Was this Karla Lems’ Lt Gov Campaign finance report or her legislative report? Because we’re not seeing a lot of people all-in on her race to be Hansen’s Lt. Governor:

Karla Lems Year End Report by Pat Powers

Unitemized Contributions of $500.00, with a few others maxing out under itemized Contributions at $23,550.00. And a family member did make a $20,000.00 loan.

They did stick $30,144.94 of the advertising budget under this committee. No info whether wrapping the camper was part of the expense.

The Hansen for Governor part of the campaign committee probably needs to impress us with how much they were able to haul out of pizza ranch fundraisers. Because otherwise they should pack it up, and the salad bar should be closed due to wilted lettuce and weak fundraising.

I had this forwarded to me tonight, and frankly, it’s kind of dumb. And whiney. A subset of the South Dakota Republican Party is apparently on a campaign to defund public broadcasting.

Is it because philosophically they don’t believe this should be a function of state government? Well, not really if you read into their lament. It’s because they feel picked on.

From: sjcvrk@reagan.com <sjcvrk@reagan.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2026 12:25 PM
Cc: Jeannie Franceus
Subject: ACTION NEEDED SOONEST ON THE SDPB RESOLUTION
Greetings! This is a status update on the resolution recommending defunding of SDPB political programming.
1. First of all, twenty-three county e-boards signed onto the original version.

2. Since then, feedback from several sources identified a couple of suggested changes that make great sense for inclusion in an update to the language of the resolution. These changes were iterated before and after the testimony given to the Joint Appropriations Committee on Wed, 21 January by Jeannie Franceus:

A. It was noted that SDPB funds critical infrastructure for the state’s emergency broadcasting system (incl. Amber alerts) that includes towers, communications systems, facilities, etc. The resolution needs to be refocused on only defunding the biased programming to make it easier for the legislators to take action (and not vote no because it would otherwise result in defunding critical stuff).

B. Sen. Taffy Howard brought up the concept of using subscription services to fund popular programming like high school sports events (just like a lot of networks use these days). It makes eminent sense to include and recommend this in the updated resolution for the legislature to determine.

3. The original version was given by Jeannie to the JAC with the comment that a “final version” would be updated and delivered “in a few days,” including with potentially more signatories.

4. Accordingly, this email is a request to review the updated version that is attached and go to the well again with your e-board to ascertain whether your county will sign on.

5. If we can break the threshold of 30 counties signing on, Chairman Eschenbaum has agreed to sign it out on behalf of the SDGOP, otherwise, the wording will say what it does in the attached version (“the undersigned members of the South Dakota Republican Party…”).

6. As before, if you can’t get an “e-board signature,” please provide the names and titles of individuals among your e-board who will sign.

Please take action soonest so that we can impact the JAC’s deliberations on this topic.

Many thanks in advance for your prompt reply! As before Jeannie will be whipping your votes.

TNX
Stu
Bon Homme County

Resolution Recommending the Defunding of Politically-Biased Programming by the South Dakota Public Broadcas… by Pat Powers

“WHEREAS, SDPB is a division of the South Dakota Bureau of Information and Telecommunications, a state agency, which pays the salaries of SDPB employees, buys equipment for the network and provides space for the network operations through the University of South Dakota, a state-supported school, all of which are used to regularly report disparagingly of conservative Republicans and their values while reporting supportively of liberal Democrats and their values.”

This does not seem to be a philosophical debate about what should be versus what should be not a function of state government. It seems that a few members of the central committee just want to go crying because they think someone is picking on them.

At the same time they think Public Broadcasting sure can go ahead and put in the equipment and capabilities of broadcasting pay-per view. But don’t report despairingly on them or be mean.

They note that if enough crybabies sign on that people are picking on them, the state Republican Party chairman will claim that it came from the entire Republican Party.

Instead of a bunch of whiners.

Maybe to further emphasize my point on why the addresses of legislators should not be hidden from the public; I tried sending this in an e-mail to committee members early this afternoon. None of them got it.   

If the system rejects e-mail to legislators’ e-mail addresses, maybe – just maybe – they should have information available to assist people sending them an old-fashioned letter.

– pp

——————–

Good afternoon.

I wanted to send a note to you in opposition to House Bills 1083 and 1084 that you will be hearing tomorrow in House Judiciary Committee as these bills are deeply flawed in several different ways. Even if some problems can be addressed, there are portions that rise to the level of being offensive to the concepts of open government and transparency in South Dakota.

I had previously written an essay on some of the problems with this legislation..

The pitfalls of creating a protected class of elites. And what about all the elected officials they leave for the wolves?

..But to give you the highlights of why these bills are bad:

With House Bill 1083, We are creating yet another new crime in South Dakota – intentionally or not – directed against those in the media.  I would draw your attention to the fact that the crime of stalking is proposed to include in it’s language in Section 1 of the bill:

(4) Knowingly disseminate, post, or publish, by electronic means, another person’s employment, home, or school address or location, or identifying information, as defined by § 22-40-9, without the other person’s consent, and with the intent to intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to the other person or the other person’s immediate family, as defined by § 22-1-2.

Consider the result of this language. Under the passage of this law, it could become a criminal act for a newspaper to publish on-line that the subject of a story works at a certain business.  And it goes farther than that. What happens when property transfers are posted publicly? That often will include names and addresses. Will 22-19A-1 now become a risk of criminality for the publisher after this very common disclosure of public information that is filed and available through county websites?

Whether it intends “to cause emotional distress” might be arguable. Intent may be in the eye of the beholder and a question of fact that will have to be drug through the courts. One person’s journalism might be triggering of another’s distress.  I myself often report using the very tools made available to the public – the publicly available and accessible state voter list and corporate records – all currently public documents available from the state of South Dakota. All containing addresses.

Will disclosing the contents of public documents now run the risk of an arrest, investigation and felony prosecution? Because I would venture prosecutors and law enforcement will then be spending resources trying to determine where that line is drawn.

Further problematic is Section 3 of House Bill 1083, as it creates and carves out special protection for certain elected officials, yet leaves off others. Under this bill, Statewide officeholders are granted special protections. So are Legislators.

But County Commissioners, County Auditors, County Register of Deeds, County Finance Officers, Mayors, City Councilmen/Commissioners and School Board members are among the many others left out.  This seems to be very inconsistent, and makes little sense.

Regarding the rest of this section of the proposed measure, by all means, protect law enforcement officers and members of the justice system who are charged with investigating and prosecuting criminal acts. But to create felony level penalties for the media or public citizens pointing out conflicts of interest for elected officials is an extreme measure, and more than chilling for free speech.

House Bill 1084 is also problematic and inconsistent.  As noted under Section 4 with the proposed addition to laws:

 Any home address, home or personal telephone number, or the personal e-mail address contained in the historical archive of the statewide voter registration file is not open to public inspection if the information is for:

(1) An individual elected or appointed to statewide or legislative office;

(2) An individual elected or appointed to a federal office;

The proposal to redact the home address of legislators from the public record is against the public interest, as it takes away the ability of the public to verify whether the declared residence of the legislator is factual in terms of their qualifications for the office they are currently serving in.    A legislator or other elected official might send a postcard with an address of their choosing. But with the passage of this law, how can the public verify that this person sending them correspondence is actually their neighbor?

As a participant in the American experiment, the public’s right to know is a fundamental principle that citizens should have access to government information and records to ensure transparency, accountability, and informed participation in democracy.  This legislative package is the opposite of this. It is contrary to and attacks the public’s right to know.  It creates a privileged class of elected officials who under these measures do not owe any duty of transparency to the voters, and weaponizes the law against voters to attempt to independently review the claims of politicians.

Ronald Reagan famously quipped “trust, but verify.”  With House Bills 1083 and 1084, that principle is wiped away because there is no trust. And the measure will erase any ability to verify.

Thank you for your consideration of my request.  Please reject House Bills 1083 and 1084.

Border Security Is a Promise Kept
by Sen. John Thune

It’s difficult to overstate how dramatically the situation at the southern border has improved over the past year. In December, there were 10,000 total encounters at the southern border. Compare that to 96,000 encounters the previous December under President Biden, or more than 300,000 in December 2023. After years of crisis, the border is finally secure.

I was recently at the southern border to see for myself the progress that’s been made in just one year under President Trump. What I saw could not be more different from my two visits during the Biden administration. In early 2021, I visited a facility that was already operating at 16 times its allotted capacity soon after President Biden took office. And when I returned in 2023, I heard from Border Patrol agents who had been dealing with a border crisis for two years and were in desperate need of resources and support from the Biden administration – support that never came.

The situation at the southern border today is a complete turnaround from the Biden-era crisis. Border Patrol agents I spoke to on my recent trip told me that the flood of illegal immigrants has slowed to a trickle. Law enforcement officers are being supported in their work and allowed to do the job they were hired to do to protect our border. And the data speaks for itself. Order has been restored, the crisis is behind us, and our country is much safer for it.

I’m grateful to President Trump and his administration for wasting no time securing our border, and I’m proud of the work Republicans have done in Congress to ensure that we sustain that progress in the years to come. Last year, Republicans made a generational investment in border security. We funded completion of the border wall, new technology and surveillance equipment, and expanded detention capacity. We also supported hiring additional Border Patrol agents and expanded partnerships with local law enforcement to enforce immigration law. These resources help law enforcement do its job, keep the border secure, and deter illegal immigration.

During my recent visit, border agents repeatedly emphasized that they are already seeing positive impacts from these investments, particularly with additional personnel and counter-drone technology. Thanks to new technology, Border Patrol can take over or destroy drones operated by cartels at the border, limiting the cartels’ surveillance abilities and capacity to transport dangerous items into our country. And that’s just one example of how Republicans’ landmark legislation is strengthening border security and making America safer.

I believe that we are a nation of immigrants, but we are also a nation of laws, and those laws need to be enforced. President Trump has restored law and order at America’s borders, and I’m proud that congressional Republicans have provided the resources necessary to sustain these important efforts. A safer America starts at our borders, and Republicans will continue to make border security a priority.

###

Defending Life
By Rep. Dusty Johnson
January 23, 2026

BIG Update

Homeownership is the bedrock of the American Dream but has become out of reach for many individuals and families. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is only creating more obstacles to reach that goal for those living on South Dakota’s reservations.

I introduced the Tribal Trust Land Homeownership Act to cut through BIA bureaucratic red tape and require the BIA to meet deadlines and better communicate with lenders. This week, my bill unanimously passed the House Natural Resources Committee. The bill has already passed the Senate, where Senator Thune is the sponsor. I’m hopeful the House will pass this legislation quickly and President Trump will sign it into law soon.

BIG Idea

This week, I voted to pass legislation that supports families and expecting mothers. One of those bills was the Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act which ensures that 2,700 pregnancy resource centers across the country have access to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families funding. These centers provide support and supplies to expecting mothers when they need it most. I also supported legislation to require higher education institutions to inform pregnant students of the support and services available to them.

I was recently given an A+ rating on the Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America National Pro-Life Scorecard. We must continue to defend the lives of children in the womb and support families.

BIG News

This week marked a milestone in returning fiscal sanity to Washington. The funding bills passed by the House replace Biden-era funding levels and reprioritize taxpayer dollars to make critical investments in America. These funding packages demonstrate a commitment to cutting wasteful spending while investing in a secure border, a dominant military, and real improvements to American infrastructure.

This bipartisan funding process is how Congress should work, as opposed to funding the government from crisis to crisis.

###

From Facebook, one of Christine‘s biggest fans has made a video in support of her campaign:

The weather outside might be frightful, but I’m seeking comfort into bringing some awesome South Dakota history home to stay.

Coming back to South Dakota from Texas, when on-line I found some silk ribbons to add to my collection that I’ve never seen before; a Republican Slate ribbon topped with Pierre for the Permanent Seat of Government & the Mellette for Governor race. There’s a Roosevelt/Taft for President with a portrait of Burke for Senate. And there’s the item pictured below:

Frank Pettigrew, the Pickerel Statesman – First Senator from South Dakota.  With a graphic of a pickerel, because that was his thing.

There were others available, but I stretched my pocketbook about as far as I thought I could for the ones I felt I had to have, as the owner was pretty darned proud of these pieces, and I don’t think I had anything he would want in trade.

That’s the problem with liking this South Dakota stuff. There’s just not that many of us, so it’s always kind of scarce.  And ribbons, or campaign textiles, are even more of a challenge. They’re old, and usually pre-date buttons. They can be durable, or they fray if you touch them.  Or industrious people may have sewn them in a quilt, so when you find them, you have to figure out if it’s worth deconstructing it.

And note – if you ever come across any South Dakota political ribbons (candidate or state political convention) or state capital fight items (Pierre for Capital, Watertown for Capital, etc), get ahold of me here. I’d be interested in at least finding out what you have.

Energy Security Is National Security
By Waylon Brown

South Dakota’s leadership is right to argue that national security should be the state’s next big industry.

In a recent column, Governor Rhoden outlined how South Dakota contributes to keeping America safe, from Ellsworth Air Force Base and the arrival of the B-21 bomber to leadership in cybersecurity, defense innovation, and food security. These efforts strengthen our country while creating good-paying jobs and long-term opportunities.

There is another critical component of national security where South Dakota’s continued leadership will be essential in the years ahead: Energy security.

Energy security is national security. A nation that cannot reliably power its homes, farms, hospitals, military installations, and businesses is a nation exposed to risk. Energy disruptions weaken economic stability, threaten public safety, and leave communities vulnerable. South Dakota has taken a practical approach to energy policy that prioritizes reliability, affordability, and homegrown production.

South Dakota is widely recognized as a national leader in renewable energy generation. Thanks to abundant wind resources and longstanding hydroelectric infrastructure, renewable energy supplies a substantial share of in-state electricity. Wind produces more power than any other single energy source in South Dakota, helping the state remain a producer of energy to surrounding regions.

That leadership matters. A diverse energy mix that includes all power sources – including coal, natural gas, hydro, wind, and solar – protects consumers from volatile fuel markets and sudden price swings. When fuel prices spike elsewhere, South Dakotans benefit from greater stability. That predictability matters to families managing household budgets, to farmers navigating tight margins, and to employers making long-term investment decisions.

Energy security also supports South Dakota’s rural economy. Wind and solar projects are financed with private capital and bring significant investment into rural counties. These projects create construction and maintenance jobs while generating tax revenue that stays local. In 2025 alone, wind facilities paid more than $16 million in nameplate capacity and production taxes, with nearly $6 million going directly to local school districts. That revenue supports classrooms, infrastructure, and essential public services without increasing the burden on property taxpayers.

Responsible energy development respects private property rights and strengthens agricultural livelihoods. Landowners who choose to host energy projects continue to farm and ranch their land while receiving steady lease payments that help family operations remain viable during volatile commodity markets. These agreements are voluntary and market-driven, reflecting landowner choice rather than government mandate.

State leadership has rightfully emphasized a systems-based approach to national security that recognizes how defense, food production, economic development, and innovation work together. Energy security fits squarely within that framework. Reliable and affordable power underpins every sector, from military readiness to agriculture.

South Dakota has already shown what is possible when we pursue practical, all-of-the-above energy policies rooted in common sense. By continuing to lead in homegrown energy production, our state can strengthen national security, support rural communities, and ensure affordable and reliable power for generations to come.

Energy security is not a partisan issue. It is a practical solution that’ll keep South Dakota strong, competitive, and secure for years to come.

—

Waylon Brown is a farmer, former Iowa State Senator, and Regional Policy Director with Rushmore State Renewables and the Clean Grid Association.

 

Representative and Gubernatorial candidate Jon Hansen’s list of accomplishments are few and far between, especially this legislative session.

And as we end the second week of the legislative session, his first bill of 2026 is certain to set off alarm bells with the medical association as well as South Dakota’s dairy producers.

Hansen’s bill seeks to amend South Dakota’s raw milk prohibitions that were last visited over a decade ago, when the Department of Agriculture opened the door to allow raw unpasteurized milk to be sold in the state at the farm where it was produced.  Now in 2026, in his House Bill 1121, Hansen proposes throwing open the doors to selling it in the state, allowing raw milk to be sold at farmer’s markets, at retail stores (RawMilk Mart?), and delivered directly to consumers by the RawMilk Man.

In 2015, raw milk sales were opposed by the State Medical Association as well as the South Dakota Dairy producers. However, Jon’s liberal anti-pipeline friends in Dakota Rural Action were proponents at that time, and will likely support the sales this time around as well.

We’ll see how this debate shapes up in the coming days.

Johnson Earns A+ Pro-Life Rating

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Representative Dusty Johnson (R-S.D.) earned an A+ rating on Susan B. Anthony’s Pro-Life Scorecard for his votes and actions in 2025.

“Life begins at conception, and every life is worth defending – even the unborn,” said Johnson. “I’ve been proud to support legislation that supports pregnant mothers and families, while preventing taxpayer dollars from funding abortion, a heartbreaking taking of an innocent life.”

Johnson has voted consistently to protect the lives of the unborn and to stop forced taxpayer funding of abortion. This includes delivering the largest pro-life legislative victory in two decades by defunding Big Abortion businesses, like Planned Parenthood, of Medicaid dollars for one year through the reconciliation bill H.R.1. Johnson also stood strong against attempts to further subsidize plans that cover elective abortion.

Johnson took nine votes in 2025 to protect life. View the scorecard here.

###