Frontline Program about outside money in politics (H/T – Helga)
l3wis 
Don’t think money from outside groups are not flowing in? Think again.
Elections
What is the actual function of the PUC? The competing views… (Guest Poster)
Who is Fiegen looking out for?
Notice how Kristi Fiegen and Chris Nelson are never really talking about protecting the citizens? Kristi’s ads focus on protecting business. Does this mentality have something to do with her past positions with ALEC and the money each has received over the years from the energy companies they are to regulate? Read Fiegen’s material and listen to her ads, we’ll give you a moment, or two…. Look for these messages to let you care only about the corporation’s needs. Nowhere in their collective messages do the say they are protecting us, the citizens, from the abuses levied upon us. Think about it…
Hurt businesses in South Dakota versus hurt citizens of South Dakota? Since when is more import to protect business in South Dakota than the people? Is the PUC there to protect the businesses from the wrath of the people for the abuses perpetrated by the businesses?
After Governor Frank Farrar’s disastrous decision to regulate the REA coops in 1969 the people of South Dakota understood the real need for a strong people oriented PUC. For most of the next 40 years, Democrats had a seat at the table to keep the utilities functioning as they should, protecting the citizens. In 1973 a young person, a single citizen, from a small South Dakota town actually was able to bring an action before the PUC against Northwestern Bell. This action brought NW Bell to their knees. NW Bell was not allowed to have a rate increase for about two years because the PUC agreed with the teenager. I know this story well. I was the teenager. This action forced NW Bell to improve their service. This action was accomplished because we had a PUC who could not be accused of being tied to the utilities.
Kristi and Chris are tied to the ALEC utility companies they have to regulate. Who should we trust?
South DaCola Endorsements
While I may not be in a position to sway anybody’s vote I offer my 2-cents on the upcoming election;
President – Obama
While I haven’t been very impressed with Obama, he has managed the turd sandwich that Bush handed him pretty good, and he has gotten some things accomplished. While I think Obamacare doesn’t do enough (should have been single-payer) it does help the ones most in need. I think by giving Obama a 2nd term you will see sweeping changes he wasn’t able to get done in his first term. Romney would be disastrous for our country, even more so then Bush. His lack of foreign policy knowledge and his disdain for the 99%ers is horrendous. He will destroy what is left of the middle-class.
US Congress – Varilek
While I was on the fence about Varilek, I will give him this much, he is smart as a whip. He pummeled Noem on every issue in the RCJ debate and showed that it is OK to be intelligent and knowledgeable when it comes to all things political. Noem is a puppet who relies on talking points and hoop earrings to get by and BTW Kristi, Medicare is already a government run healthcare program, what a dumba** thing to say.
PUC – McGovern
I had the pleasure of meeting McGovern at a luncheon, he is bright, and most of all he will do what a PUC member should do, stand up for the consumers. Fiegen has taken thousands in contributions from the energy companies. How do you think she will vote on rate issues? Gee I wonder.
State Senate – District 11 – Tom Cool
State Senate – District 13 (My district) – Sam Khoroosi
Heineman needs to be sent into retirement, she has gotten to comfortable in the legislature.
State Senate – District 15 – Angie Buhl
While Angie and I have our disagreements, Angie has a pure liberal heart, and we need more liberal hearts in Pierre. She also knows her issues.
State Senate – District 6 – Richard Schriever
I will say the same about Rich, a good liberal who has a strong resume when it comes to public service.
State House – District 9 – Mark Anderson
State House – District 11 – Darrell Solberg
State House – District 12 -Mike Knudson
While this may surprise some, I will give props to Mike for running in the party he actually belongs to (unlike his parents), he also has a wealth of knowledge about SD politics and will serve the state well – that, and Manny Steele needs to be given his walking papers. His crazy birther/tea party beliefs are over the top.
State House – District 14 – Marc S. Feinstein
State House – District 14 – Anne Hajek
I have had the pleasure to get to know Anne over the past year, she is smart, has a rock solid public service resume and truly cares about the public. While we may not always agree, she is willing to stand up for what she believes in and that is important.
SF MUNICIPAL / SCHOOL DISTRICT joint elections?
Since the city decided to throw the school district’s Bev Chase under the bus (mini-van) in the last joint election. The school district drew up a contract with the city that asks them to handle entire joint elections in the future and the school district will reimburse them for 100% of their costs.
SOUNDS FAIR.
READ THE ENTIRE contract HERE: electioncontract
Problem is the city (mayor) have yet to sign the contract and the deadline is December 31, 2012. The bigger concern is how this may affect the joint school board election with the possible snowgates petition question.
As I understand the contract, if the city decides not to sign they would have to hold a ‘special election’ for snowgates. The other concern would be having ‘super precincts’ for a special election.
I think something as important as snowgates, ALL of the precincts need to be used.
I guess we will wait for the mayor’s John Hancock.
2012 Referred measures and Constitutional questions on the ballot
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiWSsQ9Godk[/youtube]
Guest Poster and I are in agreement on the measures and questions, he has written a review of them and the recommended choice.
These referred measures are just bad policies, poorly thought and will be executed to detriment of future South Dakotans.
NO – Referred Law 14– An Act to establish the Large Project Development Fund. A slush fund with abuse written in every word.
NO – Initiated Measure 15-An initiated measure to increase state general sales and use taxes for additional K-12 public education and Medicaid funding. Bad on so many levels I could write pages. This needs to be addressed with thought and information. This becomes a vehicle to replace future funding from the regular budget with special interest projects.
NO – Referred Law 16 – An act to establish a teacher scholarship program; create a program for math and science teacher bonuses; create a program for teacher merit bonuses; mandate a uniform teacher and principal evaluation system; and eliminate state requirements for teacher tenure. If passed, it would destroy any chance for a well-rounded, thinking person’s education. It rewards teaching with limited room to reach out to children with special learning skills. Encourages the voucher based private school programs being proposed nationwide at the expense of the society need for public education.
Three of these Constitutional Amendments appear to be designed around special interest abuses of the system for their benefit.
NO – Constitutional Amendment M-An Amendment to the South Dakota Constitution regarding certain provisions relating to corporations. This reads ALEC model legislation to abuse stockholders in business relationships. Without a CON statement to be found or issued by SOS Gant’s office, it is a strong NO.
YES – Constitutional Amendment N-An Amendment to the South Dakota Constitution repealing certain reimbursement restrictions for travel by legislators to and from a legislative session. Travel by legislators on official business still is $.05 not actual cost, this it wrong. Constitutional Amendment N failure would allow undue personal budget strain on ‘everyday’ legislators driving to Pierre for session. This inflation adjustment could be done through law not Constitution.
NO – Constitutional Amendment O-An Amendment to the South Dakota Constitution exchanging the method for distributions from the cement plant trust fund. I can read trust fund abuse in this amendment. They need to tighten the measure up and try again next time. Without a CON statement to be found or issued by SOS Gant’s office, it is a strong NO.
NO – Constitutional Amendment P-An Amendment to the South Dakota Constitution adding balanced budget requirements. Our current Constitutional provisions are very strong now and giving us budget surpluses. Voting NO retains the very workable budget locks of the 1880’s which still work.