If you’re in D9, on Saturday AM, check out the Saturday Meet & Greet with the Republican candidates at Dunn Brothers Coffee 8:30-10 AM.

From SDCL 12-27-9:

12-27-9. Limits on contributions to political action committee–Violation as misdemeanor .

A political action committee may accept contributions during any calendar year as follows:

(1)    Not to exceed ten thousand dollars from a person;
(2)    Not to exceed ten thousand dollars from an entity;
(3)    Without limit from a political action committee;
(4)    Without limit from a political party;
(5)    Without limit from a candidate campaign committee; and
(6)    Not to exceed ten thousand dollars from a ballot question committee.

Any contribution from a person who is an unemancipated minor shall be deducted from the total contribution permitted under this section by the unemancipated minor’s custodial parent or parents. A violation of this section is a Class 2 misdemeanor. A subsequent offense within a calendar year is a Class 1 misdemeanor.

From the DoedenPAC Campaign Finance Report:

TobyDoedenPAC_sdcfdisclosure by Pat Powers on Scribd

The report also omits any mention of the cost of text messaging that’s been going on.

I have the feeling that this report – and how the PAC does business – will quickly be subject to revision.

*Update* – sorry, I didn’t get the DumpsterFire logo added..

Caught this in Heather Baxter’s pre-primary campaign finance report dated May 16th..

A $5000 Donation from Shining Light PAC , directly attributed to Jason & Bonnie Johnson, which may have been routed through the PAC. To get around campaign finance limits, possibly?

But curiously, when we look at the campaign finance report for the PAC belonging to Rapid City’s most dubious politico, Jordan Mason’s “Shining Light PAC,”  I don’t see any money coming in, or going out to Heather Baxter.

ShiningBagofDooDoo_sdcfdisclosure by Pat Powers on Scribd

The date of the Shining Light PAC Campaign finance report? May 16.

Sooo…. How does Heather Baxter receive and report to the Secretary of State a $5000 donation supposedly rolled through the Shining Light Political Action Committee and reported on May 14th, yet on May 16th, Shining Light Political Action Committee treasurer Jordan Mason reports no activity – nothing received or donated on his report?

This might be one of these campaign finance questions someone should look into.

Pre-primary reports are starting to be posted by the Secretary of State’s office, especially for those that were filed early.  But, is there such a thing as being too early?

According to the Secretary of State’s website, reports should be filed as follows:

PRE-PRIMARY DUE: MAY 20, 2024

• Deadline: Fifteen days prior to the primary election.
• What needs to be reported: All transactions from the last submitted report through May 15, 2024.  (my emphasis)
• Who files: ALL statewide candidates & statewide elected officials, legislative candidates and county candidates (only if there is a race in that office in the district or county), statewide political parties, statewide political action committees and statewide *ballot question committees.

Ok. For activity through May 15th.  Then why was District 14 candidate Tony Kayser signing off on a report on April 26th?

To this point, the only question that came up about Tony Kayser to me was a commercial property owner asking me “who is this Kayser guy who is putting his signs on my property without asking?”  (Yes, that does upset commercial property owners).

But this one is weird. How can you sign off on your report about 2 1/2 weeks early without knowing what you might receive in donations?  Even more interesting is the report itself, and an item that leaped out at me:

Tony Kay Ser pre-primary report by Pat Powers on Scribd

The dude is claiming $159.30 in campaign yard sign expenses in his mostly self-funded campaign?

A number of weeks back, I personally was picking up a load of signs from the sign production house, and had to jockey for position at the door with someone else who was loading a pickup truck load of signs, whom I did not recognize. I caught it later, as I was leaving after I paid. It was Tony Kayser.

The date? April 30th. In fact, I have a cell phone call I made after that to try to figure out who this was, so I have a date and time right there.  On the report, Kayser notes that he had expenses of $159.30 for signs. Based on what I personally witnessed on April 30th, I’m going to call shenanigans (as a nice way of saying B.S.).

$500 or $1500, maybe. But $159? No way. Not what I witnessed according to the number of signs he had filled the back of his truck with. There were a number of 4×6 signs, and a pile of yard signs. And again, this was on 4/30, which according to the laws regarding the pre-primary filing should have included campaign expenditures and receipts up through May 15th.  But, if he jumped the gun and based his report weeks early on 4/26, yes, $159 might be true.. but not accurate to what should have been filed.

This is only the start of campaign reporting weirdness, so stay tuned.

And remember, if you’re putting signs out there, please don’t assume. Ask the property owner first.

Final Explanations Released For State Constitutional Amendments Proposed by South Dakota Legislature

PIERRE, S.D. – Final ballot explanations for two potential constitutional amendments that were adopted by South Dakota legislators have been released by the South Dakota Attorney General’s Office.

Attorney General Marty Jackley takes no position on any such proposal for purposes of the ballot explanation. He has provided a fair and neutral explanation on the proposed constitutional amendments to help assist the voters.

The proposed constitutional amendments will now be on this year’s general election ballot. A majority of the votes cast in the November, 2024 general election will be needed to pass each measure. These two potential constitutional amendments are different than most such proposals because they were proposed by state lawmakers and not by private individuals or groups.

Senate Joint Resolution 501, if approved, would authorize the state to impose a work requirement on individuals who are eligible for expanded Medicaid benefits. The resolution was approved by the 2024 Legislature. https://atg.sd.gov/docs/May%2016%202024%20SJR%20501%20final%20ballot%20intitiated%20measure.pdf

Senate Joint Resolution 505, if approved, would update the text of the State Constitution regarding gender references for certain office holders and persons. The resolution was approved by the 2023 Legislature. https://atg.sd.gov/docs/May%2016%202024%20SJR%20505%20final%20ballot%20initiated%20measure.pdf

State law requires the Attorney General draft a title and explanation for each initiated measure, initiated constitutional amendment, constitutional amendment proposed by the Legislature, or referred measure that may appear on an election ballot. The Attorney General’s explanation is meant to be an “objective, clear, and simple summary” intended to “educate the voters of the purpose and effect of the proposed” measure, as well as identify the “legal consequences” of each measure.

The Attorney General’s explanation was drafted after a review of all the comments received during the proposed amendment’s 10-day comment period. A total of one comment was received.

For more information regarding ballot measures, please visit the Secretary of State website at https://sdsos.gov/default.aspx.

-30-

Guest Column: Elizabeth Warren bill will squelch the entrepreneurship and innovation
by Barry Sackett, Chair/Founder South Dakota Blockchain Coalition

A critical bill impacting South Dakota Banking, Trust, and the growing digital asset industry is pending before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. We are fortunate to have Senator Rounds serving on this committee to continue protecting South Dakota businesses.

The Digital Asset Anti-Money Laundering Act brought forward by Senator Elizabeth Warren aims to squelch the entrepreneurship and innovation within this emerging market, and targets digital assets and the utilization of blockchain technology in the financial markets, agriculture, and health care industries.

The importance of South Dakota’s leadership in blockchain technology cannot be overstated. Blockchain technology is transforming the way we conduct business, exchange value, and is heavily impacting the South Dakota Trust Industry.

The regulation proposed in Senator Warren’s legislation essentially makes technology currently being utilized in financial markets around the world unusable in the United States, thus forcing businesses to move overseas to develop products which will become essential in the new world of artificial intelligence and quantum computing. The United States is already behind other European and Asian regulators in understanding digital assets, and this legislation threatens to set us back even further.

As of March, this legislation has received additional co-sponsorship from 16 Democratic and two Republican Senators. We have conferred with Senator Rounds Staff regarding this bill, and he has not signed on to support this legislation and has introduced legislation in the past regarding cyber security. We applaud his efforts and encourage him to work with Representative Dusty Johnson to create a bill mirroring Rep. Johnson’s H.R. 4763, FIT for the 21st Century Act in the Senate. Representative Johnson’s bill creates a clear path to appropriately treat digital assets as commodities instead of security instruments.

We support Senator Rounds advocacy for future South Dakota jobs and leading in this critical emerging industry. The United States Congress needs to create and pass a legal framework for entrepreneurs to competitively operate within the global markets and within the U.S. regulatory system to create confidence for the customers and users of the digital asset ecosystem.

Barry Sackett
Chair/Founder South Dakota Blockchain Coalition

Better start to practice “Duck and Cover” again, because District 31 Senate Candidate Kate Crowley Johnson is in a full red panic, and is using her campaign for office to warn us that “Communism is knocking at our door!“

No. We aren’t back in the 1950’s, despite what some of the weirder candidates might lead you to believe. Crowley is actually campaigning on the issue. She’s not just going after those she considers to be liberals, but she’s going full duck and cover against “so-called conservatives” for not actively going after communism!

Since Kate is in full “red-scare mode,” are we going to have to come up with a different color than referring to ourselves as a Red State?

Just asking?

There’s a new video out from Katie Washnok, candidate for District 3 State Senate.

Check it out:

Hot off the press out of the town and country shopper in Brookings:

Did someone actually think this was a good idea? I’m not sure what is worse, the awful, awful ad? Or the fact that two new & unknown candidates decided they needed to go spend time in the other person’s district where they are trying to campaign?

As one person who looked at the ad said to me, “there’s a lot to unpack here.”