The article I gave a quote for yesterday about the State GOP Central Committee’s motion to stop doing business with me, because a few don’t like what I write is out.  And, it’s as ridiculous as it sounds, my phone is blowing up with people saying “You’ve been Pischke’d!”  (But, at least when they stole a photo of mine from social media, it was a good one.)

“For decades, South Dakota Republicans have had to pay an extortion fee in the form of campaign services in exchange for avoiding his dirty attacks,” said Minnehaha County State Committeeman Tom Pischke, who also serves as a lawmaker. Pischke, who has been on the receiving end of a number of Powers’ attacks, was one of the leaders of the effort to cancel his future contracts. “Saturday, the extortion ended!”

and..

“When it was outlined for myself and other GOP Chairs that payments to DWC could range between $5000 to $6000 a year, it raised some eyebrows,” said R. Shawn Tornow, Minnehaha County GOP Chair. “It appears improper that the state party would be funding and propping up such a petty and petulant blogger.”

and..

For his part, though, Pischke sees the vote as unifying.

“During my eight years of being involved in South Dakota politics, this is one of the most unifying decisions the state party has ever made,” the Dell Rapids senator said. “This is truly a great day for the South Dakota Republican Party!

Read the entire story here.

Well, first off, I don’t attack people based on whether they use my services or not. They might perceive it as such, because I generally try to avoid working with idiots, especially in the primary elections.  Stopped working with Lee Qualm after it got back to me that he was telling a group of college students during one session that vaccines cause autism, and a daughter of mine was present who immediately upbraided him. Yep. Done working with that guy.

And extortion fees?  Jeez. They don’t really price things out in the real world. I had one person complain about fees last election.. and in their rant the difference was based mainly on what they didn’t include in their figures – sales tax. So, math.

Tom Pischke had me doing work in his first election until he switched over so someone else. And they did a postcard about education where they misspelled “education” in big bold letters. So, I certainly do hope he paid less.  And don’t even get me going on the doltish R. Shawn Townow. Glad to put any concerns about my ethics against his any day of the week. A legislator who didn’t care for what I exposed about him spending on elections filed a complaint against me that the Attorney General determined was unfounded. R. Shawn? I think the Supreme Court has on-line decisions you can read about where his ethics sit.

As I noted under another post on this topic, The thing is that the boobs throwing rocks haven’t been around long enough to understand is that I have worked plenty of years within the party, and I’ve worked plenty of years outside the party.  The passing of Qualm’s motion doesn’t stop me from being a precinct person, doesn’t stop me from going to convention, and it really doesn’t stop me from helping candidates as I choose.

When I’m writing Dakotawarcollege.com, it won’t stop me from cheering on good policy and good officeholders. And if I see something stupid, offensive, or contrary to common sense, I will still point it out.

The only thing they’ve accomplished is that they stopped the party from hiring me to help fill some gaps that the party ends up with when trying to do a lot with limited funds and even more limited staff. That $5000-6000 annually? It might be that much when added up $150 – $200 at a time for projects, much of it relating to communications (like the weekly Majority Report) and the party component of helping candidates – especially new candidates – with their elections.

Someone has to be there to help them through the process, teach at the GOP campaign schools, make sure they have decent photos, design and print the materials, do the same with signs, and basically be that campaign person they might not have in their immediate circle. Several of which were in Minnehaha this last election, and I didn’t see any local county people stepping up.

Basically, it’s in lieu of the GOP hiring communications and/or legislative staff. If they can get someone to do all of that with multiple candidates across the state for less than $5000 annually, good for them.  I have more than enough on my plate working directly for candidates, and the haters can keep complaining about what I write at dakotawarcollege.com.

I can offer that anyone running against Tom Pischke or Lee Qualm (who is apparently running for the open District 21 House Seat that Rep. Rocky Blare is vacating) is going to get a pretty good discount on services, just because.  And new candidates who mention this article will also get a discount on their first order.

So, haters gonna hate. I’m just gonna shake it off and watch the Super Bowl.  (Taylor Swift reference for everyone.)

Just had an update by a friend who is talking to an attendee, who indicated that the resolution from the state GOP central committee to not work with me anymore because I had the temerity to advocate for Republicans being able to win elections did pass!  Uh oh!

(Like I’m gonna let someone else scoop me on being voted off the island?)

So, sorry guys. Sorry Lee Q. Sorry Senator Pischke. Sorry R. Shawn. That’s not going to get me to sit down and be quiet.

Quite the opposite.

Update..

More reports coming in. Heard that Lee Qualm was the one who brought the resolution. But Senator Pischke was one of the biggest whiners, complaining to the Republican State Central Committee about how he felt he was under personal attack by this website for noting things such as his recent Senate Bill commanding the National Guard to be called out to investigate cloud seeding, and weather control reports.

Well… I can’t help it if “tinfoil Tom” doesn’t like it when I notice he brings this kind of legislation. But I don’t think his lament is going to stop me from commenting on the ridiculousness of what he does (or doesn’t do) in Pierre.

Sounds like an interesting central committee meeting.

Live updates I am getting apparently have several people such as Lee Qualm and Tom Pischke complaining about me and trying to pass a motion for the party to not do business with me.. not sure if it’s because I’ve helped people run against them, or if it’s because I point out actions that defy logic.

Kind of surprised that they feel so threatened by me.  I’ll let you know how that goes.

Gov. Noem Announces District 32 Legislative Appointment

PIERRE, S.D. – Today, Governor Kristi Noem appointed Kristin (Kris) Conzet to represent District 32 in the South Dakota House of Representatives, effective February 10, 2024. The vacancy was created after Governor Noem appointed Becky Drury to represent District 34.

“I am happy to appoint Kris to this role,” said Governor Noem. “She has a robust background of public service and I look forward to working with her as District 32’s new Representative.”

Conzet served in the South Dakota State Legislature from 2010-2018. During her time in the legislature, she served as Majority Whip, chaired local government, was vice chair of commerce and energy, and served on health and human services, state affairs, and taxation.

“I am grateful for Governor Noem’s appointment to represent District 32 in the South Dakota House of Representatives,” said Conzet. “Drawing from my previous legislative experience, I am confident in my ability to serve effectively, even with the limited time remaining in this year’s Legislative session.”

Conzet is a strong conservative. While in the legislature, she voted in favor of Constitutional Carry, supported then State Representative Noem’s legislation that firearms manufactured and retained in South Dakota were not subject to federal regulation, and consistently voted for pro-life legislation. Conzet has degrees in English and mass communications from the University of South Dakota. She lives in Rapid City with her husband, Steve, and their daughter, Katie, who is a senior at USD.

###

Duhamel seeks re-election to Senate in Rapid City’s District 32

Rapid City, SD – Senator Helene Duhamel announces her candidacy for a third term in the South Dakota Senate representing District 32 in Rapid City.

Duhamel was appointed by Governor Kristi Noem to serve in the 2020 legislative session. She has twice been re-elected by her constituents and elected by her peers as a Senator Majority Whip. Duhamel currently sits on Senate State Affairs, Rules and Procedures, Transportation, and as chairman of Senate Judiciary. She served on the Redistricting Committee in 2020 and just finished working on the summer study on county funding.

Working in law enforcement, Duhamel shepherds public safety issues important to every citizen of our state, including accessible mental health treatment, incarceration needs, tools to fight crime and more. She advocates for important issues like jobs and economic growth, affordable housing, workforce shortages and childcare solutions. Duhamel leads the charge on bringing a Missouri River pipeline to a parched and growing Western South Dakota.

“It has been a great honor to serve my fellow citizens,” says Helene Duhamel. “I ask for my constituents’ continued confidence and promise to work hard on our unique needs and challenges facing one of the fastest growing areas of the region.”

Duhamel is a fifth generation South Dakotan who worked in television news for more than three decades. The married mother of three remains committed to her state and has served on numerous volunteer and non-profit organizations in Rapid City and the Black Hills.

In looking at the decision, it’s quite a bit to digest, but to answer the question about conflicts of interest moving forward, we look to the conclusions of the majority..

We agree and reformulate the questions presented by the Governor’s request into one question as follows:

Whether Article III, § 12 prohibits all contracts between legislators and the State.

and..

Conclusion:

This case presents an appropriate instance to exercise our advisory opinion jurisdiction under Article V, § 5. The current state of our decisional law concerning Article III, § 12 is not sustainable. Our holdings in Asphalt Surfacing and Pitts, which equated general appropriation for ordinary and current expenses with legislative authorization to enter into specific contracts, are contrary to well established constitutional limits on general appropriation legislation set out in Article XII, § 2 and our cases. These holdings expressed in Asphalt Surfacing and Pitts are, therefore, overruled.

Our answer to the Governor’s restated question whether Article III, § 12 prohibits all contracts between legislators and the State is: No, it does not. The contract restriction stated in Article III, § 12 is not a categorical bar on all contracts funded by the State. Instead, it prohibits a legislator, or former legislator within one year following the expiration of the legislator’s term, from being interested, directly or indirectly, in contracts that are authorized by laws passed during the legislator’s term. The purpose and effect of general appropriation legislation is restricted to simply allocating money to fund state government; it does not, itself, authorize specific contracts relating to ordinary or current expenses.

Big change is that while it would allow Kevin Jensen to benefit indirectly, if his wife’s business is being paid through the state as an expense through the general appropriations bill, it would now not be considered a conflict of interest under the constitution.

However, because the COVID money appropriated through the CARES act involved separate legislation, the court is holding that their decision in Noem “correctly prohibited legislators from participating in contracts relating to the grants the Legislature had authorized.” So, the unfortunate Castleberry situation would not have been prevented.

End result? I think this is going to open up a number of people to run for the legislature who had been barred or thought they may be barred previously because of how they’re paid, or who pays them.

In speaking with Senate President Pro Temp Lee Schoenbeck about what this means, which it seems this decision is going to take a lot of digesting before we see if it prompts more candidates to run, Senator Schoenbeck was complimentary towards the Governor in this challenging process noting “Governor Noem gets huge credit for taking the heat for leaving vacancies open until this was resolved – and you can quote me on that.”

It sounds as if we’re going to see some legislation coming that may clarify the decision, such as “how does it affect state employees?”  But this decision is sure to bring many changes to the bank from which parties can draw candidates from.

Gov. Noem Thanks Supreme Court for Swift Decision

PIERRE, S.D. – Today, the South Dakota Supreme Court released its advisory opinion on state legislators’ interest in state or county contracts in response to Governor Noem’s request. The advisory opinion can be found here.

“I want to thank the Supreme Court for answering my request to clarify the question of legislative contracts and its diligence in providing a succinct answer, and I want to thank the Attorney General and Legislature for supporting this request,” said Governor Noem. “The court acted swiftly to provide clarity for both the executive and legislative branches, and we are grateful for their work. My team is reviewing this decision and will be announcing legislative appointments very soon.”

##

Attorney General Jackley Releases Statement on South Dakota Supreme Court Decision on Legislative Conflicts of Interest

PIERRE, S.D. – Governor Kristi Noem, with the support of the Legislature and the Attorney General, requested the South Dakota Supreme Court to provide further interpretation and clarification of Article III, Section 12 of the South Dakota Constitution, which prohibits legislators from having an interest in certain public contracts.  The Supreme Court has issued a very thorough decision clarifying and detailing the scope of Article III, Section 12.  This clarification will help the Governor in exercising her executive authority to fill legislative vacancies, the Legislature in identifying potential conflicts, the Auditor in authorizing the payment of tax dollars, and the Attorney General in the enforcement of our Constitutional and related laws.

“The Attorney General will continue to enforce our State’s conflict of interest laws as defined by statute and interpreted by the South Dakota Supreme Court.  I appreciate our Supreme Court’s thorough, deliberate and expedited decision, and we are pleased to have the Court’s guidance to assist in enforcing Article III, Section 12 conflicts going forward,” stated Attorney General Jackley.  “To the extent questions remain concerning the application of the Supreme Court’s decision, the Attorney General will continue to be guided by the principle formulated by then-Attorney General Bill Janklow that an actual conflict of interest will exist if a public servant’s financial interest in a public contract influences or affects his or her decision-making in carrying out public duties.”

-30-

Supreme Court Issues Advisory Opinion Regarding State Legislator Interest in Contracts

PIERRE, S.D.— The South Dakota Supreme Court today issued an advisory opinion in the matter of interpretation of the South Dakota Constitution and state laws regarding state legislator interest in state or county contracts.

The opinion follows the Supreme Court hearing oral arguments on Jan. 8, 2024, for Gov. Kristi Noem’s request for an advisory opinion on nine individual and fact-specific questions concerning the constitutional restriction upon legislators contracting with the state of South Dakota.

View the advisory opinion at https://ujs.sd.gov/uploads/sc/opinions/30488ac53a4b.pdf.

UJS Conflict of Interest Ruling by Pat Powers on Scribd

Ending Iran’s Reign of Terror
By Sen. John Thune

Since Hamas attacked Israel in October, the Middle East has grown increasingly unstable. Militia groups have attacked U.S. troops approximately 170 times, injuring a number of Americans and, tragically, killing three soldiers late last month. Houthi militants are regularly attacking commercial shipping and U.S. Navy vessels in the Red Sea, and two Navy SEALs were recently lost at sea off the coast of Somalia during a dangerous nighttime raid to interdict missile parts being shipped to the Houthis.

What these attacks have in common is that the groups committing them are financed, armed, and supported by Iran. This recent campaign of terror is just one part of Iran’s record of driving unrest, instability, and violence in the Middle East that goes back decades. Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism, operating through a network of proxies across the region. President Biden inherited a maximum pressure campaign intended to keep Iran in check, but throughout his presidency he has yielded to misguided policies that have emboldened the Iranian regime.

President Biden has a history of weakness and appeasement when it comes to Iran. Against the warnings of Republicans and Israel, the Biden administration attempted to revive the flawed nuclear deal negotiated under the Obama administration, which included sweeping sanctions relief. The Biden administration also attempted to unfreeze $6 billion in Iranian assets as part of a deal to free American prisoners, which would have provided Iran with a windfall to fund its proxies. Not to mention the president’s disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan – on a timeline announced to our enemies – that seriously dented the world’s perception of America’s resolve.

As Iran-backed groups have launched attacks on U.S. troops and American allies, the White House has responded mostly with half-measures and a weak posture that is neither deterring or degrading Iran and its proxies. The United States does not seek war, but we must be willing to assert our national interests, including the safety of our troops and freedom of maritime navigation. While the president has recently taken more forceful action, which was overdue, he is going to have to demonstrate sustained resolve in order to bring an end to Iran’s terror campaign in the Middle East. We cannot allow Iran to control or cut off shipping routes through their Houthi proxies. We cannot allow Iran to continue to enable Hamas and Hezbollah’s attacks against Israel. And we most certainly cannot tolerate attacks on our troops and the loss of American lives.

These recent attacks are a reminder of the very real dangers our servicemembers face. We owe them and their families a debt of gratitude for their bravery and the sacrifices they make to serve our country. I specifically want to commend the men and women of the 28th Bomb Wing that participated in the February 2 retaliatory strikes against 85 targets in Iraq and Syria. The 28th Bomb Wing, which is based at Ellsworth Air Force Base but had a contingent operating out of a base in Texas while our airfield was temporarily closed, flew B-1 bombers to the Middle East on a single marathon flight, taking off from U.S. soil, executing the mission, and returning back to base without interruption.

The ability to generate combat power capable of striking anywhere on the map is a testament to the professionalism and determination of the 28th Bomb Wing’s aircrews and maintainers. And it underscores the importance of preserving this capability now and well into the future. Later this decade, the B-21 Raider will make Ellsworth its first home as it ushers in a new era of American air power. Until that sixth-generation bomber is fielded, we need to continue full support for programs like the B-1.

The United States can’t solve every problem or bring peace to every conflict, but we can be a powerful force for good, if we’re willing to lead. There will always be evil actors in the world who are bent on aggression and violence. Failure to demonstrate strength risks more serious consequences for our national security both now and long into the future.

###