Attorney General Marty Jackley is hosting a fundraiser in Sioux Falls on July 24th. And there’s a few names you might recognize on the list:

Today, on the Net Neutrality Day of Action being promoted across the Internet, John Thune has a written piece over at recode.net as to why we need a bi-partisan law to preserve Net Neutrality, as opposed to regulation by the FCC:

Too often, politicians and activists of all stripes prefer slogans over solutions. Today, Silicon Valley players, big and small, and many Washington, D.C.-based activist groups are leading a protest to “save net neutrality” from the Federal Communications Commission’s proposal to undo regulations the agency adopted two years ago. True supporters of an open internet, however, should demand more than another slogan. What the internet needs to end regulatory uncertainty and recurring threats of litigation is an enduring, bipartisan law from Congress to protect internet freedom by codifying widely accepted net neutrality protections.

Administrative rules, especially those affecting all internet users, need to have a broad consensus of support behind them in order to withstand future political changes.

Today, as we consider the future of the internet, we should also remember the history that got us here. Put in place after President Barack Obama pressured regulators to scrap efforts to find agreement, the FCC’s 2015 order regulating broadband internet under a Great Depression-era statute (“Title II” of the Communications Act of 1934) had support from just one political party. This action failed to embrace a self-evident reality — administrative rules, especially those affecting all internet users, need to have a broad consensus of support behind them in order to withstand future political changes. This reality has hit some activists too late, and others are still trying to ignore it — to the detriment of the very protections they claim to support.

Although President Obama tried to justify the use of unilateral administrative action as a remedy for supposed reluctance by Congress to work together, the FCC’s partisan proceeding actually advanced, despite pleas from myself and other Republican colleagues who wanted to work with the Democrats on a new bipartisan law.

The draft proposal we released more than two and a half years ago as a starting point for discussions would have outlawed the online practices of blocking, throttling and paid prioritization of legal content over broadband cable and wireless connections. It put forth a 21st century framework to protect internet freedom by ensuring that corporate owners of broadband infrastructure couldn’t use their role to manipulate the internet experience, and guaranteeing that the sometimes heavy hand of government wouldn’t itself disrupt the positive disruption that has allowed the internet to thrive for two decades. I called for a bipartisan legislative solution before the Obama Administration’s partisan actions, I pushed for it after them, and I continue to fight for it.

Read the entire thing here.

What are your thoughts?

Attorney General Ballot Explanation Released for Constitutional Amendment Establishing Open Primary Elections 

PIERRE, S.D. – South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley announced today an Attorney General Explanation for a proposed constitutional amendment has been filed with the Secretary of State. This statement will appear on a petition that will be circulated by the sponsor of the amendment.   If the sponsor obtains a sufficient  number of signatures (27,741) by November 6, 2017, as certified by the Secretary of State, the amendment will be placed on the ballot for the November 2018 general election.

The amendment is entitled “An initiated amendment to the South Dakota Constitution establishing open primary elections.”

Under South Dakota law, the Attorney General is responsible for preparing explanations for proposed initiated measures, referred laws, and South Dakota Constitutional Amendments. Specifically, the explanation includes a title, an objective, clear and simple summary of the purpose and effect of the proposed amendment and a description of the legal consequences. The Attorney General Explanation is not a statement either for or against the proposed amendment.

AG Statement for Initiated Constitutional Amendment (Open Primary Elections) by Pat Powers on Scribd

To date the Attorney General has released Attorney General Explanations for the following:

1. An initiated measure requiring students to use rooms designated for the same biological sex, and requiring public schools to provide a reasonable accommodation for students whose gender identity is not the same as their biological sex
2. An initiated measure authorizing a South Dakota-licensed physician to prescribe drugs that a terminally ill patient may take for the purpose of ending life
3. An initiated measure to legalize marijuana for medical use
4. An initiated measure to legalize certain amounts of marijuana, drugs made from marijuana, and drug paraphernalia, and to regulate and tax marijuana establishments
5. An initiated measure requiring people to use certain rooms designated for the same biological sex
6. An initiated measure to legalize all quantities of marijuana
7. An amendment to the South Dakota Constitution regarding initiated and referred measures
8. An initiated amendment to the South Dakota Constitution changing campaign finance and lobbying laws, creating a government accountability board, and changing certain initiative and referendum provisions (VERSION #1)
9. An initiated amendment to the South Dakota Constitution changing campaign finance and lobbying laws, creating a government accountability board, and changing certain initiative and referendum provisions (VERSION #2)
10. An initiated amendment to the South Dakota Constitution changing campaign finance and lobbying laws, and creating a government accountability board (VERSION#3)
11. An initiated amendment to the South Dakota Constitution changing campaign finance and lobbying laws, and creating a government accountability board (VERSION#4)

-30-

Well, that’s Ironic.

Mitch Richter, a Republican former legislator from Sioux Falls, and Darrell Solberg, a Democratic former legislator also from Sioux Falls, are the co-chairmen for the group seeking signatures on the proposed amendment to the state constitution that its supporters say would fight corruption in South Dakota.

They need at least 27,741 valid signatures from registered South Dakota voters by Nov. 6, 2017, to qualify the proposed amendment for the 2018 general-election ballot.

Read that here.

Former State Legislator Mitch Richter, who has lined his pocketbooks as lobbyist by representing groups such as the pro-abortion group “Campaign for Healthy Families,” the Anti-ag group “Humane Society of the US,” the Anti 2nd Amendment group “Every Town for Gun Safety Action Fund,” and the pro-labor union group “South Dakota State Federation of Labor,” among others, is now going to be co-chairing the Constitutional Amendment re-write of Initiated Measure 22, which seeks to ban any number of things, including Lobbyists (like Mitch Richter) taking Legislators (like Mitch Richter used to be) out for dinner.

Since the group in the past has tried to portray that legislators have taken massive gifts from lobbyists, it’s unknown if Richter will disclose how many of these massive gifts he’s attempting to ban that he’s been offered or may have taken as Legislator, or may have offered as a Lobbyist in an attempt to influence legislation.

You see, that’s the problem. There’s lots of rhetoric, but nobody can come up with an example of it ever happening here. And somehow, I doubt that the people chairing it who have been involved in the process directly are going to be forthcoming with any themselves.

If you recall the unconstitutional chaos that Initiated Measure 22 caused before a group of legislators and their spouses took the matter to court, you have to scratch your head and wonder why they’re coming back for another bite at the apple?

And with a constitutional amendment, nonetheless?

From Morning Consult, South Dakota is noted as having two of our nation’s most popular US Senators:

I don’t understand the Bernie thing, but John Thune and Mike Rounds are neck in neck at the #7 most popular US Senator and the #9 most popular US Senator in the country… which doesn’t bode well for any potential challengers to Rounds in 2020.

Thune’s popularity has translated into an inability for Democrats to challenge him with any serious candidate candidates… if at all.

With Rounds’ popularity nearly at the same level, Democrats may be forced to just give the Senator who is in the middle of his first term “a bye,” and not challenge him for office as they did with Thune.

I received an unusual call last night… unusual, in that it landed on my rarely used landline.

Answering it, I was on the receiving end of a telephone poll on wind energy in reference to a new project or possible project expansion in the area. They polled extensively on wind power and land use for wind turbines, as well as awareness of the percentage of power was being drawn from renewable sources.

They also hit briefly on the Dakota Access pipeline, as well as the 2018 race for Governor. Although in the race for Governor they included Billie Sutton along with Noem, Jackley, LaFleur and Hubbel in the question about who I would vote for in the Republican Primary.

I stopped them and asked again on that one, making sure they were asking about the primary. The woman at the end of the line assured me they were.

We’ll see if we hear how that one comes out.

Rounds Supports USDA Decision to Open CRP Acres for Haying

WASHINGTON – Showing support, U.S. Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) today made the following statement regarding the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) decision to open up Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) acres for haying in all South Dakota counties from July 16, 2017 – August 30, 2017.

Last month, Rounds and Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) wrote to USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue urging him to provide timely assistance to counties currently facing extreme drought conditions. Since then, USDA has opened up all South Dakota counties for CRP grazing until September 30, 2017.

“Once again, I thank Secretary Perdue for acting quickly to give ranchers additional flexibility to feed their herds,” said Rounds. “Opening up CRP acres early for emergency haying will provide South Dakota producers with additional relief from the ongoing drought.”

To learn more about the CRP program, click HERE. To find your local FSA office and learn more about drought relief benefits available, click HERE.

# # #

USDA Approves Another Request to Help Drought-Stricken Livestock Producers

“I’m grateful that Secretary Perdue has taken such quick action on these requests to help livestock producers through a difficult time, and I know they are, too.”   

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), a longtime member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, today issued the following statement after the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) granted a request to allow emergencyhaying and grazing on Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) acres beginning July 16, which is more than two weeks ahead of schedule. These CRP-enrolled acres are typically not available to haying and grazing until August 1. Today’s authorization includes any county with any part of its border that is located within 150 miles of a county that has been approved for emergency CRP haying. USDA’s announcement also means that no CRP rental payment will be assessed for CRP emergency haying or grazing.

“Two weeks might not sound like a long time, but when faced with conditions as severe as they currently are, every single day matters,” said Thune. “When I most recently spoke with USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue this weekend, I was traveling through a hard-hit drought area in South Dakota. I was able to give him as close to a first-hand account as possible of what folks are dealing with in the state. I’m grateful that Secretary Perdue has taken such quick action on these requests to help livestock producers through a difficult time, and I know they are, too.”

On June 29, USDA approved Thune’s common-sense recommendation to reverse an earlier decision that would have forced ranchers to destroy useable hay on CRP-enrolled acres that are subject to CRP mid-contract management. As a result of USDA’s decision, that hay can now be used as feed for livestock in areas that are suffering from drought conditions.

USDA also granted Thune’s request to allow immediate access to emergency grazing on CRP-enrolled acres for any county in which any part of its border lies within 150 miles of a county that has been approved for emergency grazing of CRP. That means all of South Dakota and North Dakota, two-thirds of Montana, half of Wyoming and Nebraska, and portions of Iowa and Minnesota are now available for emergency grazing on certain CRP land.

Thune is still working with USDA to make nearly 500,000 CRP acres in South Dakota that are categorized as “environmentally sensitive” and currently off limits available for emergency haying and grazing.

###

Following Noem Request, USDA Opens CRP for Haying 

Washington, D.C. – Following a request from Rep. Kristi Noem and others, the USDA today authorized emergency haying on South Dakota CRP acres that are located in counties with a D2 designation or greater on the U.S. Drought Monitor.  The authorization will take effect beginning on July 16.  In a letter earlier this summer, Noem urged USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue to take this action highlighting the worsening drought conditions.

“While CRP is traditionally not released for haying this early in the season, we cannot wait to act in a year like this,” said Noem. “We already face a severe feed crisis, and if conditions are left to worsen without further relief, livestock producers could lose another essential source of feed. I thank Secretary Perdue for considering the unique circumstances and taking decisive action in offering another option to drought-stricken ranchers.”

On June 23, the USDA announced it would open certain South Dakota CRP areas to grazing. A week later, the USDA announced it would allow certain CRP contract holders to donate the hay harvested for midseason management to livestock producers in drought-stricken counties

In addition to CRP access, ranchers in counties designated as D3 (or D2 for at least eight weeks) on the U.S. Drought Monitor are eligible for support from the Livestock Forage Program, which Noem fought to make permanent during the 2014 Farm Bill negotiations.

###

IT’S GETTING TOUGHER TO BE INVOLVED IN POLITICS IN SOUTH DAKOTA
by Lee Schoenbeck

Remember the lady from Hermosa back in the 1970’s that didn’t want people hunting mourning doves. She got the issue on the ballot and won. Hunters got organized a few years later and got the season back, but for a brief time – a single citizen roared. Today, with our current campaign election laws, its more likely that the lady from Hermosa would have committed a crime than an election win. The new campaign finance laws are aimed at curtailing average citizen involvement in elections.

In the recent past, being a treasurer of a campaign was something you did for a friend. You signed a few checks, made a few deposits, and did one or two reports a campaign cycle. Today, not so true. It is highly likely that the citizen groups promoting assorted ballot issues, unless staffed with a CPA and an attorney, are in violation of several criminal statutes in the Campaign Finance Requirements chapter of our Code.

SDCL 12-27-1 includes very broad definitions of “political committees” (PC) and “ballot question committees” (BQC). Just not being a PAC is not enough to avoid the filing requirements and criminal penalties. For example, if you and your friends are opposed to one of the ballot issues and you want to get involved against it, if you meet the very loose definition of a PC, it’s a crime for you to accept any money (no pooling a bunch of twenties) or pay any bills (bar tab) for the group with the office of treasurer vacant. SDCL 12-27-2. Some of these groups of citizens are going to be surprised to find out they even needed an “office of treasurer”.

At a time when a full page ad in the paper is going to run over $500, the same group of concerned South Dakotans needs to realize that if they pool $501 without filing a “Statement of Organization” that are again engaged in criminal behavior. SDCL 12-27-3. If they don’t get the right biographical information on the source of the funds, another crime. SDCL 12-27-11. Even if they thought they weren’t something formal, that needed to be filing government reports, they still might be criminals. SDCL 12-28-18.

Here’s the real kicker of the new crimes – SDCL 12-27-19. When this group receives a check from an “entity”, if the group of citizens doesn’t get the required state form from the entity BEFORE receiving the check – another crime.

In most of these instances it’s the treasurer of the committee that’s going to jail, but sometimes the crimes catch more citizens.

The real question to ask is what impact all this “do good” and “feel good” legislation will have on regular folks wanting to promote – or protect – their values at the ballot box. All of our elected officials that have a vote, a veto, or a voice in this legislation have made it harder for South Dakotans to participate freely in elections.  Maybe it’s time to relook at all these reforms.

South Dakota has a proud history of leading the nation in the initiated measure and referral process. There are obvious examples of groups taking advantages of structural flaw in that process of late. Reaction by officeholders to the abuses are not surprising, but more government burden on the innocent citizens isn’t the answer.