District 3: Dan Kaiser Would Eliminate State Funding for NSU

Last week I discussed Dan Kaiser's avid support for Ron Paul and the reasons District 3 voters might want to steer clear of his nullificationist libertarianism.

But if discussions of abstract and mostly ill-thought-out political philosophy don't get District 3 voters out of their chairs, let's try a bread-and-butter issue: Kaiser supports closing Northern State University, one of District 3's biggest employers.

Say what? Kaiser couldn't have said something so political suicidal, could have he?

I don't put it past Ron Paul supporters to say any number of crazy things. Kaiser hasn't said, "Let's close NSU!" in so many words. But let's look at Dan Kaiser's responses to the VoteSmart.org Political Courage Test, under "Budget, Spending, and Tax Issues" and "Education." According to VoteSmart,

1. Kaiser would "eliminate" higher education funding. (He would also eliminate state funding for health care and welfare. He'd give K-12 a "slight increase.")
2. Kaiser favors increasing tuition at public universities.
3. He opposes state funding for financial aid for college students.

Now Kaiser does contend later that he "will be a legislator for the poor and middle class." Yet by removing all state support from higher education, Kaiser would more than double the cost of the college education that is already beyond the means of too many poor and even middle-class families.

Would eliminating state funding immediately close Northern State University? Maybe not. But as Charlie Johnson explained down the road a piece at the District 8 forum last week, you can't keep your university open if students can't afford tuition. And if the state isn't supporting it, it's not really a "state" university.

No more Northern State University—just one more practical consequence of electing avid Ron Paul supporters like Dan Kaiser to the South Dakota Legislature.

Worth noting: neither of the Democrats running for District 3 House, Zachary Anderson and Bill Antonides, have completed the VoteSmart.org Political Courage Test. Republican David Novstrup has: he would slightly increase funding for higher education. Alas, Novstrup would ban abortion in cases of rape and incest.

District 32: PACs Go Big for GOP Incumbents; Indivs Favor Dem Swanson

Here's a quick breakdown of the District 32 House money race between Republican incumbent gunbernatorial patronage beneficiaries Brian Gosch and Kristin Conzet and their sole Democratic challenger and teacher Jackie Swanson:

donations	Gosch	Conzet	Swanson
small indiv	$8,015.00	$425.00	$7,900.16
big indiv	$1,500.00	$650.00	$3,050.00
Parties	$200.00	$460.00	$116.34
SD PACs	$16,050.00	$10,850.00	$2,450.00
out-state PACs	$5,550.00	$1,650.00	$0.00
candidate cmtes	$0.00	$250.00	$0.00
in-kind	$10.75	$0.00	$700.00
total	$31,325.75	$14,285.00	$14,216.50

Now let's break that down by percentage:

donations	Gosch	Conzet	Swanson
small indiv	25.6%	3.0%	55.6%
big indiv	4.8%	4.6%	21.5%
Parties	0.6%	3.2%	0.8%
SD PACs	51.2%	76.0%	17.2%
out-state PACs	17.7%	11.6%	0.0%
candidate cmtes	0.0%	1.8%	0.0%
in-kind	0.0%	0.0%	4.9%
total	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%

Every two out of three coins in Gosch's fountain splashed in from political action committees. Conzet got five sixths of her kitty from PACs. Swanson has gotten more than three-fourths of her campaign cash from individual donors, over half from folks giving a hundred bucks or less.

The Republican incumbents appear to be the PAC picks. Swanson appears to be the people's pick.

District 8 Legislative Candidates' Forum: What They Said

I managed to watch the final District 8 Legislative candidates' forum this weekend, courtesy of KJAM's diligent election videography.

Here's what I learned:

1. Charlie Johnson could have become a lawyer. In his introduction, Johnson said he was accepted into USD's law school but turned that down to work as a small-farm advocate.
2. The man Johnson wants to replace, Senator Russell Olson, doesn't understand the disconnect between what he says and what he does on education. He says he's deeply concerned about raising teacher pay. He says he opposes Initiated Measure 15 because it doesn't guarantee that the new revenue goes to teachers. He says he supports Referred Law 16 because it is the first time he and his fellow legislators have made an effort to pay great teachers more. But Russ, if paying teachers more is such a priority for you, why didn't you get around to it until the sixth year of your time in Pierre?
3. Leslie Heinemann isn't a complete GOP tool. Instead of the vague, evidenceless claims that Senator Olson and fellow House candidate Gene Kroger make for Governor Daugaard's education agenda, Heinemann admits his reservations about the bonus program for teachers. He says he can "discriminate" in his small business and pay more to the employees he thinks are working hard. He recognizes, however, that it's difficult to impose the private business model on public schools.
4. Charlie Johnson sums up Referred Law 16's merit pay plank best: "I don't cultivate, fertilize, and harvest only 20% of my acres. I take care of all my acres. That's the way we have to do education, take care of all of education." He says Russ and the Governor are using Referred Law 16 as a "diversion tactic" to keep us from focusing on the real problem if their neglect of K-12 education funding.
5. Amendment M is not going to pass, and even Russ Olson doesn't care. He says the amendment on corporate voting and regulation would create a more business-friendly climate in South Dakota—and when Russ says "business-friendly," he means crony-capitalist. But Russ acknowledges that there hasn't been much effort to educate the public on the merits of M, so he appears to shrug at its prospects, as did most other candidates at the podium.
6. As I expected, Gene Kroger is least equipped to deal with policy issues. On Initiated Measure 15, while the other candidates addressed the regressive nature of the sales tax, the size of the proposed increase (excellent rebuttal from Roy Lindsay, explaining that IM15 is not the largest tax increase in South Dakota history), and the merits of spending the money on K-12 education and Medicaid, Kroger reverted to his Grumpy Old Party talk about inflation and how he has to pay twice as much for his pork and beans. Note to Gene: under President Barack Obama, monthly inflation has averaged 1.6%. Under President George W. Bush, it was 2.8%. From 1914 to 2008, it was 3.4%.
7. Asked about rising student debt, Kroger again shrugged his grumpy old shoulders and said students have to "decide if this is what I want to do and do I want to pay the price to do it." He asserted that South Dakota tuition is lower and students have less debt than in other states, which is GOP code for "Quit your bellyaching." It's also only one-third true. South Dakota graduates have the median student debt in the country, which happens to be less than the national average. But South Dakota has the second-highest percentage (76%) of students graduating with debt. And given that our wages are the second-lowest in the nation, those students have an even harder time paying off their debt.
8. All six candidates expressed their eagerness to use government to create jobs by protecting and expanding Dakota State University. Senator Olson confirmed that he is hoping to arrange for the state to acquire the current Madison Community Hospital property when that organization builds its new facility on the south side of Madison.
9. While Russ Olson thinks getting DSU more land and buildings will help the university, Charlie Johnson says that if we want students to fill those buildings, we need to find more state support to keep tuition affordable. 

On the whole, if you have to pick a Republican in District 8. He at least shows signs of critical thinking that go beyond what Fox News or Governor Daugaard tell him to think. But the joy of living in District 8 is that you do not have to pick a Republican. You have a full slate of Democratic candidates. Charlie Johnson, Scott Parsley, and Roy Lindsay will legislate with more concern for the common good and sensible, evidence-based policy than their Republican counterparts.

Dan Kaiser Threatens to Bring Ron Paul Nullification Agenda to State House

The South Dakota Democratic Party twists Pat Powers's knickers again with a hard attack postcard sent to District 3 to tie police officer Dan Kaiser to his support for Ron Paul's radical libertarian agenda.

Now Kaiser doesn't mind. In a July interview, he invited all comers to "feel free to drag me through the mud... bring it on."

But this card isn't mud; it is essentially true. Dan Kaiser calls himself an "avid Ron Paul supporter." Ron Paulavidly if impotently supports legalizing drugs. Ron Paul was weaselly on Social Security during the 2012 primary, but he has said Social Security is unconstitutional, has compared it to slavery, and that he'd like to get rid of it. Ron Paul would eliminate farm subsidies. It is hard to imagine Dan Kaiser being an "avid" Ron Paul supporter and not aligning with Ron Paul's positions on these significant issues.

Incredibly, Powers manages to raise a larger issue: does the South Dakota Democratic Party misfire by attacking Kaiser (and Rep. Jon Hansen, according to a DWC commenter) on national policies that won't be much in his bailiwick as a state legislator? I agree that the Dems' attack on Kaiser smells of the same irrelevancy that I've heard from folks like Gordon Howie and Jason Bjorklund who campaign for state office on Tea-Party karaoke that has little to do with immediate practical policymaking.

However, Dan Kaiser appears to be using his candidacy for State House to promote himself and his pursuit of Ron Paul's national agenda. Listen to Kaiser holding forth in this July video interview with national "Paul Fest" organizer Mat Larson (starting at 32:30):

Popout

Kaiser says he is running to promote the "cause of liberty" and "revolution" to "take this country back from a state level all the way up." He says he is seeking to get his name more visible in party and statewide, with an eye toward other races.

Interestingly, the next office most clearly in his sights is not national but local: when a caller tells him to run for sheriff so that he wouldn't have to answer to anything but his personal interpretation of the constitution, Kaiser says he'll consider it in two years when the current Brown County sheriff's term is up. Kaiser says a State House position could get him the name recognition to easily win sheriff's race.

Kaiser sees himself as promoting Ron Paul's national agenda even now in uniform as an Aberdeen police officer. He does so in a careful dance between his strict libertarian principles and the need to keep his job... which Officer Kaiser himself calls "hypocrisy." He speaks with apparent regret of busting a drug house. "If I happen to come across an illegal drug... I'm going to do my job to require me getting a paycheck." Kaiser "would challenge anybody to find any record that says I've ever wrote... a seat belt ticket." The video host says Kaiser won't be out as a "Nazi cop" there enforcing local laws, and Kaiser doesn't disagree.

Apparently Officer Kaiser thinks his role is not merely to enforce the laws the people have chosen, but to decide which laws are worth enforcing. And his commitment to enforcing some laws appears to be no deeper than his selfish commitment to keeping his paycheck.

Kaiser shows his Ron Paul stripes clearly with his language on guns. He says the Second Amendment is not about self-defense or hunting. He says the Second Amendment isn't about going to shoot deer with a government-approved license. He says the right to bear arms is about having the ability to overthrow the government if it becomes too tyrannical "To clarify," Kaiser adds, "I'm not advocating that right now."

Kaiser refers to "garbage" from Mitt Romney about assault weapons having no place in our communities. He declares Romney an "idiot." Kaiser says he is "an avid carrier myself" and believes that "everyone should carry."Everyone.

Instead of defending Kaiser, Powers should be going ape over Kaiser's Republcian apostasy. Relevant to drug policy, Kaiser says, "I don't want the government telling what I can and can't put in my body." That sounds like a direct endorsement of drug legalization.

Kaiser also says "I don't want the government telling me whom I can and can't marry... if it doesn't affect me, I don't care." That sounds like a rejection of the GOP's insistence on denying homosexuals the right to marry.

In a move that might endear him to some Republicans, Kaiser sounds inclined to skirt campaign finance laws. A caller urges him to send a note to a Ron Paulite PAC. The caller notes that Kaiser Dan can't coordinate with the PAC after that first call. Kaiser says he'll do that. That sounds like a sleazy wink-wink dodge of our already too-weak campaign finance laws.

Kaiser also drops the big Ron Paul nullification bomb. He says we "need to get liberty-minded folks across the state to understand such things as nullification, just so we can kind of flex our states rights under the tenth amendment." Like his fellow Ron Paulite Rep. Hansen, Kaiser embraces the idea of ignoring the laws we don't like. That attitude should disqualify a policeman. It should also disqualify a legislator.

And just to send the GOP a signal that they shouldn't mind the Dems' attack, Kaiser makes clear he'll be the next Stace Nelson. On Pierre and politics, he says, "I have no ambition of going there and making friends. I want to go there and butt heads with some of them... we might need a cop in there because there are a lot of criminals in state legislature right now. I want to go there and clean house...." Later in the video, the first legislator that springs to mind as worthy of his and Ron Paulites' endorsement is Rep. Stace Nelson, as well as conservative radicals Isaac Latterell, Manny Steele, Lance Russell, and Brian Liss. Kaiser dismisses all of his potential Senate counterparts: he says "we've got no hope" in the Senate and "can't think of any Senators that are real staunch liberty folks."

Ron Paul's policy positions may not all be relevant to state legislative policymaking. But Dan Kaiser's embrace of Ron Paul's nullificationism appears to cause him to ignore his sworn oath to uphold the law, not just the laws that he prefers. In this regard, pointing out Kaiser's allegiance to a national ideologue and agenda are perfectly relevant to District 3's evaluation of his fitness to hold public office.

Legislature Posts First Proposed Bills of 2011

What's that under my tree? Christmas bills! Yahoo! Start your RSS engines: the first pieces of legislation to be proposed in the 2011 session of the South Dakota State Legislature are in the e-hopper.

First in from the State House: two bills on the agricultural productivity tax (you know, the quasi-income tax now imposed on farmers in place of plain old property tax). House Bill 1001 changes shall to may in a couple spots (ah ha! So shall and may do mean different things!) and allows the folks in charge of this tax to incorporate more data in the calculations. HB 1002 clarifies the need for documentation and the kinds of data the director of equalization can use to assess taxes on ag land.

HB 1003 empowers the Interim Rules Review Committee to revert rules that impose "unreasonable" costs on local governments and school districts. If I'm reading the law right, the interim committee already has the power to revert rules for other reasons. But I wonder if this change will resurrect debates over costs that are better settled during session by the full body.

The Senate is a bit slower out of the blocks, with a couple of style and form changes. Senate Bill 3 has a little more substance: it clamps down on the use of South Dakota's state seal. Section specifies that the state seal may not be used for the following:

1. On or in connection with any advertising or promotion for any product, business, organization, service, or article whether offered for sale for profit or offered without charge;
2. In a political campaign to assist or defeat any candidate for elective office; or
3. In a manner which may operate or be construed as an endorsement of any business, organization, product, service, or article.

In other words, if this passes, Senator Russell Olson (R-8/Madison) will have to get the Bulldog Media folks to whip up a new header for his website:

Small but deadly: Senate Bill 3 would ban use of the state seal in political campaign literature.

Senate Bill 3 would empower the Secretary of State to come up with rules to "assure tasteful and high-quality reproduction of the seal." I welcome readers to compose their own punchlines.

The Interim Bureau of Administration Agency Review Committee put this bill together. They even had the foresight to pre-empt complaints of censorship. Says Section 7:

Nothing in this Act prohibits the reproduction of the state seal for illustrative purposes by the news media if the reproduction by the news media is incidental to the publication or the broadcast. Nothing in this Act prohibits a characterization of the state seal from being used in political cartoons.

Hey, Ehrisman! You're still good to go! But now let's see if there's floor debate on whether blogs meet the Legislature's definition of "news media."

There's much more fun to come from our hearty 105 in Pierre. Stay tuned!

Live-Blog: SDPB Offers Reaction from Legislators to Budget Address

Senator Jason Frerichs (D-Wilmot) opens politely by thanking the governor for his service. But then he goes right to saying that we need to ask people to pay to keep these services alive. Frerichs expresses his hope that Daugaard will bring a budget package with some vision to the table and protect K-12 and Medicaid providers.

What else can we cut? asks SDPB's Cara Hetland. Frerichs says we can find some savings by closing wings of prisons and reviewing other programs.

Now Rep. Larry Tidemann (R-Brookings) from the appropriations committee. He says he's not surprised this budget is tight. Hetland asks about his position on education. Tidemann says the Legislature can look at this budget, find out whether schools can live with a 5% decrease. He says he wants folks to let legislators know what they think in the coming month. Contact Tidemann at his home number: 605-692-1267.

Tidemann says we need to invest in education, but everything is being cut. He acknowledges that the next discussion after how to cut those programs will be whether we raise taxes. At least he's thinking about it.

Rep. David Lust (R-Rapid City) joins SDPB's Stephanie Rissler to mumble some vagueries. he says federal mandates are coming home to roost on Medicaid (whatever happened to personal responsibility? why won't Republicans take ownership of the problems their bad management over the last eight years has caused?). Lust simply hopes that the economy gets better and decreases demand on Medicaid. He says the legislators will wait for Daugaard's budget.

Senator Bernie Hunhoff (D-Yankton) says a lot could change in the 90 days before the budget is due, particularly with new leadership. He says we have 120,000 kids to educate, thousands of old folks in nursing homes; we've got to find ways to pay for this, says Hunhoff!

Onward Christian Legislators... Against Usury!

On the off chance that our Republican state legislators get a little too excited about their supermajorities and go all theocratic on us, I hope they'll apply their Christian principles to South Dakota's usury industry.

Perhaps all of our legislators should join Father Timothy Logan Fountain in reading Bishop Paul Peter Jesep's Credit Card Usury and the Christian Failure to Stop It. In an excerpt chosen by Father Tim, the bishop notes that alongside the responsibility we consumers have to use our credit cards wisely, there lies an equal responsibility for credit card executives and bankers not to build business models on the exploitation and serfdomization of credit card users.

In a press release promoting his new book, Bishop Jesep adds a practical economic argument to his moral fight against usury: "Fair profit, not unjust gain from high interest rates, will spur economic recovery by putting money directly into the economy."

Are any of our Republican legislators willing to take up this challenge to Christian values?
--------------------------------
Bonus Ecclesiastica: Father Tim won't get me in the pews, but his post did get me to learn the difference between an autocephalous church and an autonomous church. Cool!

Got Talent? Leave. South Dakota Prefers Mediocrity

One of our state legislators has said something stupid. No, I'm not referring to compliments paid to Russell Olson upon his selection as Senate Majority Leader. I'm referring to the following quote reported by Bob Mercer:

A member of our Legislature took issue with a recent writeup on this blog regarding why election losers leave public service and sometimes leave South Dakota altogether. Regarding Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, the fellow told me, “She’s got too much talent to stay here” [Bob Mercer, "She's Got Too Much Talent...," Pure Pierre Politics, 2010.11.13].

Too much talent... The statement itself makes no sense. There is no such thing as too much talent. No rational person ever says, "Gee, I wish I or my kids or my employees or my elected officials had less talent."

The unnamed legislator's comment could have come straight from "Harrison Bergeron." Does this unnamed legislator somehow believe that South Dakota doesn't deserve to have talented people in office? If so, I'd love to know who got this legislator's vote for party leadership this weekend. Would South Dakotans really choose less talented leaders over more talented leaders and accept years of drifting caretaker government and half-hearted initiatives that fall apart?

This legislator is perpetuating the South Dakota inferiority complex, that weird mix of perverse humility and anti-intellectualism that tells smart kids they are somehow un-South Dakotan. This legislator reminds me of Russell Olson, who has occasionally pointed out while campaigning here in District 8 that he didn't get the best grades in school. Generally, rational candidates say things they believe will make themselves look like better candidates. Granting that Olson is rational, I conclude that Olson thinks that emphasizing a lack of academic talent makes him look better among South Dakota voters. We're no good, so no one else should strive to be, because that would only make us feel more ashamed of ourselves.

What, then, do legislators with this anti-talent mindset really think about programs like Dakota Roots, the Sanford Homestake Lab, the Opportunity Scholarship, or education funding in general? These programs and others all seek to maintain and expand South Dakota's talent pool. If a legislator believes that individuals like Stephanie Herseth Sandlin have "too much talent" for South Dakota, then why would a legislator want to spend any tax dollars to recruit more talented workers or to encourage smart kids to go to college in state? Perhaps the Opportunity Scholarship needs a new ACT threshold: instead of a minimum score of 24 to qualify, we need a maximum score of 30: do better than that, and you're clearly too talented to go to SDSU. (By the way, Stephanie, what was your ACT score? And Kristi, how about you?)

There are other even less flattering ways to read this unnamed legislator's comment. Maybe this legislator thinks that a state full of mediocre thinkers and workers is easier to control and pay minimum wage. Maybe this legislator is a bitter Democrat (or one of the disaffected Republicans that my own unnamed sources say have no love for Kristi Noem) calling 48% of the electorate stupid. Maybe this legislator is just rationalizing our narrow rejection of Herseth Sandlin at the polls into a conscience-soothing compliment—"Nothing personal: we threw you out because you're so darned good! Now please go away, sweetie, and stop reminding us how dumb we are."

Whatever the beliefs motivating it, no good comes from this legislator's statement that Herseth Sandlin has "too much talent" for South Dakota. It says to our Fargens, our Buhls, our Venhuizens, and our Webers, "You don't belong here. Get out."

I do not believe South Dakota is a land of mediocrity. But legislators like the one talking to Bob Mercer will make us one.

Haggar Anti-Abortion Ally Lies with Last-Minute Negative Flyer

Congresswoman-Elect Kristi Noem wasn't the only South Dakota Republican lying her way to victory with deceptive mailings. District 15 Representative-Elect Jenna Haggar, a Republican masquerading as an Independent, enjoyed a bump Tuesday from a last-minute lie from her friends in the Unruh-abstinence camp.

As documented by Mr. Powers on Monday, the "District 15 PAC" sent out a flyer "endorsing" incumbent Democratic Representative Martha Vanderlinde. I've been tuning out Mr. Powers's propaganda too often lately. Had I paid attention, I'd have noticed the following statements on this flyer:

1. "We are proud that Martha is among the most liberal-left politicians in Pierre."
2. "Celebrated the passage of Obamacare"
3. "Proudly assisted a 3rd-trimester abortion"
4. "Supports gay marriage and endorsed by gay/lesbian/transgendered lobbists" [sic]

I also would have noticed the statement of organization for the District 15 PAC, filed four days before the election. PAC chair Christina Espenscheid declared the purpose of the PAC to be "Support Distric [sic] 15 candidates."

Christina Espenscheid (left), pictured at International Leadership Conference, Nashville 2004

Espenscheid, Espenscheid... where have I heard that name before?

Two new studies released Tuesday provided evidence that abstinence for youth is “healthy and effective.” The reports for both of these studies were released at the Welfare Research and Evaluation Conference by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), according to Christina Espenscheid, the education program director of the Abstinence Clearinghouse [press release, 2005.06.17].

Ah, Christina Dena Espenscheid, veteran of Leslee Unruh's Abstinence Clearinghouse, an organization well-accustomed to denying reality. Espenscheid, event and volunteer coordinator for the failed abortion ban campaign in 2006. Espenscheid, paid lobbyist in Pierre for the Abstinence Clearinghouse in 2006, the year before Jenna Haggar did the same job for SD Right to Life. Espenscheid, who went on to coordinate for another failed ballot measure in 2008, Initiated Measure 10, on behalf of the shady "South Dakotans for Clean and Open Government." (Dang, Pat: I wish your server hadn't deleted all your great posts on why Espenscheid's IM 10 was bogus.)

I guess it's nice that political operative Espenscheid could finally coordinate a campaign that succeeded. It's too bad that, to help her colleague in abstinence-crusading Jenna Haggar win, Espenscheid stooped to deceit, pretending to be an organization supporting Vanderlinde and mailing out this lie on the eve of the election.

I've been told by a mostly reasonable Christian neighbor that Muslim fundamentalists are authorized by the Qu'ran itself to lie to advance their religious and political beliefs. Espenscheid appears to demonstrate that taqiyya works for South Dakota Christians as well.

Bogus attack flyer distributed by Christina Espenscheid and "District 15 PAC"
on behalf of the Haggar for House campaign.

Patricia Stricherz Makes History: First Female Legislator from Lake County

At some point, Patricia Stricherz may cease to amaze me. But not tonight.

My wife and I got to wondering when the last time was that Lake County elected a woman to the South Dakota Legislature.

That's a tricky question, and I welcome my fellow bloggers and commenters to contribute their research. For one thing, districts change, so we Lake County residents haven't always been in District 8. But a quick scan of the Legislature's archive reveals that Patricia Stricherz is the first woman from Lake County ever elected to the Legislature. Going all the way back to Charles B. Kennedy, who served two years in the Territorial Assembly, Lake County has produced 63 legislators, all male.

Now Stricherz moved from Moody County to the great rebellious part of Lake County known as Winfred just this summer, so we almost didn't get to claim her. Had she stayed in Moody, she'd have made history there, too: no lady legislators have ever had Moody County as their home address, according to the archive.

Now here's the stumper question: has Lake County ever been represented by a lady from another county in our district? Remember, districts change over time (and will again next year, as the Republicans recarve our fair state in an attempt to ensure their continued dominance at the polls), so figuring this one out will take a little historical review. No prize but praise and fame, but hey, South Dakota political trivia buffs: start searching!

South Dakota Legislature: No Good News for Dems

2011–2012 South Dakota Legislature, party composition (unofficial results, 2010.11.02) Click image to enlarge

Some vote notes on what happened in the South Dakota Legislature:

1. With Democrats Sandy Jerstad, Nancy Turbak Berry, and Gerald Lange booted by the voters from the Legislature, what's Dakota War College have left to blog about?
   
2. I guess there's still Frank Kloucek, still representing District 19. Kolaches will ride again... and maybe a little scrutiny of Monsanto-controlled SDSU?
3. But at least Turbak Berry got beat by Ried Holien, an old debate guy! Let's hear some good speeches, Ried!
   
4. Other incumbents who lost: Sen. Dan Ahlers from Dell Rapids, Rep. Oran Sorenson from Garretson, Rep. Quentin Burg from Wessington Springs, Rep. Matha Vanderlinde from Sioux Falls, Sen. Pam Merchant from Brookings, and Rep. Gerald Lange from Madison... all Democrats. Not one Republican incumbent in the Legislature lost.
5. If I'm counting right, the State Senate now has 29 Republicans and 6 Democrats. Dems lose 4. The Democratic caucus could carpool... in one car.
   
6. My count shows the State House with 51 Republicans and 19 Democrats. Dems lose 5.
   
7. Blogger and Pastor Steve Hickey wins District 9 House. Steve, I'll expect vociferous opposition to any new Blog Control Acts.
8. Blogger Steve Sibson does not win District 20 House. I was going to suggest that Sibby needs to put down World Net Daily and talk about things actually happening in South Dakota... but last night's results up and down the board make clear South Dakotans are not voting on policy.
9. Even without Sibby, the yahoo caucus made great gains. Expect Rep. Rev. Hickey to carpool with Reps. Jenna Haggar and Brian Liss from Sioux Falls. Get ready for Don Kopp to make climate change denial law as he originally wanted.
   

Liberal Blog Helps Patricia Stricherz Beat Gerry Lange?

Patricia Stricherz offers the following statement on winning a seat in Pierre with her surprise second-place finish in tonight's District 8 State House race:

Thank you all very much. Tonight, I have been given a privilege that few have been given — the privilege of accepting the voters call to service as Representative for District 8 State House. I accept it with gratitude, humility and confidence.

Finally, a word to all District 8 House Candidates. You are all great men and ran a good and respectful campaign. You stood for something you believed in, the citizens of District 8 and the state of South Dakota, and did something about it. Because of this you have my respect and admiration [Patricia Stricherz, e-mail, 2010.11.02].

That said, I can't help wondering: did the Madville Times help Republican Stricherz beat my favorite Dem and neighbor Gerry Lange? Stricherz beat Lange by 124 votes. Her strongest margin over Lange was right here in Lake County, where she outpolled him by 380 votes.

Lake County is the Madville Times' core market. Stricherz advertised here. She campaigned here in the comment section.

And now, barring a remarkable recount outcome, she's going to be my representative in Pierre. Wow. I'm serious: Representative-Elect Patricia Stricherz is the biggest surprise I've had all night.

District 8 Senate Prediction and Endorsement

The latest Madville Times poll finds the local electorate split on the relevance of the criminal records of both District 8 State Senate candidates, Independent/Democrat Clark Schmidtke, Sr., and incumbent Republican Senator Russell Olson. I asked whether the criminal records of each man, revealed just in the past week in the blogosphere, would affect your vote for District 8 Senate. The results:

	Schmidtke	Olson
Yes	51 (57%)	30 (34%)
No	39 (43%)	57 (66%)

These numbers seem reasonable. Russell Olson is better known and better liked. Those who know and like a guy are more inclined to forgiveness toward that guy. Additionally, Olson's crimes—speeding, failure to stop, failure to appear, open container, simple assault—happened mostly when he was in his 20s and fall into that fuzzy category we reserve for crimes of the young and stupid. Schmidtke's guilty plea to three counts of theft occurred in his 40s and involved misuse of checkbooks of elderly folks placed in his care.

In 2006, the last off-year election, Democratic District 8 Senator Dan Sutton beat Republican challenger John Toates 57% to 43%. Sutton had just been hit with allegations of improper conduct with a male page at least as scandalous as the charges against Schmidtke. In the face of those charges, the relatively quiet Toates was able to get 43% of the district to mark his name. And this was with Sutton supporters still able to say, "Innocent until proven guilty."

In 2008, Olson beat a much stronger Democratic contender, Scott Parsley, 55% to 45%. Schmidtke, with less money, less name recognition, and fewer connections than Parsley, was probably headed pre-scandal for a 40% finish. Speculating wildly from the above poll results, I'm going to guess that Schmidtke's court record loses him two votes for every one Olson's court record loses him. Not helping Schmidtke's situation: the Madison Daily Leader gives Schmidtke's court record front-page coverage on the Friday before the election while making no mention of Olson's court record. A large portion of voters who don't access online media thus have no idea that they will vote for a man with a significant criminal record regardless of which District 8 Senate bubble they fill.

Given Schmidtke has no legislative record or other major connections to counter the bad press, I'll project Olson's margin of victory rises from 60–40 to 70–30.

I will still be voting with that 30.

Russell Olson has enjoyed the benefits of numerous favors from the wealthy and powerful in Madison and South Dakota. His friends in the party of Janklow, Rounds, and Prostrollo handed him comfortable government-related jobs while the ink was still fresh on his court record. Rich Republicans in Madison and across the state have handed him tens of thousands of dollars to buy ads and win elections against much less-well-funded opponents. Russell Olson is where he is because of a lot of favors from a lot of powerful people.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't get the impression Clark Schmidtke has ever gotten much in the way of favors from the rich and powerful. I don't get the impression he moves in those circles. The way he told me his side of the story, the powers that be were looking for a way to get him and forced him to surrender when he couldn't afford to fight.

Now we have Russell Olson, who owes his career to the benevolence of the powers that be, acting as a staunch defender of those powers. He knows that running for office brings risks of public criticism of his past, but he can rely on his wealthy and powerful friends to support him.

And we have Clark Schmidtke, who appears not to have grabbed any gold ring of patronage, challenging the powers that rule South Dakota. He knows that running for office brings risks of public criticism of his past, and he has few wealthy or powerful individuals to speak on his behalf or fill his campaign coffers to splash images of his happy family across the newspapers to counter bad publicity. He knew the past that could be used against him in this campaign could also hurt his business. Yet in the face of that risk, Schmidtke still chose to take on a fight that matters to him, a fight for good government, a fight for better policies on education and health care, a fight against handouts to rich oil corporations.

Clark, I have no wealth, no power to offer you. I have only my vote, and a little blog post that may redound against you as much as it will redound against me (especially if there are any more surprises). Oh well. I've faced worse. So have you, Clark.

I can't guarantee I'll bring anyone else along. But Clark, you have my vote.

Bjorklund's Dreaded "Legislation, Taxation, and Regulation" Comes from Kristi Noem

"Independent" candidate for District 8 State House Jason Bjorklund continues to insist that "legislation, taxation, and regulation" caused the recession and put his trucking company out of business. Yet in his campaign literature and forum speeches, Bjorklund has failed to identify specific South Dakota "legislation, taxation, and regulation" that caused these problems and that he would repeal. Where'd all this evil "legislation, taxation, and regulation" come from?

Kristi Noem. Russell Olson. The very Republicans whose signs Bjorklund places in his yard. The Herseth Sandlin campaign points out that Kristi Noem has supported and sponsored at least seven tax increases in the South Dakota State Legislature:

• In 2010, Noem cosponsored SB 186, which increases taxes on small businesses to cover shortfalls in the state unemployment insurance fund. (Senator Olson backed that, too.)
  
• In 2009, she was the prime sponsor of HB 1217, which gives the Governor authority to raise taxes unilaterally by suspending tax exemptions – such as exemptions on churches, hospitals, doctors, clinics and prescription drugs.
• She was also the prime sponsor of HB 1218, which increases taxes by raising fees collected by any state department or agency by 2.5% per year since the last time they were raised.
• She was also the prime sponsor of HB 1229, which increased the gross receipts tax on South Dakota’s tourism industry by 50%.
• She voted to increase vehicle license fees by 67% (HB 1007), and cosponsored another bill to raise license fees on vehicles older than 5 years by an additional 33% (SB 11). (Senator Olson did vote to table the former.)
  
• She cosponsored SB 116, which imposes a new gas tax for ethyl and methyl alcohol used in motor vehicles. (Senator Olson also sponsored that one.)
  

Noem supported increased business regulation with this year's HB 1203 and 2008's HB 1128.

Noem also voted to raise her own pay 33% with HB 1250 in 2008.

Bjorklund has a profound capacity to ignore the reality of South Dakota politics: nearly all of the South Dakota legislation, taxation, and regulation under which he labors and against which he rails have been passed by Republican legislative majorities and signed by Republican governors. Bjorklund's and the Tea Party's darling Kristi Noem has promoted that very legislation, taxation, and regulation.

Argus Endorses Racist Peters from District 9

South DaCola reports that Representative Deb Peters (R-9/Hartford), the Republican who received the endorsement from Sioux Falls's big liberal-media newspaper, believes our Native American neighbors' problems are their own darn fault. In a debate Friday with Democratic challenger Rob Wilson, Peters said twice that Indians are "genetically predisposed" to many of the problems they face.

In other words, to make life better on the reservation, it's not Peters's job to come up with the kind of practical policy solutions her Democratic challenger Rob Wilson would work for. In Peters's happy world, we can blame the Indians and focus on simply teaching them how genetically inferior they are to us white folks who wisely used alcohol and deception to conquer them.

Nice endorsement, Sioux Falls newspaper.
-----------------------------------

In related news, there is a hilarious story of thoughtless sleaze floating around District 9 about another candidate. Alas, I can't get anyone to go on record about it. The standard reason for declining runs along the lines of, "It's true, the behavior was inappropriate and should be called out, but this person has power and we have to work with this person, so we'd better not mention it."

In other words, "South Dakota Nice" means we only call out the people who don't have power they might use against us... rather like the Madison Daily Leader going after State Senate candidate and assisted living center operator Clark Schmidtke's criminal record but not State Senator and economic development officer Russell Olson's criminal record.

Vote Now: Do Criminal Records Matter in District 8 Senate Race?

The last Madville Times poll before the general election asks two questions:

1. Will Clark Schmidtke's criminal record affect your vote for District 8 State Senate?
2. Will Russell Olson's criminal record affect your vote for District 8 State Senate?

I'll take votes here in the right-hand sidebar until noon on Monday. Tell your friends, and vote now! And then 24 hours later, we can all head to the polls and finally cast the votes that matter.

Worth noting: you can read another, less well-written version of Mr. Schmidtke's troubles with the Minnesota court system in Friday's Madison Daily Leader. You cannot yet read any version of Senator Olson's encounters with the South Dakota court system in the Madison Daily Leader (at least not the online version), which has made thousands of dollars in advertising from Olson over the last four years.

Sometimes Everyone on Message Is Not the Best...

I am not having a good week. The Mitchell Daily Republic catches us Democrats managing the message just a little too tightly:

The Daily Republic sent questionnaires to each [District 8] candidate. Two candidates, Fargen and Schmidtke, submitted nearly identical responses to most questions. Schmidtke, who has been Moody County Democratic Party chairman, said he had not seen Fargen’s answers and could not explain why they were nearly identical. He noted Democrats had discussed issues at the state level and are supporting gubernatorial candidate Scott Heidepriem with talking points.

Fargen did not respond to several requests for comment [Melanie Brandert, "District 8 Incumbents Hope to Keep Spots in Legislature," Mitchell Daily Republic, 2010.10.27]

There's an obvious punchline here... but I'll leave it for commenters.

Clark Schmidtke's Side of the Story: "I'm Innocent!"

Permit me to update what I just published about the court records of our District 8 Senate candidates. District 8 Senate Candidate Clark C. Schmidtke Sr. and I just had a very serious conversation on the phone about his court records and what really happened in Minnesota. Trying hard to reserve judgment, I present what I've read and what I've heard (and delay once again talking about actual policies affecting District 8).

According to information from the Minnesota judicial system, in Case No. 46-K0-95-000504, The State of Minnesota vs. Clark Calvin Schmidtke, Judge Robert D. Walker presiding, our candidate was charged with 45 charges of theft and mistreatment of vulnerable adults.

Schmidtke says he was innocent. The county social worker, he says, brought bogus charges against him because the county owed his health care facility money and wanted to put him out of business. He did go out of business in 1995. He lived in Arizona at the time and thus had to fly back and forth for court appearances. He went to court 15 times. Eventually, Schmidtke says he ran out of money for the lawyer. He asked his lawyer how much it would cost to continue fighting the charges: $15,000. Schmidtke didn't have that money, so he switched to a public defender. That public defender recommended Schmidtke simply plead, take a few days' jail time and pay restitution. Schmidtke agreed and pled to three charges of theft. The remaining 42 charges we dropped... and Schmidtke spent eight months in jail and was assessed $14,225.96 in restitution.

The court record shows $580 credited toward restitution in 1997. Schmidtke's first payment is listed in 1999. Schmidtke then made 19 payments from 1999 to 2003 adding up to $6530. The Minnesota judicial website indicates that Schmidtke's current balance due is $7,695.96.

Schmidtke says that last figure is an error. In 2004, another complication arose. Schimdtke's probation officer claimed she didn't know Schmidtke had moved to South Dakota, hauled him back to Minnesota, and tossed him in jail. Schmidtke says his son then looked through his dad's phone records and found information that showed the probation officer would have known from those records that Schmidtke was in South Dakota.

If I understand the story, it was at this point that Martin County Attorney Terry W. Viesselman stepped in and said enough's enough. Schmidtke says Viesselman recommended the court reduce the case from felony to misdemeanor and drop the remaining restitution at this time. Schimdtke says the court did just that. He has not made any further restitution payments at this time, as it was his impression that the case was closed and he was absolved of further obligations. (Schmidtke says he'll get a lawyer to check on the status of that balance shown on the judicial website soon.)

Schmidtke said he wasn't eager to see any of this come out. He didn't want to do ill to any other candidates. He also has to make a living, and bad press like this could impact his bottom line at the assisted living facility he runs in Trent. Running for office was just asking for opposition research to dig up this hard-to-explain story.

Nonetheless, he says he is deeply upset with bad government in Pierre. He kept waiting last spring for some Democrat to challenge Senator Russell Olson (R-8/Madison), and when no one stepped forward, he felt someone had to speak up on the issues and challenge the status quo... even if it was a suboptimal candidate such as himself.
-----------------------------------
On a personal note: I told Clark that he's damaged goods. He knows that. I also told him that he's still right on policy issues and on the need for change in Pierre. And forget my partisan hat: I have strong bias toward any individual who argues that he has been unjustly persecuted by the powers that be and simply ran out of money to fight the good fight and prove his innocence. Clark has also done time, paid some restitution, apparently to the satisfaction of the prosecuting attorney, and now just wants to move on with his life, serve the people who hire him, and pay the bills.

But candidate Schmidtke also wants to serve the people of South Dakota in Pierre. Some voters—maybe most voters—will dismiss Schmidtke and his story out of hand. And I can't blame you if you do.

The court says a man I know and respect committed crimes. The man says he did not. I still have some thinking to do.

District 9: Liberal Media Endorses Pastor Hickey and Debate Dodger

What liberal media? That Sioux Falls paper just endorsed the complete Republican slate for District 9 Senate and House. That includes Deb Peters, who appears to be dodging debates and thinks the right way to keep families from open enrolling out of her school district is to throw up legislative barriers to school choice; Bob Deelstra, who has a speech impediment online; and, in the greatest sign of the apocalypse, Pastor Steve Hickey, who will ban abortion entirely if he gets the chance.

Now I'll admit, of the various fundagelicals with whom I've locked blog horns, Pastor Hickey has come across as more capable of reasoned debate and practical political action than some others of his ilk. But that the largest newspaper in our state would pick him and his Republican colleagues over Trudi Hatch, Mark Anderson, and Rob Wilson—three relatively sober and serious Democrats, not wild radicals like me—reduces to absurdity any suggestion that the South Dakota media has a liberal bias.

Then again, Pastor Hickey does support reparations for Native Americans, including at least a conversation about some eventual land settlement. Maybe he's a liberal after all....

District 8 Campaign Finance: Russell Olson Backs Jason Bjorklund

In the South Dakota pre-general campaign finance reports were due in Secretary of State Chris Nelson's office Friday. I turn first to District 8 State Senator Russell Olson's filing and find he's backing "Independent" District 8 State House candidate Jason Bjorklund. Olson's treasurer Scott Delzer apparently doesn't know how to spell Bjorklund: line 7 of the list of contributions to other candidates reads "Bjorkland for House."

I checked: I don't see any Bjorkland running for state house.

The $300 donation from the Olson campaign to the Bjorklund campaign, along with comparable contributions from notable Madison Republicans Jerry Prostrollo and DeLon Mork, supports Patricia Stricherz's contention that the Independent candidate isn't as Independent as he might claim. Strizherz is the only official Republican on the District 8 House ballot. Stricherz has received no money from fellow Republican Olson. (Sec. Nelson has not yet posted Stricherz's pre-general filing.)

Update 2010.10.25 17:43 CDT: Candidate Stricherz informs me that she has received $565 in contributions: $150 from the Lake County GOP, $100 from the Olson campaign, $100 from the Dan Lederman campaign, and the rest from family and 2 PACs. Neither Olson's nor Lederman's filings record these contributions yet.
Update 2010.10.30: Filing received on the 28th confirms Russ's and Dan's donations. Note: Russ gives three times more to the "Independent" than to the official Republican.

Bjorklund has also received money from notable Madison Republicans Jerry Prostrollo and DeLon Mork.

Olson's $300 for Bjorklund exceeds the $250 contributions Olson gave to some of his Senate colleagues and the $150 he tossed Dusty Johnson's way. Perhaps Olson and Bjorklund share a love of Glenn Beck. (But hey: Stricherz loves Glenn Beck, too.)

So here's a question for the candidates' forum on Thursday: let's ask the District 8 Senate candidates which District 8 House candidates they support and why. Let's ask the House candidates the same thing about their pick for Senate.

------------------------------
Alas for the local economy: Russell Olson is only raising and spending about half what he did in 2008. Jon Hunter must be disappointed. The other candidates aren't packing big balances, either. The figures for our District 8 candidates:

Name	Contributions	Expenditures	Cash on Hand
Sen. Russell Olson	$33,473	$28,061.03	$11,752.12
Clark Schmidtke	$2,150	$1,848.19	$301.81
Rep. Mitch Fargen	$22,499.95	$19.135.77	$4,996.82
Rep. Gerald Lange	$1,575.00	$380.00	$1,364.55
Jason Bjorklund	$3,288.02	$3,227.98	$182.02
Patricia Stricherz	$666.00	$866.00	$0.00

------------------------------
I'm still investigating the criminal records of both of District 8's State Senate candidates, Russell Olson and Clark Schmidtke. Stay tuned... we may need a write-in campaign! Update: Got that taken care of.