Release – Noem’s Words Used Against South Dakota

Pat Powers

Noem’s Words Used Against South Dakota

PIERRE, SD: In a Supreme Court brief filed by Wayfair, Inc. Wednesday, the company fighting against fairness for South Dakota businesses cited the opposition of Congresswoman Kristi Noem.

“In fact, South Dakota’s sole Congressperson has cautioned what the impact of overruling Quill would be in the absence of federal legislation,” Wayfair wrote.

Wayfair then goes on to quote a release from Noem:

“If the Supreme Court rules in South Dakota’s favor, it could become a marketplace free-for-all,” she said in a statement that misconstrues the facts of the case and its impact on South Dakota.

The opposing brief comes as Attorney General Marty Jackley travels to Washington to prepare to argue the case for South Dakota.

“While Attorney General Jackley is fighting for South Dakota and our Main Street businesses at the US Supreme Court, Congresswomen Noem’s own words are being used against South Dakota,” said Jackley for Governor campaign manager Jason Glodt. “South Dakota businesses deserve better, and we’re calling on the Congresswoman to publicly retract the statements she made that are being cited in the Wayfair brief.”

South Dakota has been joined in the case by 45 state attorneys general and the Trump administration.

-30-

21 thoughts on “Release – Noem’s Words Used Against South Dakota”

    1. I would certainly hope candidates talk about voting records and positions on issues – especially when they do stuff that hurts our state. This is embarrassing for our state. Wayfare is using our congresswoman’s own words to hurt South Dakota businesses.

      1. It ain’t Wayfair doing the hurting… NOEM is hurting us with her complete disregard for actual brick-and-mortar stores struggling to compete with a 4.5%-6.5% disadvantage. I generally prefer Kristi to Marty, but this is one issue that hits me square in the wallet.

      2. How was Noem supposed to stop Wayfair from taking a quote out of context?

        The fact is that she’s she and other members of Congress wrote a brief to the Supreme Court in support of the South Dakota bill, and she is the primary supporter of congressional legislation on this issue.

          1. Wayfair took Kristi’s quote out of context because Kristi supports South Dakota in the case – she even wrote an amicus brief asking the court to hear the case. But she also has expressed worry about the court acting without Congress setting guidelines for collection. You can support SD in the case and still worry about the potential outcomes.

            Marty knows it’s completely factually accurate that the court could overturn Quill with protections in place for small businesses, which is the kind of market free-for-all Noem’s talking about. That’s why this smear attack is so ridiculous.

            1. Ehh, I think you’re reaching. The context of her release, from my reading, was essentially that it would be bad if South Dakota won this case. What makes it weird and confusing is that she did join that amicus brief (written by Heidi Heitkamp, not Noem btw), and yet all of a sudden her bill becomes urgent, just because her primary opponent is the one arguing the case? Comes off as a political move.

              I think she needs to make up her mind. Does she support the case, or will she continue to undermine it for political points?

  2. Not sure which is more ridiculous, Wayfair taking a quote out of context and including it in a brief, or Jackley pretending the comment will in some way influence the case. This is nothing but theatre for the sake of perceived political gain.

    1. if what you’re saying is true (that it won’t affect the case), then wouldn’t that be contrary to Noem’s message that she has all sorts of pull and clout in D.C.?

      Wouldn’t it mean that nobody, including the Supreme Court, takes what she has to say seriously?

      I’m not sure that’s the message that her team wants to put out there

  3. Was Listening to Mark Levin on the radio today. He thinks this Wayfair case is just big government trying to tax the citizens more. He thinks it’s a bad idea,
    So people who listen to Mark Levin (are they the true conservatives? Who is printing the scorecards? How are we supposed to know what to think of this without a scorecard?) will not be impressed by Jackley’s stand on the issue. Just saying.

      1. If Marty wins the case, he’ll be the belle of the ball in Pierre but outside the city limits, people will have a starkly different view because he will be responsible for allowing high-tax Democrat states to audit SD businesses.

        Kristi’s bill is a tiny bit better because requires states to simplify their tax codes, and exempts small businesses. With Marty’s case, there’s no simplification or exception. You’re a struggling single mom selling Christmas ornaments out of her house? Marty says PAY UP.

  4. I just don’t understand why they both want to force South Dakotan’s to pay more taxes when they make purchases over the Internet. No matter how they spin it, if they get what they want you and I will be paying taxes tomorrow than we are today.

  5. And if Mark Levin is taking a stand against it on his radio show, Sean Hannity won’t be far behind.
    As Levin said today, nobody decides to buy something online instead of at their neighborhood store because the local store charges sales tax. According to Levin, the people involved just want to tax Americans more.

    Good luck with that in Republican primary.

    1. Bullsh!t. In my business, oftentimes it comes down to price per unit. If I’m 6.5% higher than they can get it online, who you think they’re gonna buy from?

  6. I always see comments on here lamenting Noem’s nasty tactics, but the negativity in this race is emanating almost solely from Jackley’s camp.

  7. Still like them both. But if I was calling the game, I would call a foul on Team Jackley. This is weak.

  8. Marty keeps lurching from attack to attack. It may not BE desperate, but it SEEMS desperate.

Comments are closed.