South Dakota Democrats are ending 2024 with some money in their federal account, just a bit more than Republicans And there’s a more troubling statistic that has my attention. First – here’s the hard data for the SDDP:

South Dakota Democrat 2024 Year End Report by Pat Powers on Scribd

Democrats found themselves starting with $104,949, they added $38,770.41, and disbursed $60,260.52, leaving them $83,458.94 cash on hand, with all their debts and obligations paid off.  Not something to send up fireworks over, but respectable. And now the State Account:

SDDP Year End State Report by Pat Powers on Scribd

Starting with $58,264.83, Democrats raised another $28,635.47, spent $28,903.34 and ended with $57,996.96. Leaving the South Dakota Democrat Party with $141,455.90 to start 2025 with.

How does that compare to what should be the massive juggernaut of the South Dakota Republican Party?  First, the Republican Party’s Federal Account:

2024 SDGOP Year End Report by Pat Powers on Scribd

Starting with $64,415.87, the SDGOP added $15,134 in fundraising. and disbursed $12,132, leaving a total of $67,417.11 cash on hand in the federal account.

Now, the State Report:

SDGOP Year End State Report by Pat Powers

Starting with $49,339.86, the SDGOP added $55,415.19 in state income, and spent $68,911.03. Leaving them with $35,844.02 cash on hand.

Adding that up from the Federal report, that’s a total of $103,261.13, about $38,194 less than the South Dakota Democrat Party.

As the majority party in South Dakota, the SDGOP should be leaps and bounds beyond that, and not trailing Democrats.

Beyond that, what should really grab our attention is the other difference in the reports. The SDGOP report is 11 pages long. With 1 donation. One Donation.  On the State Report, there were two itemized donation. Two. The Democrat’s FEC Report is 105 pages long, with around 71 pages of donations – over 200 donations.

Without significant effort, Democrats are maintaining a regular donor base dozens if not hundreds of pages long every report. Republicans are challenged to pick up any at all, despite 300,000 or so registered Republican voters in South Dakota.

Despite the South Dakota Republican Party’s model of county quota donations as a system set up by the SDGOP Central Committee to help support the group, not a single county donation is registered in their year end report this year. Not one. Nor in the pre-general report.  You have to go back to the pre-primary report, and only before the Primary the Meade County GOP sent in 2k. But nobody else. Why?  And to add insult to injury, you had people like the Minnehaha GOP sending nearly $20k to “various PACs and organizations.”

This lack of donors willing to support the Republican Party organization should be scaring the dickens out of the South Dakota Republican Party. The Republican Party outnumbers the Democrats in South Dakota more than 2-1, yet the SDGOP is on the verge of financial and electoral collapse if they can’t get their act together and put their eye back on the ball.

It’s about representing a broad base of ALL people registered as Republicans in South Dakota, not just the fringe. It’s about quality candidates.  It’s about raising votes and raising money, so you can raise votes.

Ugh.  What happens if they can’t figure this stuff out?  

Well, it was fun while it lasted.

Ezra Hays is continuing his effort in the contest for South Dakota GOP Chair via postcards that he sent out recently from the same pile as he had sent the group of county elected officials before…

 

And apparently a website for his effort has been launched:

Which you can read here.

We’re about 2 1/2 weeks out from the election for SDGOP chair. At this point, I’m not sure that it looking like we’re going to get any other options in this race.

Does a person throw a dart? Or is there actually one who is the best option to present as the public face of the South Dakota Republican Party?

Senator Mike Rounds WEEKLY ROUND[S] UP: January 27-February 2, 2025

Welcome back to the Weekly Round[s] Up. Before we begin, I wanted to take a moment to remember all of the victims of this past week’s plane crash near Reagan National Airport in Washington, D.C. It’s an unbelievable tragedy and we continue to keep the families of the victims in our prayers. We also say thank you to all of our first responders who worked tirelessly – including through the night – to assist.

Similar to past weeks, we are working to confirm President Trump’s cabinet nominees. This includes holding open hearings in our committees, business meetings to report nominees out of committees and eventually confirming them with a vote on the Senate floor. Four of these nominees were confirmed this past week. We heard from Tulsi Gabbard, President Trump’s nominee to serve as his Director of National Intelligence. More on that later! Here’s my Weekly Round[s] Up: 

Nominee meetings: I met with Stephan Miran, nominee to lead the Council of Economic Advisers.

Other meetings: Rob Greenway, Director of the Allison Center for National Security at the Heritage Foundation; Kevin Fromer, President and CEO of the Financial Services Forum; and Brig. Gen. Patrick Karuretwa, head of international military cooperation at Rwanda Defense Force. I attended an event hosted by Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, to preview and discuss advancements in AI. I also attended my weekly Senate Bible Study and Senate Prayer Breakfast, where I was our speaker!

Hearings: I attended three hearings. One was in the Senate Armed Services Committee, where we heard from witnesses about defense innovation and acquisition reform. You can watch a clip of my questioning here. 

We also had two hearings in the Select Committee on Intelligence. On Tuesday afternoon, we had one hearing that was entirely closed. On Thursday, we had a confirmation hearing for Tulsi Gabbard, President Trump’s Nominee to serve as Director of National Intelligence. Her hearing had both a closed and an open session. You can watch a clip of my questions during the open session here.  

Classified briefings: I had one classified briefing on Spectrum.

Votes taken: 10 – As I mentioned, we confirmed four cabinet nominees: Scott Bessent to lead the Department of the Treasury, Sean Duffy to lead the Department of Transportation, Lee Zeldin to lead the Environmental Protection Agency and Doug Burgum to lead the Department of Interior. We also had procedural votes on Thursday evening, teeing up final votes to confirm Chris Wright to lead the Department of Energy and Doug Collins to lead the Department of Veterans Affairs this week.

Subcommittee assignments: This past week I received my subcommittee assignments for the Senate Committee on Appropriations. This committee is split into 12 subcommittees that oversee funding for federal departments that fall within our jurisdiction. I’ve been assigned to serve on six of these committees:

• Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
• Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development
• Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
• Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies
• Subcommittee on Legislative Branch
• Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies

Legislation introduced: This past week, I introduced the Marcella LeBeau Recognition Act. This legislation would designate the federal office building in Pierre as the “Marcella LeBeau Federal Building.” She was a lifelong South Dakotan, a World War II Veteran, a nurse and a well-respected leader of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe. You can read more about Marcella LeBeau and this legislation here.

Caucus membership: This past week, I announced that I’ve joined the Senate’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) Caucus. The DOGE Caucus is a bipartisan, bicameral group of members ready to work hand-in-hand with the Trump administration to identify and eliminate wasteful spending in the federal government. Read more about this here. 

My staff in South Dakota visited: Aberdeen, Rapid City and Pierre.

Steps taken: 57,879 steps or 28.52 miles

Video of the week: I joined Newsmax to preview Tulsi Gabbard’s confirmation hearing:

If you blink, you might miss it. But State Representative Aaron Aylward is proposing a brand new tax through removal of an exemption that has long stood in South Dakota, and despite multiple attempts which have consistently been ground to dust in the process.

The proposal, being brought forward by Representatives Aylward (prime), Baxter, and Jensen (Phil) and Senator Taffy Howard quietly draw a line through one word in South Dakota Law, without giving a hint as to what they’re doing in the title. Because in the past they know prior efforts to remove the exemption drew the ire of all of South Dakota’s business organizations as well as the media.

As led by Aylward, He, Baxter, Phil Jensen and Taffy Howard are very quietly leading a campaign to create new taxes in South Dakota – the kind that they probably don’t want people talking very loudly about. As noted in House Bill 1138:

Section 2. That § 10-45-12.1 be AMENDED:

10-45-12.1. The following services enumerated in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual, 1987, as prepared by the Statistical Policy Division of the Office of Management and Budget, Office of the President are exempt from the provisions of this chapter: health

..

(30) Rentals of motor vehicles, as defined by § 32-5-1, leased under a single contract for more than twenty‑eight days; advertising services; services

Read that entire bill and look very carefully here.

You’ll have to read it 3 or 4 times, but hidden in the re-write of the sales tax exemption statute 10-45-12.1 two simple words are being taken out. via the overstrike Aylward and crew are proposing to remove the sales tax exemption on advertising.

Why has this long been sacrosanct in state law? In the words of South Dakota Newspaper Association Director Dave Bordewyk, testifying against a similar proposal back in 2011 noted:

In other words, it’s not a service and can be challenging to call it a product as much as it is a method of communication connected with the sale of the product .. kind of like taxing the string in the hay bale. You can sell the hay without it, but it’s more challenging to do so, and you aren’t going to do as well at the final sale price.

I believe one of the last attempts to do so was in 2020, where State Representative Caleb Finck brought a measure as part of House Bill 1284, where in a hearing held
2/20/20 the provision was struck from 2020 tax bill.

Interestingly, the bill was not sent to the House Taxation committee, but they put it over to House State Affairs for review. While it’s not on the schedule just yet, keep an eye out for it on the agenda.

You can reach out to the committee members through the links below (click on each one individually for their e-mail and phone):

Bahmuller, Jessica (R); 
Emery, Eric (D); 
Gosch, Spencer (R); 
Hansen, Jon (R);
 Healy, Erin (D); 
Heinemann, Leslie (R); 
Jamison, Greg (R); 
Lems, Karla (R); 
Odenbach, Scott (R); 
Overweg, Marty (R); 
Reisch, Tim (R); 
Schaefbauer, Brandei (R); 
Soye, Bethany (R)

You can let them know Yes, New Taxes, if you are in favor of new taxes, or if you want to inform them NO NEW TAXES.

This is a new one. State Representative Dylan “No seatbelts” Jordan has introduced another measure to enhance the safety of South Dakotans.

By proposing to give security personnel – trained or not – near absolute legal immunity if they are guarding a church related activity.

So if someone wants to walk in off of the street with their shotgun and be a security guard for the Lutheran Lutefisk dinner or Knights of Columbus fish fry, whether competent and experienced with the use of a firearm or not, Rep. Jordan wants to hand them complete legal immunity. Ignoring murphy’s law.

I don’t know why my shotgun discharged?!?..  I didn’t mean to break that child arm.. he was going to tip over that casserole dish.. That 89year old woman was unruly!…   I can just imagine the infinite scenarios of mayhem.

As someone who works in insurance claims, I’m sure that proposal for complete immunity will go well.

Not so good for the people on the receiving end, but meh. The guards were doing the lord’s work, doncha know.

The Argus Leader has a story today on how opposition to Senator Rohl’s Senate Bill 12 to close the loopholes on campaign finance seems to be related to how much legislators were entangled with the Dakota First Action PAC, the entity which was noted as having abused the system:

“I really didn’t hear why the bill was bad. I just heard that they felt it was punitive or punishing, and there’s nothing in this bill that’s punitive or punishing to anyone that’s done this in the past,” Rohl said.

and..

After the vote, however, Schaefbauer said she “just want(ed) the bill to die.” She later asserted the bill was “targeting” Dakota First Action.

Schaefbauer donated to Dakota First Action prior to the November election. According to the PAC’s pre-general campaign finance report, the Aberdeen politician gave $750 to the PAC as an individual contribution. Schaefbauer also sent a maximum donation of $4,000 through her candidate committee.

and..

Dakota First Action also offered mail and text-based campaign communication services worth several thousand dollars each for a number of the “no” voters, including Sens. Carley; Joy Hohn, R-Hartford; Kevin Jensen, R-Canton; Assistant Majority Leader Carl Perry of Aberdeen; and Tom Pischke, R-Dell Rapids.

Read the entire story here at the Argus Leader.

Good stuff!

And good information for voters to take a look at in consideration of who might be holding the purse strings for legislators.

From Amber Hulse/KOTA News:

From Twitter:

Under @LeaderJohnThune, the Senate is wasting no time confirming President Trump's nominees.

We're ahead of schedule and not slowing down. pic.twitter.com/3ERr3kE9p9

— Steve Daines (@SteveDaines) February 4, 2025

What happens when no one really wants to put their name on legislation? They give it to the new person.

Representative what’s-her-face from Mitchell… Nolz, I think.. who was living in Brookings at the time of her appointment as a candidate, has her name on legislation which seems a little over the top in not only trying to stamp out DEI programs, but seems to be the stuff that puts police departments under investigation for hiring practices, and put under federal consent orders. The bill notes in part:

(8) Except as required by federal law:

(a) Advance or adopt any policy or procedure designed to influence the composition of the law enforcement agency’s workforce on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, ethnicity, or national origin; or

Read that here.

Whaaat?  “Except as required by federal law?” That portion of the bill seems to be less about DEI practices, and more about inching towards an EEOC violation. And yes, there are still federal laws on hiring women and minorities.

I think we can agree that a DEI focus should not be the mission of a public agency with dedicated DEI staff. However, especially in key roles, such as law-enforcement, we should not be idiots who invite federal lawsuits against public agencies for violating federal hiring laws.

From session:

Senate Bill 192

Introduced by: Senator Smith
An Act to rename the Department of Corrections.

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of South Dakota:

Section 1. That a NEW SECTION be added to chapter 1-15:

The term “Department of Corrections,” whenever it is used in this code, means “Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.” The code commission, in future supplements and revisions of the South Dakota Codified Laws, shall substitute the term “Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation” and its derivatives for the term “Department of Corrections” and its derivatives.

The term “secretary of corrections,” whenever it is used in the code, means “secretary of corrections and rehabilitation.” The code commission, in future supplements and revisions of the South Dakota Codified Laws, shall substitute the term “secretary of corrections and rehabilitation” and its derivatives for the term “secretary of corrections” and its derivatives.

Read that here.

Are they kidding?

Is intentionally trying to look more nurturing on crime and coddling murderers the best that Democrats have this year, as they attempt to show proof of life to their party registrants?

Not exactly a winning strategy in South Dakota.