The South Dakota Federation of Republican Women (SDFRW) today issued a public statement clarifying that there are various “Republican Women” organizations that are not an officially chartered club of the state organization and do not represent the views or positions of the SDFRW.
Recent advertisements, and endorsements published in local media for candidates running in the District 21 State Legislature race have been sponsored by the Central Dakota Republican Women. The SDFRW wishes to make clear that this group is not a chartered club within the Federation.
“The South Dakota Federation of Republican Women does not endorse candidates in Republican primaries,” said Jennifer Boerger, SDFRW President. “Any endorsements or political activity by the Central Dakota Republican Women should not be interpreted as representing the SDFRW or its members.”
The SDFRW is the official state organization chartered under the National Federation of Republican Women. Only chartered local clubs are authorized to use the Federation’s name and act on its behalf.
That is an incredible breath of fresh air. And the kind of leadership that should set an example to the South Dakota Republican Party at large.
If only the former 32-year-old Democrat in charge of the party represented similar unbiased leadership in this manner, people might be willing to support the GOP.
Because there are several County GOP organizations doing the complete opposite. Such as reported by the darling of election conspiracists, Heather Baxter, who is running for the office of Secretary of State:
Here’s $1000 diverted from County GOP Donors in Brule County, and $250 diverted from donors in Davison County, and sent over to the Baxter for her Secretary of State Campaign. Against incumbent Secretary of State Monae Johnson.
Anyone else might have told them no, or sent it back, because how bad it looks. But not Heather Baxter.
But she’s not the only one. The Charles Mix County GOP actually has a shell game going on, where they divert funds to their favored candidates in the primary. Here’s their scheme..
So the Charles Mix County GOP is ran by David Spier with Connie Wagner as treasurer. But Connie Wagner is also involved with another group. One deceptively named as the “Central Dakota Republican Women.” EXCEPT, it’s not a Republican Group. Not at all. It’s a Political Action Committee. A private Political Action Committee with no affiliation to the Republican Party, except in name.
Well, that, and where they got 95% of their money in the last few months.
Here you can see that according to filings with the Secretary of State that the treasurer for the Charles Mix GOP shares an e-mail – [email protected] – with the Central Dakota private political action committee:
And as money is raised through the Charles Mix County Republican group, massive chunks get sent out to the private PAC…
…where the same treasurer for the GOP group, who appears to be running the PAC, starts handing it out to the PAC’s favored candidates:
$4000 goes out from the Party into the PAC, and the PAC sends it out to their candidates, all of whom are involved in primary elections.
The problem is that big chunks of these funds are coming from the very people they’re campaigning against. The GOP groups have Lincoln Day Dinners and sell advertising in programs to the candidates, demanding $100, $250, and $500 or more for tables and program ads. And then they use their money candidates just spent to send against the very people who just wrote a check.
What do you think? When these county GOP groups have their dinners and solicit for funds, should they be telling the donors that they’re going to get involved in primary elections?
Or is it past time that the State Republican Party pass rules demanding that counties should practice what the chairman preaches?
When you have candidates that follow the law and get their reports in on time, here’s what you get – DISCLOSURE and open Government. Which tells us that Attorney General Marty Jackley has a pretty healthy path to becoming our next Congressman:
Marty is reporting during the period of 4/1 – 5/13 that he raised $72,129.55, spent $50,917.28, and has a whopping $1,066870.21 in the bank for the fall election.
Because he certainly doesn’t need it against what passes for competition in the primary.
From my mailbox, Attorney General Candidate Austin Hoffman is hosting a fundraiser in Aberdeen on May 28 in the run up to his SDGOP Convention race. Check it out:
The Federal Elections Commission is not known for letting things go, so it’s very curious as to why goofy South Dakota Congressional Candidate James Bialota is able to be remiss in having proper filings in on a timely basis.
So, FEC Reports were due yesterday. Marty Jackley’s report is in, and I will be posting it later. But for James Bialota who gets on social media and is big on making wild-eyed claims about the AG somehow being a lawbreaker, Bialota isn’t big on following campaign finance laws. As there does not appear to be a FEC report of income and expenditures into the federal campaign finance watchdog.
What’s there is from yesterday at about 10:30 at night, which consists of a scrawled bank note that he’s blowing a lot of money out of his pocket:
Okay… but where is the F3 report? The one where the candidate is supposed to explain specifically what his expenditures and income was, which would include the proceeds from this loan to himself.
Hm. Someone should ask the candidate whether he intends to follow federal law or not when it comes to his campaign finance disclosures?
All of the views and opinions Professor Simmons expresses here on are his as an individual and do not reflect the views of the Board of Regents, the University of South Dakota, its Knudson School of Law, their employees, faculty or administrators. The foregoing editorial represents only his views as a private citizen.
Guest Column: Happy Memorial Day Weekend! by Thomas E. Simmons
On this Memorial Day, let us remember that freedom is not free.
That’s not an original quote. It was President Ronald Reagan who quipped “freedom is not free” at a Memorial Day address in 1982 forty-four years ago. But the origin of the idiom is credited to Colonel Walter Hitchcock, who popularized it, and – reaching further back – to Australian John Henry Austral, although he was a fictional character and so couldn’t have come up with it on his own.
The quote’s deepest origins are obscured. But it is famously inscribed at the Korean War Veterans Memorial – my favorite, but often overlooked, Washington, D.C. memorial. It’s just south of the Lincoln Memorial and includes nineteen larger-than-life soldier-statues – a platoon on patrol. If you are in Washington, D.C., I highly recommend it. And like all the Washington, D.C. memorials, there is no admission charge. Visiting it is free.
On this Memorial Day, let us also understand that free is not free
As to the aforesaid quote, I claim sole credit.
Before unpacking my point, let us first acknowledge that some things – perhaps the most valuable things – are, indeed freely given, exchanged, and enjoyed. Friendship is one of them. Love is another. Sexual intimacy yet another. If a price is placed on such things, they are degraded. Attaching a monetary value to them cheapens them. They are not only free as a general rule, and in fact deteriorate if they become fee-based. They deteriorate into things like bribes and human trafficking.
Many things, however, have a cost, and justly so. They are acquired at a cost, improved and modified at a cost, produced at a cost, and preserved at a cost. And we seem to often lose sight of this.
Perhaps Madison Avenue advertising wizards are to blame. Few things are as alluring as those which are free. A free haircut! Free healthcare! A free car!
But obviously goods and services produced by human beings are not free. Nor are crops or song lyrics or minerals extracted from the earth. They come at a cost – a cost in labor, materials, design, transportation, and yes – marketing, too.
Often, what a vendor really means when it boasts, “Free!” is “The cost to you is shifted to others and it is they – not you – who must pay. Enjoy this free thing and know that the cost has been borne by strangers so that you may avoid paying for it.”
In certain contexts, “free” might also mean that the cost is shifted away from a present you and upon a future you. Remember those Columbia Record House Deals? Ten records for free? The cost came to the consumer herself in the form of a dozen future obligations of overpriced record purchases. Buy now, pay later.
And what of radio station broadcasts? They are free to listen to, but the listener still pays in an indirect way when she absorbs the commercial announcements accompanying her favorite radio program.
Then there is the free ice water at Wall Drug. We understand this to be a sort of loss leader. Wall Drug will make up its lost profit margins on ice water with the sale of jackalope mounts.
Finally, there are presents and gifts. They might be given in appreciation of past commercial exchanges. Or they might be given to family and friends.
But all of the foregoing are not free in the same sense that free healthcare is supposedly free. Or public libraries and fire departments.
I guess what I’m really thinking about is the illusion of something which is free when the cost is widely dispersed among a large population like taxpayers. We don’t naturally feel gratitude toward them when we receive a “free” government service.
The fact that we lack gratitude for “free” government services indicates that there’s a certain greediness involved. Our natural inclination when offered a free sandwich ought not to be “yippee!” but rather “I wonder to whom I owe the gratitude of bearing the cost of this ham on rye since I ought to thank them and perhaps offer them a sandwich in return.” The same could be said of state parks or public schools.
I also don’t claim credit for the phrase, “There’s no such thing as a free lunch.” But the same principle is at work.
Thune: Democrats Cling to Open Borders, Republicans Want to Secure America
“As long as [Republicans are] in charge, there will be agents at our borders to prevent terrorists, traffickers, and other dangerous individuals from making their way into our country, and there will be agents to take criminal illegal immigrants off of America’s streets.”
A criminal investigation is underway in Minnehaha County against the person or persons who conspired to file false precinct committeeman and committee woman forms after the filings were flagged by the auditor, but currently, there is no official information out there about the subject of the investigation, as well as how long it might take until a criminal indictment is handed down:
“I can confirm that I had to turn some forms over to the sheriff’s office for investigation,” Anderson said. “And that’s about all I can say at this point, because it is an ongoing investigation.”
and..
Minnehaha County GOP Chairman Korry Peterson said he is aware of the investigation into the potentially fraudulent filings and hopes that, if wrongdoing is confirmed, it is prosecuted.
“It’s just crap that something like this is going on,” he said.
There’s nothing official on who the subject of the investigation is just yet, but there is one name – a familiar one – who keeps coming up.
If true, we can only hope that they are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for committing an act to defraud the voters of the State of South Dakota.
A new KELOLAND Media Group/Emerson College poll has a new leader in the Republican primary race for South Dakota governor.
Businessman Toby Doeden now holds a 3% advantage over second-place U.S. Rep. Dusty Johnson. Doeden has 26% of the polled voters to Johnson’s 23%. The two switched places from the poll released on March 11 when Johnson had the lead with 28% followed by Doeden with 18%.
In this latest poll, Gov. Larry Rhoden was at 19% followed by state Rep. Jon Hansen with 16%. These are gains from the Rhoden’s 17% in March and Hansen’s 14% in March.
Those results seem to be an outlier, and far, far different than any other polling I’ve heard, including whispers of internal polling. I mean, they all show Hansen in last place, but for Doeden to have any advantage over Dusty? I’m a doubting thomas.
As one politico remarked to me unsolicited this morning “There is n F’n way the new KELO poll can be accurate. Most people I talk to say anyone but Doeden.” And I would tend to agree.
$4000 goes out from the Party into the PAC, and the PAC sends it out to their candidates, all of whom are involved in primary elections.
