positions.  Advertising slots on the right are 300 px wide up to 300 px tall, and may be either static image, animated .gif, or flash file, as long as the file size is within acceptable file parameters, does not impede the loading of the website, or interfere with existing code.  All ads run through-site, and are not rotated in their positions.

Information on ad prices, ad positions, and required ad commitments may be directed to the webmaster by clicking here.

And if it needs to be mentioned, I’d encourage you to visit our long list of advertisers, and check out their websites, such as United States Senator John Thune, Americans for Prosperity SD Chapter, Congresswoman Kristi Noem, Vote Yes on S – Marsy’s Law, as well as my own Dakota Campaign Store, one of the State’s largest suppliers of campaign materials.

And while I’m on the subject, for all you newly minted candidates who may be looking for parade materials such as stickers, banners, car magnets, and the like, Dakota Campaign Store is open for business, and available to serve the campaign material needs of Republican and non-partisan campaigns.

Thanks for your patronage!

From the Argus Leader, Attorney General Marty Jackley says that the people who looted the GEAR-UP program for personal gain should go to jail.. But, it’s not quite that easy:

South Dakota’s top prosecutor wants to put someone behind bars for the state’s Gear Up scandal.

But the attorney general faces an obstacle in a 2013 state law that made it tougher to lock up nonviolent offenders without criminal histories.

and..

South Dakota prosecutors’ efforts to take probation off the table if defendants don’t have a criminal past haven’t succeeded since the state’s Public Safety Improvement Act took effect in 2013.

The act changed state law to require that those convicted of Class 5 and 6 felonies receive probation barring “aggravating circumstances … that pose a significant risk to the public and require a departure from presumptive probation.”

and…

The documents also include a conversation between Phelps and former Gear Up business manager Scott Westerhuis in which they agreed to run the AIII through an affiliate so that its board members wouldn’t question their activities.

“I think that all of those charges that we identified are relevant to show that this wasn’t a mistake, to show motive in relation to (those) fabrication of evidence felony indictments,” Jackley said.

Read the entire story (with video interview) here:

Sometimes you read stuff that leaves you laughing at how ludicrous it is. Kathy Tyler’s latest missive on her campaign blog falls in that category, as she makes up a new word, alongside her historic revisions: De-Elected.

During the 2014 election where I was de-elected, there were many fallacies told about me. The postcards and the radio ads were quite descriptive of a person that I am not.  I think it’s time to clarify where I stand on a few things.

and..

The anti-education postcard was one I didn’t even show my husband. I voted against funding a swine research unit at SDSU. I voted against it the first time it came up and then voted for the expenditure the second time it hit the floor. It was probably a mistake on my part, or was it a mistake to change my mind?  I haven’t visited the facility nor have seen any research results produced by it, but am sure it is a good addition to SDSU.

and..

They also claimed I was pro-abortion. I don’t think anyone is pro-abortion; everyone is pro-life—some just a little more than others. I believe that life begins at conception. Along with that is the support of common-sense anti-abortion legislation. There are some anti-abortion bills that just aren’t necessary. And I take my pro-life stance farther than the pro-birth, pro-life people. I support prenatal care for all women; that includes immigrants.  That bill finally passed this year. I also support Medicaid expansion (it’s pro-life, too.) It’s a win-win for South Dakota. (That’s another article.)

Read that all here.

De-elected? Um, yeah. That’s not a word. In any dictionary.

“Lost the election.” “Was defeated at the ballot box.” “Had my silly butt kicked from one side of the district to another.” Those are factual statements. But “de-elected?”  Not so much.

But that sort of revisionism goes right along with her revisionism on two major issues that are still going to plague her during the 2016 election, just as they helped cost her the race in 2014. First off, her anti-SDSU vote:

The postcard was 100% accurate, as she did cast a vote against the facility. I’d argue it was absolutely fair game. But in light of her comments why she voted against SDSU, I’d say they went quite easy on her:

 

“it was a vote of, uh, a retaliation type of thing.” Her own words, in her own voice.

It wouldn’t be so bad, but she’s trying to revise history not just once, but twice, as she tries to deflect her record on abortion in preparation for election 2016:

She calls herself pro-life, and claims that “I believe that life begins at conception.” But her voting record says otherwise, as she voted against pro-life bills on MULTIPLE OCCASIONS.

It wasn’t just the issue that has managed to capture everyone’s attention when she claimed her priest told her (which he absolutely denied) “Jesus was pro-choice”…

…It was her total record on the issue.

Kathy Tyler lost the 2014 election for State Representative because she says one thing in Pierre – as stated and recorded in her own voice – and tries to tell the people in her District another. Trying to state anything to the contrary is just trying to revise history.

Just as claiming she was “de-elected” is another bit of ridiculous revisionism.

Hopefully, the voters in District 4 aren’t into “the NEW history books,” as written by Kathy Tyler.

From Gray DC News, Senator Mike Rounds talks about his measure to clean up archaic references & language in federal law as tribes are concerned:

Senator Mike Rounds (R-SD) introduced the Repealing Existing Substandard Provisions Encouraging Conciliation with Tribes Act (RESPECT) Act in April. John Flute, Chairman of the Sisseton Wahpeton Sioux Tribe made the case to lawmakers on Capitol Hill during a Senate Indian Affairs Committee hearing on Wednesday. He testified about how these laws impacted his grandfather.

 

and…

Some of the laws date back to the 1800’s and were used to repeal treaties, withhold Federal money owed to the Tribes, even punish members for consuming alcohol. None of them are actively in use today.

“We don’t have to have archaic laws on the books that reflect very very poorly on how we try to do business with the Native American Communities,” said Senator Mike Rounds (R-SD).

Rounds said overturning these laws is necessary to begin a process of normalizing relationships with the tribes.

Read it all here.

American Innovation and Competitiveness Act Heads to Full Senate

“Today’s vote will be welcome news for universities throughout South Dakota as well as other research institutions like the Sanford Underground Research Facility in Lead.”

WASHINGTON – U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, issued the following statement after the committee approved S. 3084, the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act, by voice vote. The bipartisan legislation, of which Thune is a cosponsor, would maximize science research by reducing administrative burdens for researchers, enhancing agency oversight, improving research dissemination, and reforming federal science agencies to increase the impact of taxpayer-funded research.

“The committee’s passage of the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act puts important enhancements for federal research and our economic competitiveness one step closer to becoming law,” said Thune. “Today’s vote will be welcome news for universities throughout South Dakota as well as other research institutions like the Sanford Underground Research Facility in Lead.”

S.3084 would reaffirm and update the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research upon which South Dakota research universities rely, improve coordination and planning of federal investments in high energy research at institutions like the Sanford Underground Research Facility, and update the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership program to better meet the needs of South Dakota small- and medium-sized businesses.

In June 2015, Thune and Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), ranking member of the Commerce Committee, established an Innovation and Competitiveness Working Group, which convened a series of bipartisan roundtables to gather input from the U.S. science and research community. Public feedback received by the working group was used in part to craft this legislation.

In addition to its investment in scientific research, S. 3084 would reauthorize the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, both of which are under the Commerce Committee’s jurisdiction.

###

Under a comment recently, someone (anonymous, of course) in the midst of trash-talking had made the claim that the past election was a referendum against “Republicans In Name Only” and represented a major conservative sweep of the primary elections.

That had me questioning this anonymous thesis, because to my knowledge, it was utterly wrong. And not just the usual wrongness exhibited by anonymous commentators, it was completely wrong!

Why do I think this? Look at how the results in the State Senate races came out. But don’t just look at the names – look at WHY they won:

District	Rep	Rep2	Why won?
Senate 5	Solum	Tapio	Name ID/Campaigning
Senate 7	Tidemann	Post	Name ID/Campaigning
Senate 9	Peters	Hubbel	Name ID/Campaigning
Senate 19	Nelson	Finck	Name ID/Campaigning
Senate 28	Maher	Ritch	Name ID/Campaigning
Senate 30	Russell	Rampelberg	Ideological Divide
Senate 32	Solano	Kriebel	Name ID/Campaigning
Senate 33	Jensen	Sly	Ideological Divide
Senate 34	Partridge	McIntyre	Name ID/Campaigning
Senate 35	Haverly	Mulally	Name ID/Campaigning

Winners are tagged in red, those who I would argue won based on ideology are tagged in dark red.  I also tried to highlight the factors I viewed as the primary reason they won.

In D5, Tapio ran a very aggressive campaign and spent a lot of money. His signs were all over the place.  Tidemann had strong name ID, and ran an aggressive campaign.  Deb Peters was a campaign machine. In D19, Stace Nelson had the benefit of being on a statewide ballot the previous year. Ryan Maher had good name ID, and ran hard. Same with Solano, Partridge & Haverly.

In only two races, could we argue it might have come down to conservative versus a less conservative opponent – in Russell and Jensen’s victories, because name ID would be said to be very equal in those cases.

And that brings up something I’ve been taught, on why people cast ballots for elections, and that still holds very true – the Know-Like-Trust test.  In the Know-Like-Trust test, with two candidates, all things being equal, they’ll vote for the candidate they know, over the one they don’t.  If they know them both, they’ll vote for the one they like. And if they like them both, they’ll cast a ballot for the one they trust.

In this case, I’m not seeing anything that puts a dent into this maxim of politics. Name ID and campaigning had the day. And in those cases where they knew them both, I’d argue only then were the candidates able to successfully pivot from pure name ID to fighting it out on the basis of issues.

So was it a conservative wave? I’d argue no. Absolutely not. It was a campaigning wave!

And a good lesson to candidates that if they want to win, they need to be ready to put in the work.

I believe I told you all that you need to keep an eye on District 8 Senate:

More than four months before the general election, Youngberg has a surprisingly large number of campaign signs along S.D. 34 between I-29 and Madison.

and…

The history and the early activity this year suggest District 8 Senate is a contest to watch.

Read it all here.

From the Argus Leader, it sounds as if the Governor, like many others, was a protest vote for “not Donald Trump” in the recent GOP Primary election earlier this month.

South Dakota’s Republican governor didn’t mark his ballot for the party’s presumptive nominee in this month’s South Dakota GOP primary.

“I voted for John Kasich,” Gov. Dennis Daugaard told reporters Tuesday in Sioux Falls.

Read it here.

Governor, you were in good company. Trust me. With 10,659 others.

Noem, Cramer, Peterson Introduce Legislation to Address Wetland Determination Backlog

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Representatives Kristi Noem (R-SD), Kevin Cramer (R-ND), and Collin Peterson (D-MN) today introduced the bipartisan Wetland Determinations Efficiency and Transparency Act.  This legislation aims to address the backlog of wetland determinations and enact permanent reforms that make the determination process more efficient, accountable, and transparent.

“Part of promoting sustainable conservation practices is ensuring programs and processes work for the producers who use them,” said Rep. Noem.  “Waiting years before knowing whether a person can improve their land without jeopardizing a wetland or their participation in farm programs is an unacceptable and costly delay.  Together with Reps. Cramer and Peterson, we are offering real reforms that can help eliminate the backlog and ensure timely and accurate determinations are made from here on out.”

“Not since the 1990s has there been serious discussion about Swampbuster, at least not with landowner and producers’ best interests in mind,” said Rep. Cramer. “From streamlining wetland certifications to due process reform, this bill is a package of common-sense improvements which will benefit not only landowners and producers, but also the environment.  With the next Farm Bill on the near horizon, I look forward to working with Kristi and Collin, and engaging with our stakeholders, to help make these reforms reality.”

“This bill starts the conversation about how we can help address the wetland determination backlog facing producers in our region,” said Rep. Peterson.  “I will continue to work with my colleagues to give producers the tools they need to make improvements on their land which can increase yields, reduce the risk of flooding, and improve water quality, as well as make it easier to stay in compliance with conservation rules.”

The National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is responsible for determining whether land qualifies as a wetland, and therefore, is protected for conservation purposes according to so-called “Swampbuster” rules.  If property is determined to be a wetland, certain changes – such as laying drain tile in a field – are not allowed without a landowner losing the ability to participate in federal farm bill programs and crop insurance.  In recent years, producers have faced a significant backlog in wetland determination.  As of June 1, 2016, 3,086 requests were outstanding in the Prairie Pothole Region – 1,374 of which were made in South Dakota, 757 in North Dakota, and 325 in Minnesota.

“Many Farmers in South Dakota are experiencing challenges in receiving timely and accurate wetland determinations from the NRCS. We’ve been calling for increased transparency, timely determinations including a fair and efficient appeals process for many years,” said Jerry Schmitz, farmer from Vermillion and President of the South Dakota Soybean Association. “We want to thank Representatives Noem, Cramer, and Peterson for their leadership on this critical issue, and for their strong support of farmers across the U.S. This legislation will make a real difference in the lives of thousands of farmers within our state.”

“Several years of waiting to get optimal production out of a piece of property can have serious financial consequences for a producer,” said Scott VanderWal, President of the South Dakota Farm Bureau.  “A more timely and transparent process will help landowners better understand if the use of water management practices to enhance the soil for crop production is available to them.  We’re grateful to Representatives Noem, Cramer, and Peterson for offering a solution that makes the determinations process more efficient and accountable.”

“We are grateful to have someone like Representative Noem and her colleagues recognize how crucially important it is to make the wetland determination process easier for producers,” said Doug Sombke, President of South Dakota Farmers Union.  “While the backlog has decreased this year, it gives us a critical opportunity to move reforms forward before requests spike again.”

“The South Dakota Corn Growers have supported farmers using the best stewardship practices available,” said Keith Alverson, President South Dakota Corn Growers Association.  “It is important that farmers have answers to these wetland determinations and congresswoman Noem’s legislation helps address those issues.  We appreciate her efforts on this.”

More specifically, the Noem-Cramer-Peterson legislation would:

• Ensure timely determinations. The USDA would be given 60 days to make wetland determinations, after which producers would be protected from penalties during a transition period to come back into compliance.
• Make the appeals process more efficient.  If a producer believes a determination is incorrect, they would be given the option of either going through the administrative appeals process or appealing directly to the federal district court.
• Allow third parties to be better used as a resource to shrink backlog and ensure timely determinations. The USDA would be able to utilize approved third-party data and technical assistance when making a final certification, leveraging outside expertise without a cost to taxpayers.
• Improve transparency. Clarifies in law the NRCS’s responsibility to share any and all information used for the determination with producers.  Additionally, the legislation puts the burden of proof to the federal government, rather than the producer.

###