Today--Tuesday, MinnPost's Peter Callaghan has more coverage, including a reaction by Minnesota House Environmental and Natural Resource Finance and Policy Committee Chair Rick Hansen, DFL-S. St. Paul, who has been unrelenting in using the phrase "regulatory capture. Hansen also serves on the Minnesota House Ag committee, where he raises questions about nitrates, pesticides, pollinators, and other issues.
Personally, I think these dirty hippies are on to something, though Hansen's notion of siccing the Office of the Legislative Auditor investigate programs and agencies, rather than special hearings outside of session, is probably a better means to get to the bottom of the questions they're raising.
Sixteen environmental groups say industry and agriculture hold too much sway in Minnesota with the officials who regulate them.
Lt. Gov Peggy Flanagan was referencing an intra-party disagreement over the war in Gaza when she quipped at the DFL convention in Duluth earlier this month, “We’re a big tent, y’all, and it can get real messy in here.”
The latest mess under the DFL tent is over the environment.
People Not Polluters on Monday called out Gov. Tim Walz and his agencies for what it termed “polluter capture,” a phrase that asserts that industry and agriculture hold too much sway with the people who regulate them. While it isn’t unusual for environmentalists to raise concerns about what the organizations consider friendly regulation of agriculture and industry, pointing the finger at a Democrat who considers himself an environmental ally certainly is.
Are Minnesota agencies failing the North Star state's environment? Bluestem believes a number of environmental groups are on to something: "polluter capture." one variety of regulatory capture.
From industrial plants to farm country pollution, the MPCA, DNR, MDH and MDA have lapsed in environmental enforcement, a coalition of environmental groups claims.
Nitrates that contaminated rural well water, an iron foundry that fouled the air in a south Minneapolis neighborhood, a potato farm that overused a sensitive aquifer — in all of these cases, a group of environmental organizations claim, the state of Minnesota failed in its duty to protect the environment.
Now, the coalition of 16 groups is urging lawmakers to hold hearings on the state's environmental protections, and make state agency leaders in Gov. Tim Walz's administration answer for several recent episodes. They claim the four state agencies responsible for protecting the environment — the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Department of Natural Resources, Department of Health and Department of Agriculture — have offered too little oversight of the polluters and industries they should be regulating. . .
The groups that have signed on to the campaign include Climate Generation, Clean Up the River Environment (CURE), East Phillips Neighborhood Institute, Friends of the Boundary Waters, Health Professionals for a Healthy Climate, the Izaak Walton League, Minnesota Environmental Justice Table, Minnesota Environmental Partnership, Minnesota Interfaith Power & Light, Minnesota Well Owners Organization, MN350, Pollinator Friendly Alliance, Sierra Club, TakeAction Minnesota, Waadookawaad Amikwag (Those Who Help Beaver), and WaterLegacy. . . .
A coalition of environmental groups is calling for legislative hearings over the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s failure to detect and curb pollution in several instances in recent years.
In a press release, the groups accused the agency — as well as the state departments of Health, Agriculture and Natural Resources — of “polluter capture,” meaning the agencies’ decisionmaking has been “captured” by corporate influence.
“We ask legislators to fulfill their constitutional role to ensure the agencies live up to their responsibilities and secure clean water and air for all,” said Steve Morse, a former state senator and the executive director of the Minnesota Environmental Partnership.
Among the groups: Climate Generation, Clean Up the River Environment, Friends of the Boundary Waters, Pollinator Friendly Alliance, Sierra Club North Star Chapter.
The push by environmentalists reveals some Minnesota progressives’ discontent with the administration of second-term DFL Gov. Tim Walz, who has long sought to balance jobs and economic growth with environmental concerns.
In a statement, a spokesperson for Walz said the governor’s office is proud of Minnesota’s agencies: “The state has a strong record of holding polluters accountable and working with the community and the Legislature to ensure health and our natural resources are protected.”
The green coalition pointed to a dozen instances where state regulators delayed or did not take action against a polluting company or industry, or made permitting and regulatory decisions that were favorable to companies.
The EPA found during a surprise inspection that the Smith Foundry in the East Phillips neighborhood of Minneapolis was emitting more particulate matter than allowed by federal regulations. After the EPA found the violations, the Star Tribune reported that MPCA officials appeared to contradict the EPA’s findings, saying the state agency did not have evidence that the foundry was violating state or federal rules.
The EPA settled with the Smith Foundry last week, and the foundry will close its furnace within a year.
“It took a surprise inspection from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to bring to light something we have known for years. We don’t understand why the MPCA has sided with a polluter for so long,” said Joe Vital, organizer with the East Phillips Neighborhood Institute, in a press release.
Environmentalists also cite nitrate pollution in drinking water in southeastern Minnesota, largely attributable to farm runoff; the EPA warned state leaders in November that they were not doing enough to curb the problem.
Federal officials have also withheld grant money from the DNR for logging violations, alleging state officials failed to ensure that timber harvesting on public land was done with wildlife habitat in mind, not private interests.
This Minnesota Reformer article is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.
Yet another poll from South Dakota News Watch, this one on the proposed repeal of the state's grocery tax. As the News Watch points out in an email, SouthDakota is one of just two states, along with Mississippi, that fully taxes food without offering credits or rebates.
Opponents say Initiated Measure 28 could prevent state from collecting tax on “consumable” items such as tobacco, toothpaste and toilet paper, which could prompt an income tax.
Two-thirds of South Dakotans support an initiated measure that would prohibit the state from collecting sales tax on "anything sold for human consumption, except alcoholic beverages and prepared food,” according to a scientific poll co-sponsored by News Watch.
The statewide survey of 500 registered voters, also sponsored by the Chiesman Center for Democracy at the University of South Dakota, showed that 66% of respondents are for the 2024 ballot measure, with 26% opposed and 7% undecided.
That means public support for Initiated Measure 28, which would eliminate the state's 4.2% sales tax on groceries, has increased since a November 2023 poll that showed 61% of registered voters in favor of it.
Supporters call the measure a long-overdue effort to take the tax burden off low-income families and individuals. South Dakota is one of just two states, along with Mississippi, that fully taxes food without offering credits or rebates.
Opponents criticize the wording of the measure as broader than just groceries. They said it could cause a budget crunch by preventing the state from collecting sales tax on “consumable” items such as tobacco, toothpaste and toilet paper.
“This is not a food tax repeal – it’s a consumables tax repeal,” said Nathan Sanderson, executive director of the South Dakota Retailers Association, which publicly opposes the measure.
'Should have been done 20 years ago'
Rick Weiland of Dakotans for Health, the petition group that sponsored IM 28, noted that Gov. Kristi Noem pushed for repealing the grocery tax during her 2022 re-election effort. In announcing the campaign pledge, Noem said the tax cut would "put hundreds of dollars in the pockets of the average South Dakota family.”
“This affects people of modest means who are just trying to put food on the table,” Weiland told News Watch. “It should have been done 20 years ago, which is why you’re seeing a super-majority of South Dakota voters in support of it.”
Mason-Dixon Polling and Strategy conducted the poll May 10-13. Those interviewed were selected randomly from a telephone-matched state voter registration list that included both landline and cellphone numbers. Quotas were assigned to reflect voter registration by county. The margin of error is plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.
Concerns about budgetary impact are more pronounced since state legislators voted to lower the general sales tax rate from 4.5% to 4.2% during the 2024 legislative session. It sunsets, or expires, in 2027.
Sanderson echoed concerns raised by Attorney General Marty Jackley in his ballot explanation that IM 28, by interrupting collection of sales tax for certain items, could “affect the state’s obligations under the tobacco master settlement agreement and the streamlined sales tax agreement.”
Opponent: Plan will trigger income tax
Not taxing “consumables” and losing those revenue streams could result in an annual state budget downturn of at least $176 million, according to Sanderson, on top of the $104 million estimated annual revenue loss from the general sales tax cut.
Sales taxes are the largest source of state government revenue in South Dakota, one of seven states without a state income tax.
“I believe this measure was drafted the way it was for one of two reasons,” said Sanderson, who served as a policy adviser to former Gov. Dennis Daugaard. “Either it was designed to force South Dakota to implement a state income tax to replace the lost revenue or it was drafted incorrectly. Either way, it’s highly problematic.”
Weiland pushed back strongly on those assertions, calling them "fear tactics and misinformation" and noting that the Legislative Research Council played a role in changing the measure's language.
As for the notion that Dakotans for Health is surreptitiously trying to trigger a state income tax, Weiland called the theory "ridiculous."
"Mr. Sanderson needs to do his homework before he makes such wild allegations about our secret intentions," said Weiland, a former South Dakota Democratic Party candidate for U.S. House and U.S. Senate. "With 94 Republican and 11 Democratic legislators in Pierre, (Republicans) can do anything they want. I don’t think passing a state income tax will ever be part of their legislative agenda."
Debate over municipal food tax rates
It’s been an eventful petition process for Dakotans for Health, which had to re-submit language for the measure in November 2022 after then-Attorney General Mark Vargo issued a ballot explanation saying the measure would impact the ability of municipalities, and not just the state, to collect sales tax on groceries.
That interpretation differed from that of then-Legislative Research Council director Reed Holwegner, who noted in a 2022 fiscal summary that “municipalities could continue to tax anything sold for eating or drinking.”
Most municipalities collect 2% on groceries on top of the state tax rate. Weiland’s group added specific language to the measure after Vargo's explanation to maintain that they could continue to do so.
But opponents cite a state law that states cities and towns can charge a sales tax if the tax "conforms in all respects to the state tax ... with the exception of the rate," which would not be the case if the state food tax is repealed.
“Cities and towns can only tax the same items as the state,” said Sanderson. “So despite the language in IM 28, if the state cannot charge a tax on ‘anything for human consumption,’ neither can a municipality.”
Jackley’s current ballot explanation notes that “judicial or legislative clarification of the measure will be necessary.” Since it’s an initiative measure and not a constitutional amendment, it’s reasonable to assume that state legislators will address it during the 2025 legislative session if it passes.
Language of measure under scrutiny
Beyond disagreements about municipalities, there were early discussions between Dakotans for Health and the LRC about how to best characterize which items were included in the repeal.
Hollweger, who resigned as LRC director during a meeting of the Legislature’s executive board in October 2023, addressed the potential for differing interpretations of “anything sold for human consumption” in an updated fiscal summary in January 2023.
“For purposes of this fiscal note,” he wrote, “the LRC assumes the phrase only includes food items because of the modifying language 'except alcoholic beverages and prepared food' and does not include personal tangible property and services, both of which can also be sold for human consumption. Other assumptions as to the meaning of this phrase may be just as reasonable, if not more so.”
With that qualification, the fiscal note said that the state could see a reduction in sales tax revenue of $123.9 million annually, much lower than Sanderson's estimate. It also reiterated that municipalities "could continue to tax anything sold for human consumption."
In his ballot explanation, Jackley asserted that human consumption "is not defined by state law, but its common definition includes more than just food and drinks.”
'Simply the right thing to do'
Weiland points out that IM 28's original draft, which used the phrase "anything sold for eating or drinking by humans," was flagged by the LRC as being too imprecise.
In a letter to Dakotans for Heath in December 2022, Holwegner said that the wording "may be overly vague, inviting various interpretations in determining its meaning."
Holwegner added that "the statutory definition of food uses the terms 'ingestion,' 'chewing' and 'consumed.' These terms seem to be more precise than 'eating or drinking,' as they may better capture the various elements of food and beverage consumption."
Following that guidance, Dakotans for Health re-submitted the language as "anything sold for human consumption" and collected signatures for both a constitutional amendment and initiated measure.
Weiland and his team ended up prioritizing the IM effort, and it was certified for the 2024 ballot on May 13 by the Secretary of State's office with 22,315 valid signatures.
In an interview with News Watch, Weiland expressed frustration that concerns about inexact wording and unintended consequences seem to persist regardless of the language put forth in the measure.
"We worked closely with various state offices on the grocery tax repeal measure as we do with all the ballot measures we get involved with," Weiland said. "Repealing this tax is simply the right thing to do."
Noem's grocery tax plan 'changed things'
South Dakota’s grocery tax has been a target of legislative reform for decades, mostly by Democrats.
In 2004, the South Dakota Democratic Party gathered enough signatures to put a state food tax repeal on the ballot after legislative attempts to eliminate the tax fell short.
Opponents of the effort, including then-Gov. Mike Rounds, warned that passing the repeal would likely reduce the amount of state aid available for schools and health care.
Voters responded to that message and rejected the measure by a margin of 68% to 32%. Later attempts by state legislators to lower the tax on food or exempt groceries from the general sales tax rate also failed.
Noem shifted the dynamic in September 2022, six weeks before being reelected with 62% of the vote and mindful of Weiland's plans for a petition drive.
At an event in Rapid City, she unveiled her plan to repeal the grocery tax for the “largest tax cut in South Dakota history.” She vouched for its affordability because of double-digit increases in sales tax revenue in 2021 and 2022, a budget surplus in 2022 of $115 million and $423 million in reserves.
“That changed things,” Weiland told News Watch.
“The Republicans’ big argument has always been, ‘Oh, we don’t have the money to repeal the food tax. It will come on the backs of firefighters and teachers, or we’ll have to do a state income tax’ – all this crap they kept contending so the issue never got any legs in the Legislature or on the ballot. Well, the governor took all those arguments and threw them in the trash. They don’t exist.”
Noem supports tax repeal, but not IM 28
But Jim Terwilliger, the governor’s budget chief, stressed that the basis of Initiated Measure 28 differs from the bill that Noem and her team brought unsuccessfully during the 2023 legislative session.
Noem’s bill, which was killed in committee, would have reduced the state’s sales tax on groceries to zero percent rather than eliminating it entirely. The reason was to avoid disrupting South Dakota's participation in the Streamlined Sales Tax Project, a cooperative effort of states, local governments and the business community that standardizes collection of sales tax.
“As drafted, the ballot measure would bring us out of compliance with the agreement,” Terwilliger told News Watch in May 2023.
Terwilliger also said that the measure would “prevent the state from taxing tobacco or medical marijuana,” a concern also noted by Jackley in his ballot explanation. Not taxing tobacco could impact revenue the state receives from a master settlement agreement reached in 1998 between 46 states and major cigarette manufacturers as part of litigation for health-care costs and deceptive trade practices.
Jackley said South Dakota receives about $20 million annually from the settlement, which Sanderson factored into his estimated annual loss of state revenue of $176 million.
Grocery tax repeal has bipartisan support
Weiland disputes those legal interpretations, which could end up being debated during the 2025 legislative session or resolved in a court of law.
He also notes that the South Dakota tax system is rife with sales tax exemptions totaling more than $1 billion a year that primarily benefit the state’s largest industries such as agriculture, medical care and insurance, as previously reportedby News Watch.
“There’s a whole list of things that these companies are allowed exemptions for to maintain their business in South Dakota,” said Weiland. “But we’re not going to get rid of a regressive tax on food, something people need to survive? What does that say about our priorities?”
The News Watch/Chiesman poll showed that repealing the grocery tax has bipartisan appeal, with 78% of Independents, 74% of Democrats and 56% of Republicans saying that they support the initiated measure.
Young voters were the most supportive, with 73% of respondents ages 18-34 saying they are for the measure, compared to 21% against.
This story was produced by South Dakota News Watch, a nonpartisan, nonprofit news organization. Read more in-depth stories at sdnewswatch.org and sign up for an email every few days to get stories as soon as they're published. Contact Stu Whitney at [email protected].
This article is republished online with the permission of South Dakota News Watch.
Photo: Gov. Kristi Noem meets with members of the media at Sunshine Foods in Sioux Falls, S.D., on Oct. 12, 2022, to discuss a repeal of the food tax. Her bill stalled in the Legislature, but Initiated Measure 28 will repeal the tax if approved by voters on the November 2024 ballot. (Photo: Argus Leader/ via South Dakota News Watch).
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.
I came home yesterday from a romantic ramble down the Upper Minnesota River Valley to Lac Qui Parle State Park to learn of neo-Nazi rallies here in South Dakota.
Here's the Anti-Defamation League's backgrounder on Blood Tribe.
A group of extremists unfurled a Nazi flag during an apparent rally Saturday on the steps of South Dakota's state capitol building in Pierre
Pictures taken by onlookers and shared on social media depict a group of at least 15 individuals wearing red shirts, black masks and black pants standing in front of the capitol entrance, with three Nazi supporters holding the flag.
Christopher Pohlhaus, leader of Blood Tribe, a neo-Nazi group, claimed his members were responsible for the display in a hostile response to South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem's statement on the situation. . . .
According to the Anti-Defamation League, the Blood Tribe is a neo-Nazi group which depicts itself as a hardcore white supremacist group and reveres Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler as a deity.
. . In giving his account of events, Pohlhaus posted anti-semitic language about House Bill 1076, a bill passed by the state Legislature in 2024 and championed by Gov. Kristi Noem which will define anti-semitism in state law and is intended to prevent that type of workplace discrimination in South Dakota. He also took aim at state officials who disavowed the protests. . . .
And when the group popped up in Deadwood, they earned spontaneous counter protests.
One of those protestors was State Auditor Rich Sattgast, who was in the Lawrence County city for the night.
“Footage of me engaging with them will surely surface. As a veteran, the son of a World War Two veteran, and the grandson of one of the first to enter Dachau, I in no way will apologize for my language towards this hateful group of scum,” Sattgast wrote. “They have their right of speech, but we must exercise ours as well.” . . .
South Dakota political leaders are condemning Nazi demonstrations that happened Saturday in Deadwood and on the Capitol grounds in Pierre.
The state Department of Public Safety said in a news release that a group attempted an unscheduled protest on the Capitol grounds, without a permit. The Highway Patrol asked the group to leave and the march “ended without incident,” according to the news release.
Images and video circulated online of about a dozen people dressed in red and black, with black masks covering their faces, carrying a Nazi flag and unfurling it on the steps of the Capitol. Images also surfaced of a similar march in Deadwood.
On her personal X (formerly Twitter) account, Gov. Kristi Noem wrote, “Nazis are not welcome here in South Dakota.”
“We stand for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” she wrote. “We reject all hatred and Nazis.”
A known neo-Nazi leader, Christopher Pohlhaus, appeared to claim responsibility for the march when he shared Noem’s post on his own X account and said “we occupied your steps for the entire time we intended to be there.” According to the Anti-Defamation League, Pohlhaus is a former Marine turned tattoo artist and leader of the neo-Nazi “Blood Tribe.”
Other South Dakota political leaders also condemned the marches. U.S. Sen. Mike Rounds tweeted, “This is disgusting. This racist behavior has no place in South Dakota or anywhere.” U.S. Rep. Dusty Johnson tweeted of the incident, “This is atrocious.”
The activity is part of a resurgence of in-person demonstrations among white nationalist, neo-Nazi and far-right reactionary groups throughout the country, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center’s latest annual report on hate and extremism.
“For the first time since 2018, these racist activists, who together make up what is known as the white power movement, turned out in droves, holding 191 demonstrations in 2022 and 143 in 2023,” the report says.
Uncles on both sides of my family fought Nazis in World War II; as readers know, one uncle died in the Battle of the Bulge's Malmedy Massacre. I agree with Governor Noem on this one.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.
Back on August 18, 2022, Alycia R. Gruenhagen lost the primary election to be the DFL candidate in Minnesota's Seventh Congressional District, after receiving 41 percent of the vote.
On June 4, the founder Greener Pastures Natural Food Co-op of McLeod County and daughter of climate change denying and homophobic Minnesota State Senator Glenn Gruenhagen, R-Glencoe, filed as a Republican in the United States Senate race. The seat is now held by Amy Klobuchar; the Republican Party of Minnesota endorsed candidate is Royce White.
Perhaps the young Gruenhagen agrees with the Star Tribune Editorial Board that Royce White isn't fit for the U.S. Senate, though in fairness to the content of the editorial copy, it was published on May 30 and mentions only White rival, former Naval officer Joe Fraser.
Gruenhagen, Frasier and White are three of eight Republican candidates in the US Senate primary in Minnesota. Democrats only have five choices.
Who is Alycia Gruenhagen? Bluestem suspects she's totally an apple who fell from her parents' tree.
Attention, Minnesota voters. I have a quick question for you. Who are the two Democratic Party candidates running for Congress from the state's 7th District in next month’s primary? That’s what I thought. You don’t know.
Well, you should know. That’s because one of them is really a Republican. I wouldn’t make that up. . . .
The other candidate is Alycia Gruenhagen, who doesn’t exactly push the Democratic Party agenda. On her candidate Facebook page she proudly claims, “I am a freedom loving, patriotic, pro-life, pro 2nd Amendment conservative Democrat from the heart of Minnesota’s 7th District.”
So, you might be thinking she’s acting like a conservative Democrat in rural Minnesota. Well, then you should know that her father is Republican Minnesota State Rep. Glenn Gruenhagen.
Still not convinced? Then you should take a look at a picture she posted on Instagram where she’s wearing leggings that say, “Make America Great Again.” Nobody looking at that picture will confuse her with Nancy Pelosi.
This isn’t even Gruenhagen’s first time on the Democratic primary ballot. Two years ago, she ran and lost against longtime incumbent Collin Peterson.
“It is very suspicious,” Cronin told me. “I wonder what she’s up to.”
It is baffling. The incumbent member of Congress from the 7th District is Republican and Donald Trump bootlicker Michelle Fischbach. She is heavily favored to win re-election. So, what’s the point of a Republican such as Gruenhagen, hoping to run against the Republican Fischbach in a general election?
I tried to talk to Gruenhagen. I left phone messages for her, but she did not return my calls.
This race has been very low profile, with both candidates having little name recognition. Perhaps that’s what Gruenhagen is counting on. Namely, that voters won’t know either one of them, and so they will arbitrarily vote for her.
Well, I have this crazy theory that it’s a good idea for Democrats to nominate Democrats. I also think that Democrats would want to know if a MAGA Republican is trying to win their party’s nomination. Now, they know. . .
Bluestem congratulates Gruenhagen for finding her way home. I suspect she won't find herself on the ballot in November, regardless of her message to GET ON BOARD UNITE to RESTORE and RENEW America.
Screengrab: Gruenhagen selfie with her sisters, at Grandma Adeline's funeral and interment in April 2022. We're not sure why one would sport a "Vote Republican" political button at a funeral, but hey, free speech.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.
H5N1 Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) has been confirmed in a Benton County dairy herd. Over the weekend the producer noticed clinical signs in only a handful of cows, the next day more than 40 cows had signs of fever. Samples collected from sick cows in the herd on Monday were sent to the University of Minnesota Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory where the virus was detected. The USDA’s National Veterinary Services Laboratories confirmed the results last night. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), pasteurized dairy remains safe to consume.
“We knew it was only a matter of time before this detection would reach our doorstep,” said State Veterinarian, Dr. Brian Hoefs. “It’s important for dairy farmers to follow the example of this herd and test sick cows. The more the animal health community can learn about this virus today through testing and research, the better we can equip ourselves to prevent infections tomorrow.”
Dairy farmers should monitor their herd and contact their veterinarian immediately if cows appear sick. HPAI symptoms in dairy mostly affect late-stage lactating cows and include fever, a drop in milk production, loss of appetite, and changes in manure consistency. No matter the HPAI status of a herd, biosecurity can reduce the risk of disease spreading onto or off farms:
Consider stopping or delaying any cow movements and test for H5N1 before you move animals.
Milk any sick cows last, after your healthy herd.
Keep feed covered and clean up feed spills immediately.
Provide cows a clean source of water kept secure from wildlife, especially waterfowl.
Talk to your herd veterinarian if you notice any signs of illness in your animals.
Dairy farms are always required to dispose of milk from sick animals to remove it from the milk supply. In addition to the affected herd disposing of milk from sick cows and isolating them, the Board quarantined the herd for 30 days to reduce the risk of disease spread off the farm. After 30 days from the last positive test result, the herd can be retested to be released from the quarantine.
The risk to the public from this virus remains low at this time. People who work with or have direct contact with infected animals could be at risk of getting sick. The Board is working closely with the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) on this response. MDH’s role is to monitor the health of people who have direct contact with infected animals and provide public health information and recommendations.
CDC recommends people who work with infected or potentially infected animals wear personal protective equipment (PPE) to help protect themselves from infection. More information is available on CDC’s website. Farmers can request PPE from MDH. Symptoms of avian influenza in people may include cough, sore throat, fever, red/watery eyes or discharge from the eyes. People who have questions can contact MDH at 651-201-5414.
The Board will report any new detections and updates on cow cases in Minnesota on its website. The Board has also seen a recent rise in poultry cases in the state with eight sites positive for the virus in May. Early investigations from some of those sites reveal birds were infected with the same virus strain detected in cows across the country.
...More than 80 dairy herds have been infected with the virus across 11 states since late March, and three dairy workers have tested positive for the virus.
Idaho, Colorado, South Dakota, Kansas, New Mexico, Texas, Michigan, Ohio, Iowa and North Carolina have also confirmed cases of infected dairy herds.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.
At least 14 Republican legislators lost their races against fellow Republicans on Tuesday in the 2024 primary election, with a controversial carbon dioxide pipeline among the top wedge issues to emerge.
Voters also ousted two of the state’s Native American lawmakers (a mother and son), and brought back a Republican who served as speaker of the House until two years ago.
Some of the victors leaned heavily on their opposition to Summit Carbon Solutions’ carbon capture pipeline, a multibillion-dollar project that would collect CO2 from ethanol producers in South Dakota and other states and move it through an underground pipeline for sequestration in North Dakota.
The project has caused more than two years of legal and legislative wrangling over landowner rights and eminent domain, the legal maneuver through which a company can seize property for projects in the public interest.
Some of the losing incumbents endorsed Senate Bill 201’s “Landowner Bill of Rights,” a compromise bill adopted last winter that’s aimed at boosting landowner protections while maintaining a path for the pipeline project. Ethanol boosters have argued that carbon sequestration – and the tax incentives that would make it profitable – is critical to the corn-based fuel’s future in South Dakota. Project opponents are seeking to refer the new law to a public vote in November. . . .
. . . Tordsen’s mother and fellow Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate member, Tamara St. John, R-Sisseton, also came in third place in her race with 28% of the vote, losing to Logan Manhart (38%) and Christopher Reder (34%) in northeastern South Dakota’s District 1. . . .
Republican voters in District 1 endorsed two newcomers in the South Dakota House of Representatives primary race.
Logan Manhart of Aberdeen and Chris Reder of Warner advanced and will face two Democrats in the November general election. . . .
Reder and Manhart were on the ballot for the first time, though Manhart was briefly a legislative candidate in 2022 before facing a residency challenge. St. John has served in the House for the past six years.
Reder described Tuesday’s results as a win for conservative candidates in District 1 and beyond.
“It’s a big deal for two upstarts to beat a three-term incumbent,” he said.
Reder is a Navy veteran and founder and CEO of the DTOM Veterans Ranch in Warner. While big money was spent in some primary races, he said he was the exception in that regard. He said conservative voters spoke loudly Tuesday.
“South Dakota is a conservative state and that showed tonight,” he said.
Manhart said the win was exciting, but the results were unexpected with the number of people who gave Reder and him their support. In the future, he said he hopes to campaign more in Day, Marshall and Roberts counties. . . .
Bluestem doesn't doubt that, since Manhart's campaign Facebook page had made it appear that he was door knocking the snot out of Groton and other small towns in the district.
Readers can listen to Manhart and Reder's response to their primary victories in Hub City Radio's Reactions to 2024 elections.
Fourteen Republican legislators lost races Tuesday in South Dakota’s primary elections against candidates who in most cases weren’t very well known outside their local areas.
Low turnout was also part of the story in some districts, and that amplified a wave of anti-incumbent dissatisfaction among many of the voters who did go to the polls. . . .
One thing they had in common was voting yes on SB201, the 2024 session’s most controversial piece of legislation.
. . .Tuesday’s legislative results also saw a lot of big spending by political action committees in support of the pro-pipeline bloc of candidates, and much of that money went to waste in unsuccessfully attempting to persuade people who for whatever reason didn’t vote. . . .
Fourteen incumbents ousted amid grassroots revolt that could spell leadership changes
As results for South Dakota’s Republican state legislative races began to come in Tuesday evening, the night felt like it had the makings to include at least a few pivotal upsets.
In District 1, incumbent lawmaker Tamara St. John maintained a dwindling lead with her home county reporting fully, and down the road in Watertown, fellow House lawmaker Bryon Callies appeared to be in the fight of his young political life.
Both candidates would go on to lose, and it would only be the beginning of a nightmarish night for the more moderate faction of the state’s Republican Party, including leadership from both the House and Senate. . . .
Across the state, candidates say the number-one issue they heard from constituents was Summit Carbon Solution’s proposed pipeline to move CO2 across eastern South Dakota, and the subsequent Senate Bill 201 giving the company an easier path to move the project forward.
Lawmakers passed the so called “landowner bill of rights” after many amendments and over much consternation, particularly from members representing more rural districts. Interest groups, such as ethanol producers, poured money into key legislative races to attempt to preserve their voting bloc, vastly outspending rival interest groups opposing the pipeline’s construction.
It wasn’t enough, as Republican primary voters rallied around pipeline opponents. . . .
“We’ve got a high level of turnover here,” said University of South Dakota political science professor Michael Card. “There is a lot of ‘new Republicans’ who sided with local governments, and then you had old Republicans who in siding with businesses were going to eviscerate local governments. The farming public really doesn’t like that.” . . .
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.
A majority of voters in three South Dakota counties showed their trust in the state’s current election system Tuesday as they rejected proposed bans on tabulator machines.
The votes were in Gregory, Haakon and Tripp counties. Citizen groups petitioned the measures onto the ballots in an effort to ban vote-counting machines and force a switch to hand counting. The unofficial election results from the Secretary of State’s Office:
Gregory County, 587 votes (54%) against the petition and 509 (46%) in favor.
Haakon County, 276 (61%) against the petition and 177 (39%) in favor.
Tripp County, 734 (57%) against the petition and 553 (43%) in favor.
Nearly 40% of registered voters turned out for the Gregory County primary election. Auditor Julie Bartling is confident the results reflect how all voters across the county would have voted.
“They listened to the pros and cons, and I believe this vote shows they still have confidence in the tabulators and the work we do here in the auditor’s office,” Bartling said Tuesday night. “We’re a small county and we know each other. You just want people to have a sense they can have trust and confidence in me not only as an elected official, but as a neighbor and friend.”
Bartling said she’ll continue to educate Gregory County residents about elections and answer their questions about the process. Tripp County Auditor Barb DeSersa said the result felt like a burden lifted from her shoulders knowing voters “got the facts,” but she doesn’t expect the issue of election security to die down.
“It’s just such a hassle,” DeSersa said. “I’m sure they’ll keep fighting. It’s so much work for my office and my girls, and the stress is just so much. It can be highly frustrating on our end.”
Tripp County had a 37% voter turnout while Haakon had a 34% voter turnout.
Lead petition circulators in the counties said the decisions on the ballot initiatives don’t change their distrust of machine tabulators. Steve McCance, one of the lead petition circulators for the Gregory County petition, said the fire won’t die with Tuesday’s vote.
“We’ve lost a battle,” McCance said, “but the war still goes on as far as the hand count goes.”
Fall River County officials voluntarily chose to hand count ballots, making it the only South Dakota county to do so in Tuesday’s primary. The county’s results began flowing onto the Secretary of State’s website around 11 p.m. Mountain time.
This South Dakota Searchlight article was republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0..
Photo: Workers count ballots using a tabulator during the Sioux Falls city and school board election on April 9, 2024. (Makenzie Huber/South Dakota Searchlight).
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.
More news below from South Dakota Searchlight on another ballot measure. As the article notes South Dakota voters approves legal recrearional marijuana "in 2020, along with the legalization of medical marijuana. But the recreational portion of that ballot measure was challenged in court and invalidated, while medical marijuana legalization proceeded."
A petition that would legalize adult recreational marijuana use in South Dakota has enough signatures from registered voters to be placed on the Nov. 5 ballot, according to the South Dakota Secretary of State’s Office.
The office made the announcement Monday, triggering a 30-day window for challenges to the petition’s validity.
It’s the sixth statewide ballot measure to qualify for the general election, pending potential challenges. Four of the measures are citizen-initiated and two were placed on the ballot by the Legislature.
The marijuana ballot measure would allow people 21 and older to possess, grow, ingest and distribute marijuana and marijuana paraphernalia, with some restrictions. Among those are a possession limit of 2 ounces and a maximum number of six plants per person or 12 per household.
Twenty-four states have legalized recreational marijuana. South Dakota voters approved it in 2020, along with the legalization of medical marijuana. But the recreational portion of that ballot measure was challenged in court and invalidated, while medical marijuana legalization proceeded.
The new measure needed 17,508 signatures from South Dakota registered voters to qualify for the ballot. Based on a random sample, the Secretary of State’s Office estimated that petitioners collected 22,558 valid signatures.
Ballot question status update
Measures placed on the Nov. 5 ballot by the Legislature:
An amendment to the state constitution updating references to certain officeholders and people (replacing male-specific pronouns with neutral language).
An amendment to the state constitution authorizing the state to impose work requirements on certain people who are eligible for expanded Medicaid.
Citizen-proposed measures validated for the ballot, pending potential challenges:
An initiated measure prohibiting state sales taxes on items sold for human consumption, specifically targeting state sales taxes on groceries.
An initiated amendment to the state constitution re-establishing abortion rights.
An initiated amendment to the state constitution establishing open primary elections.
An initiated measure legalizing adult recreational use, possession and distribution of marijuana.
Petition still in circulation:
A proposed referendum of a new law regulating carbon dioxide pipelines (the deadline to submit referendum petitions is June 25).
This South Dakota Searchlight article is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
Photo: Luke Tuttle collects signatures at the Minnehaha County Administration Building on April 18, 2024, for an initiated measure that would let voters decide whether to legalize recreational marijuana in South Dakota. (John Hult/South Dakota Searchlight)
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.
There's yet another amendment measure on the ballot in South Dakota in November: Constitutional Amendment G, which would reverse South Dakota's abortion ban.
A recent poll shows that those queried favored the change.
Scientific survey shows 53% of respondents support Constitutional Amendment G, which would reverse South Dakota's abortion ban. Opponents vow a court challenge.
Support for a 2024 ballot amendment that would enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution is growing, reflected by a nearly 20-point margin between residents who said they are for the measure and those who oppose it, according to a scientific poll co-sponsored by South Dakota News Watch.
The statewide survey of 500 registered voters, also sponsored by the Chiesman Center for Democracy at the University of South Dakota, showed that 53% of respondents support Constitutional Amendment G. If passed, it would reverse a state abortion ban enacted when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. The measure is opposed by 35% of those polled, with 11% undecided.
That’s a big swing from a News Watch poll conducted in November 2023, when 46% of respondents said they were for the measure and 44% were against it.
Perhaps most notable is the fact that 46% of Republicans polled in the most recent survey said they support codifying legal abortion in South Dakota, with 41% opposed and 14% undecided.
Rick Weiland, co-founder of Dakotans for Health, a grassroots organization sponsoring the amendment, said the poll indicates more people are paying attention to an issue seen as one of the key dividing lines in 2024 national and state elections.
“I really believe that more people are tuning in to this,” said Weiland, a former Democratic U.S. House and Senate candidate. “(South Dakota) is operating under one of the most extreme abortion bans in the country, and there’s been a backlash. People want common-sense reproductive health care options in a state where that freedom has been taken away.”
The co-founders of Life Defense Fund, an anti-abortion group formed to provide organized opposition to the amendment, said in a statement to News Watch that more information will lead to shifting opinions on the issue.
"The devil is in the details, and the more people learn that this extreme amendment approves late-term abortion and bans physical health protections for mothers, the more they will reject it," Republican state legislator Jon Hansen and longtime anti-abortion advocate Leslee Unruh said in the statement.
'Complex or confusing language'
Mason-Dixon Polling and Strategy conducted the survey May 10-13. Those interviewed were selected randomly from a telephone-matched state voter registration list that included both landline and cellphone numbers.
Quotas were assigned to reflect voter registration by county. The margin of error is plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.
South Dakota is currently under a 2005 state trigger law activated in June 2022, when the Supreme Court left it up to states to determine reproductive rights with its ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
The law makes it a Class 6 felony for anyone “who administers to any pregnant female or prescribes or procures for any pregnant female” a means for an abortion, except to save the life of the mother. South Dakota is one of 10 states that has banned abortion and does not include exceptions for rape and incest.
The constitutional amendment would prevent the state from regulating abortions during the first trimester (0-13 weeks). During the second trimester (14-26 weeks), the state could regulate the abortion decision, but any regulation must be reasonably related to the physical health of the mother. During the third trimester (27-40 weeks), abortion could be prohibited except if it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the pregnant woman, according to her physician.
The fact that 11% of respondents are still undecided on such a prominent issue could be a sign that voters have questions about specifics of the proposal, said Julia Hellwege, an associate political science professor at USD and incoming director of the Chiesman Center.
"Finding compromise on abortion access rather than strict laws in either direction can make for complex or confusing language," said Hellwege. "For a lot of people as the campaign progresses, the details will matter."
'Closely aligned' with Roe v. Wade
Rep. Hansen has cited a lack of "safety protections" in the amendment such as parental notification, waiting periods and informed consent, adding that the measure's language is “far more extreme than Roe v. Wade itself."
Weiland and others pushed back on that statement by saying the amendment uses the same trimester framework as Roe, the landmark 1973 ruling in which the Supreme Court held that the Constitution protected a woman’s right to an abortion prior to the viability of the fetus.
In South Dakota, before Dobbs and the trigger law, informed consent meant that doctors were required to tell patients that women who undergo abortion procedures could experience depression and suicidal thoughts and that the procedure would “terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being.”
These state restrictions were not permissible under Roe v. Wade.
They were passed after Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a 1992 Supreme Court ruling that upheld the basic tenets of Roe but overturned the trimester framework and used a more flexible standard as to whether state-imposed restrictions were constitutional.
Based on this, supporters can be taken literally when they say South Dakota's abortion amendment is an attempt to codify Roe v. Wade, according to Hannah Haksgaard, a professor at the USD School of Law.
“The proposed amendment is very closely aligned with the original Roe v. Wade framework,” Haksgaard told News Watch in 2023. “The language mimics the trimester framework of Roe v. Wade and nothing in this amendment indicates any abortion rights more extreme than that.”
Data show late-term abortions are rare
Hansen also contends that the amendment, if passed, would allow abortions “up to nine months” because of the measure’s language. After the second trimester, the state would be permitted to prohibit abortion except in cases when a doctor determines it is necessary "to preserve the life or health of the pregnant woman.”
Hansen said that the words “or health” could include mental health, “however severe or however mild,” and that “preserve” means to keep something as it is.
“So the abortion amendment isn’t even about abortion to relieve existing mental health issues,” he wrote on X (formerly Twitter). “The abortion amendment legalizes late-term abortion up to the point of birth if the stated reason is to avoid stress, anxiety, or adjustment issues, however mild, even before these issues ever occur.”
Most states with health exceptions limit those exceptions to physical health concerns such as “serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function” (Arizona, Florida, Ohio, Wyoming, Indiana) or risk of “serious, permanent impairment of a life-sustaining organ” (Kentucky and Louisiana).
No such declaration exists with the proposed amendment in South Dakota, keeping in line with the original Roe wording. Hansen and other anti-abortion advocates view that as problematic.
“We cannot allow abortion through nine months of pregnancy to be written into our state’s founding document,” Hansen said in a video on the Life Defense Fund website. “The results would be completely devastating to life in our state.”
Weiland calls that interpretation a "scare tactic" and notes that late-term procedures occur in very rare circumstances in states where abortion is legal.
Fewer than 1% of U.S. abortions in 2020 took place at 21 weeks or later, compared to 93% up to 13 weeks and 6% at 14-20 weeks, according to abortion surveillance data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Men, women show similar support
There was not much difference between the attitudes of men and women in the most recent poll, with male voters supporting the abortion measure by a margin of 54% to 36% and women supporting it 53% to 35%.
The November 2023 survey showed just 41% of women supporting the measure compared to 50% opposed. Men were in favor by a margin of 51% to 37%.
Weiland said stakes have been raised for South Dakota women because of the 2024 presidential election and the Supreme Court weighing a case involving the accessibility of mifepristone, the primary drug used for medication abortions.
News Watch has reported that several hundred South Dakota residents have traveled to Minnesota for online consultations and prescriptions to terminate pregnancies since South Dakota’s ban went into effect. A crackdown on mail-order abortion pills could close another door for those seeking reproductive health care.
“This is a state that prides itself on touting its freedom and that people should come here to enjoy those freedoms,” said Weiland. “When it comes to being a woman, though, they’ve had 50 years of reproductive health care freedom taken away from them, and I think that resonates with the majority of people.”
Abortion on ballot in other states
Life Defense Fund has worked tirelessly to try to keep the measure from reaching the November ballot, mindful of a national trend of progressive groups using the initiative process to gain ground on abortion rights.
Election wins have come in conservative states such as Ohio, where 57% of voters approved a constitutional amendment in November 2023 that ensured access to abortion and other forms of reproductive health care.
In Kansas, voters overwhelmingly rejected a 2022 constitutional amendment that would have allowed the Republican-led Legislature to tighten restrictions or ban abortion outright, with 59% voting against the amendment.
This year, abortion rights are slated to be on the November ballot in Arizona, Florida, Nevada, Colorado and Nebraska, with petition efforts still under way in a number of other states.
In South Dakota, voters have a track record of rejecting near-total abortion bans at the ballot box.
In 2006, the Legislature passed a law to ban all abortions except those done to save the life of a pregnant woman. The measure was signed by then-Gov. Mike Rounds, but opponents gathered enough signatures to refer it to the ballot, where it was defeated with more than 55% percent of the vote.
Two years later, voters rejected by a margin of 55% to 45% a ballot initiative that would have banned all abortions in the state except in cases of rape or incest or “to preserve the health or life of the woman.”
Certification challenge expected
Dakotans for Health petition circulators occasionally clashed with anti-abortion demonstrators and reached a settlement with Minnehaha County over public access during the signature gathering process.
The group's friction with Hansen and the Life Defense Fund spilled over into the ballot certification process.
On May 16, South Dakota Secretary of State Monae Johnson’s office certified the measure for the Nov. 5 ballot as Amendment G, saying that a random sample showed 46,098 signatures were deemed valid, well over the threshold of 35,017.
Hansen formed a campaign finance committee called South Dakota Petition Integrity that contacted petition signers by phone, asking if they wanted to revoke their signature as allowed by a Hansen-sponsored state law passed this year by the Legislature.
Complaints from call recipients led Johnson to alert law enforcement about a phone scam from callers "claiming they are with the Secretary of State’s office" and "trying to pressure voters into asking that their name be removed from the Abortion Rights petitions."
Hansen denied that callers had claimed to represent the secretary of state's office, and Attorney General Marty Jackley declined to press charges.
But Weiland pointed to the episode as proof of "desperate measures" being used by abortion opponents to try to keep the measure off the ballot.
Hansen has said his group will file a challenge to the certification and that he expects the matter to end up in court. The deadline to file a challenge is June 17.
"We are continuing to review the signatures and will announce a challenge at the appropriate time," Hansen told News Watch.
Young voters supportive of measure
The News Watch/Chiesman poll showed young voters to be most supportive of Amendment G, with 57% of respondents ages 18-34 saying they are for the measure, compared to 39% against. Only one of the age groups (50-64) registered less than majority support, with 49% for the measure and 40% opposed.
Geographically, the most support came from the East River/North region, including cities such as Aberdeen, Brookings and Watertown, with 57% of respondents supporting the measure. That was followed by Sioux Falls Metro at 53% and East River/South and West River both at 52%.
Based on presidential preference for 2024, respondents who said they preferred Democratic President Joe Biden supported the abortion amendment 61% to 28%. Registered voters who support Republican nominee Donald Trump were 53% for the amendment and 42% against it.
Nationally, according to the Pew Research Center, 63% of Americans have said that abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 36% said it should be illegal in all or most cases.
"(Anti-abortion) factions have been very organized and cohesive through the years, with very little compromise on this issue," said Hellwege. "But public attitudes haven't always been as unyielding, which could explain some of the numbers in this poll."
This story was produced by South Dakota News Watch, a nonpartisan, nonprofit news organization. It's reprinted here with the organization's permission.
Photo: Registered voters sign a petition for a constitutional amendment to expand abortion rights in South Dakota at the Minnehaha County Administration Building on May 26, 2023, in Sioux Falls, S.D. The amendment has been certified for the Nov. 5 general election ballot. (Photo: Stu Whitney / South Dakota News Watch)
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.
Now, Jewett focuses on one state's program, while the McCracken article digs into the "big dough" mentioned in the Minnesota Reformer piece. in this case, that big dough is federal level lobbying and campaign contributions. I recommend heading over to the Reformer after reading the investigative reporting below.
In the past 20 years, some meat industry groups tripled political spending as the federal government seeks to change how the sector operates.
Meat industry groups and major meat companies spent more than $10 million on political contributions and lobbying efforts in 2023. For some, last year’s spending was an all-time high.
The federal government has been rolling out changes to the protections given to livestock and poultry producers, as well as how these farmers operate. In turn, these changes prompted various meat companies and industry groups to lobby against certain provisions. In some cases, industry groups backed lawmakers seeking to do away with the new rulings altogether.
The now-finalized updates to the Packers and Stockyard Act include addressing discrimination of livestock and poultry growers based on race, sex, age, or disability from the companies that purchase their animals or pen the contracts by which producers abide. Another update, known as “Transparency in Poultry Grower Contracting and Tournaments,'' requires sharing information between large chicken companies and the independent, contract farmers that raise chickens for consumption.
"We believe that the changes to the Packers and Stockyards Act will bring needed transparency for contract poultry growers as well as clarifying what constitutes retaliation and deception."
R.J. Layher, director of government affairs at the American Farm Bureau Federation
The changes are a step in the right direction to protect producers over businesses, said Mike Stranz, National Farmers Union vice president of advocacy. The National Farmers Union, according to its website, “helps the family farmer address profitability issues and monopolistic practices” and represents 200,000 farmers and ranchers across the country.
“Decades of consolidation and unchecked vertical integration have created a livestock market that tips the scales away from family farmers and ranchers and puts much of the power in the hands of just a few multinational corporations,” Stranz said in a statement provided to Investigate Midwest. “USDA is rebalancing the scale and providing fairness for farmers and ranchers.”
R.J. Layher, the director of government affairs at the American Farm Bureau Federation, said in a statement provided to Investigate Midwest that the prominent agricultural group also supports the changes to the Packers and Stockyards Act. The Farm Bureau is an agricultural advocacy and lobbying organization with more than 2 million members across the country.
“We believe that the changes to the Packers and Stockyards Act will bring needed transparency for contract poultry growers as well as clarifying what constitutes retaliation and deception,” Layher said.
President Joe Biden has made consolidation and anti-monopoly efforts a core tenant of his administration, with the meat industry a primary target. Changes to the 103-year-old Packers and Stockyard Act continue to spark lobbying efforts and political donations to influential federal lawmakers in agriculture and livestock focused states.
Austin Frerick, an agriculture policy expert and author of the book, “Barons: Money, Power, and the Corruption of America’s Food Industry,” said the rise in spending points to meat organizations’ and companies' concerns over the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s changes.
“These slaughterhouses are throwing record amounts of money at politicians right now because they see farmers and voters clamoring for change and they want to stop it,” he said.
Austin Frerick, agriculture policy expert and author of the book, 'Barons: Money, Power, and the Corruption of America’s Food Industry.' photo courtesy of Frerick
Companies and lobbying organizations said their increase in lobbying was directly related to legislation like the Farm Bill as well as addressing specific concerns for individual industries.
Investigate Midwest analyzed two decades of political campaign contributions and lobbying dollars from meat industry groups National Pork Producers Council, National Chicken Council, National Turkey Federation, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, and major meat companies JBS, Tyson Foods, Smithfield Foods, and Cargill.
The National Pork Producers Council, Tyson Foods and Cargill spent the most on lobbying federal lawmakers and agencies last year. The annual revenue reported by industry groups is based on 2022, the most recent public tax filing year.
The National Pork Producers Council:
is headquartered in Des Moines, Iowa, and has local associations in 39 states
reported nearly $20 million in annual revenue in 2022
spent $2.8 million lobbying last year — the largest spend and year-over-year increase seen in any meat group analyzed
increased its lobbying spending three-fold since 2003
has executive members from pork companies Clemens Foods and Smithfield Foods
Tyson Foods:
is the nation’s largest poultry company and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas
reported nearly $53 billion in annual revenues last year
spent $2 million lobbying federal lawmakers and agencies in 2023
has doubled its annual lobbying spending in the past two decades
shuttered eight meatpacking plants in last year, leaving growers with large amounts of debt and few options to pay it of
Cargill, Inc:
is the nation’s largest private company and is headquartered in Wayzata, Minnesota
reported $177 billion in annual revenues last year
spent $1.3 million lobbying federal lawmakers and agencies in 2023
has increased its lobbying spending 106% in the past two decades
In a statement provided to Investigate Midwest, Cargill said the company’s lobbying aligns with business priorities across all of its food and agriculture sectors, not just meat. The company said that it did increase its spending from 2022 to 2023 to focus on major problems facing the sector.
“Looking specifically at the meat industry, our efforts in 2023 focused on critical issues facing the entire industry, not just Cargill, including the Farm Bill, climate, supply chain resiliency and transportation,” the statement said.
The National Pork Producers Council and Tyson Foods did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
Regarding political donations, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the National Turkey Federation and the National Pork Producers Council spent the most last year. The National Pork Producers Council donated nearly $293,000 in donations to federal lawmakers in 2023. (Companies cannot donate directly to politicians. All donations come through political action committees organized by top company officials and employees.)
The National Cattlemen's Beef Association:
is headquartered in Denver Colorado and has offices in Washington, D.C.
reported $55 million in annual revenue in 2022
nearly tripled its political donations in the last two decades and spent $609,000 in 2023
said the USDA’s new Inclusive Competition ruling “fails to give adequate consideration to the severe costs that increased litigation and litigation risk will impose on the beef industry”
The National Turkey Federation:
is headquartered in Washington, D.C.
Reported a much smaller annual revenue than its peers at $3 million in 2022
spent an organizational record $308,500 in political donations in 2023
tripled its political spending in the past two decades
has leadership from poultry companies Butterball, Tyson, Jennie-O Turkey, and Cargill
urged the USDA to not include turkey growers in its final “Transparency in Poultry Grower Contracting and Tournaments” rule, even though the turkey and chicken industries use similar payment systems
“Turkey farmers and others who work in the industry are actively engaged in (the National Turkey Federation)’s legislative efforts, and support for the PAC has increased as a result,” National Turkey Federation communications manager Laycee Gibson told Investigate Midwest in an email. “With increased contributions over the years, the PAC has been able to allocate more funds to address the needs and issues of the industry.”
The National Cattlemen's Beef Association did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
While these industry groups and companies represent individual meat producers and products, they often work in tandem on major issues facing the entire industry. For example, the Pork Producers Council has advocated on behalf of the poultry industry when the USDA introduced changes to how poultry companies pay contract growers.
Sarah Bryner, OpenSecrets’ director of research and strategy, said increased spending on lobbying often correlates with specific legislation, such as the Farm Bill or updates to the Packers and Stockyard Act.
“If they're spending more, they're probably hiring more, or more expensive, lobbying firms to represent them,” Bryner said.
Which lawmakers benefited from industry money?
Federal lawmakers in major agricultural states have raked in hundreds of thousands of dollars in industry campaign donations over the past 20 years. And industry support transcends partisan lines.
Rep. Jim Costa, a Democratic Congressman from California, received nearly $400,000 from all of the meat industry groups and corporations analyzed from 2004 to 2023. Costa — a ranking member of the House Committee on Agriculture’s Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Subcommittee — topped the list for these three organizations. His office did not respond to a request for comment.
And of all the meat industry groups and corporations analyzed, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the National Turkey Federation and the National Pork Producers Council have had the largest increase in political spending over the past two decades, according to an Investigate Midwest analysis of Federal Election Commission data.
In Midwestern states, the top five recipients of industry money in the past 20 years are:
Rep. Frank Lucas, a Republican Congressman from Oklahoma and the longest-serving member of the House Committee on Agriculture ($265,495)
Rep. Adrian Smith, a Republican Congressman from Nebraska ($237,864)
Rep. Collin Peterson, a former Democratic Congressman from Minnesota, who lost re-election in 2020 and recently began lobbying on agriculture issues ($232,545)
Rep. Sam Graves, a Republican Congressman from Missouri ($177,399)
Rep. Roy Blunt, a former Republican Congressman from Missouri, who retired in 2023 ($166,866)
In the past 20 years, Smith received more than $80,000 from the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. Lucas received nearly $67,000.
Smith also received $60,000 from the National Pork Producers Council over the two-decade period, the second-highest in that time. The pork organization also donated large sums to representatives in major pork states such as North Carolina and Iowa.
In late 2023, when the USDA introduced its final language for the Transparency in Poultry Grower Contracting and Tournaments ruling, numerous members of Congress wrote a letter to the agency, asking for an extension of the public comment period as well as scrutinizing the agency’s plans to update the ruling. Congressmen Lucas, Smith, Graves, and Costa signed onto the letter.
Representatives Lucas, Smith, Graves, and Blunt did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
Former Minnesota Rep. Peterson received the second-highest amount of money from the National Turkey Federation. Other major contributions from the Turkey Federation include $53,000 to Rep. Steve Womack, a Republican Congressman from Arkansas and co-chair of the U.S. Congressional Chicken Caucus.
Peterson said he received his donations from industry groups because he was the chair of the House’s Agriculture Committee. He also told Investigate Midwest he received donations from meatpackers and poultry groups because of his work in his home state during the 2015 avian flu pandemic, as well as efforts to reopen meatpacking plants during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
“My door was always open whether they had given me any money or not,” he said.
Death of a rider
In 2024, Congress is up against finalizing a long-overdue Farm Bill, a presidential election year and its annual allocation of federal dollars to agency budgets.
While federal lawmakers were trying to finalize budgets for agencies from the USDA to the Food and Drug Administration earlier this year, an effort to quash all updates to the Packers and Stockyard Act was circulating in the nation’s capital.
A subcommittee of Congress members is responsible for proposing the USDA’s budget. The Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration Appropriations Subcommittee is a majority-Republican group of 15 people, from Iowa to California.
In May 2023, Rep. Andy Harris, a Maryland Republican and subcommittee chairperson, introduced an appropriations bill that included language meant to nix all enforcement of the USDA’s new poultry transparency ruling.
Rep. Andy Harris, a Maryland Republican and Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration Appropriations Subcommittee chairperson, introduced an appropriations bill that included language meant to remove all enforcement of the USDA’s new poultry transparency ruling. photo courtesy of Harris' office.
The bill failed, but as final negotiations began on Capitol Hill in late February, the language was resurrected as a potential policy rider — an amendment to legislation often added to larger bill packages to pass controversial items — into the USDA appropriations bill.
A section of the failed bill from 2023 said none of the funds made available by the bill could be used to “implement or enforce” three separate issues being addressed by the USDA’s Packers and Stockyards Division:
The now-finalized Transparency in Poultry Grower Contracting and Tournaments rule
Future USDA rulemaking to tackle problems in the poultry industry’s tournament system
Proposed Packers and Stockyards Act revisions that would encourage competition in the meatpacking industry and penalize anti-competitive behavior
Harris received more than $24,000 from meat industry organizations in 2023, a career-high for the congressman. (Harris added a policy rider with similar language during the annual budgeting sessions for the USDA in 2016.) His office did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
As the federal government inched closer to a March 1 deadline this year to finalize the appropriations bill, agriculture reform advocates and elected officials began to sound the alarm that this language made its way back into budget negotiations, said Jordan Treakle, the policy coordinator for the National Family Farm Coalition, an advocacy organization that works with farmers, ranchers and rural communities.
“We are strongly opposed to this recurring policy rider and don’t feel that it reflects the interests and needs of the family farmers and poultry growers that we represent, and feed our communities everyday,” Treakle said.
Senators Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican, and Jon Tester, a Montana Democrat, also published a joint letter to their fellow senators on Feb. 20, urging them to reject any policy riders that would prevent the USDA from enforcing regulations that prevent meatpacking companies from continuing to fix prices and make record profits.
“They want to abuse their market power to pay producers less and charge consumers more,” the senators wrote.
The policy rider was not included in the USDA’s final budget this year.
The meat industry is the closest we have to a criminal organization in modern day American business and the USDA just seems incompetent to deal with them.”
Austin Frerick, agriculture policy expert and author of the book, 'Barons: Money, Power, and the Corruption of America’s Food Industry'
Attempts to delay or dismantle new USDA rulings meant to provide fairness and transparency in the meat industry are not new.
In December 2023, members of the Congressional and Senate Chicken Caucuses wrote the USDA to request that the agency delay implementing the poultry transparency rule, stating that the agency’s impending rule “dramatically underestimated” the necessary time and people needed to update current contracts between farmers and meatpacking companies.
The National Chicken Council also sent a similar letter to USDA in December.
In response to the request to delay the final rule implementation, USDA spokesperson Allan Rodriguez told Investigate Midwest that poultry growers have long waited for basic transparency needed to avoid deception from major corporations. He said the agency made the proposal rule available to the public for more than a year, and the final language was available for 100 days between its announcement and implementation.
Reform of meat industry regulation has been nearly 20 years in the making.
The 2008 Farm Bill included language tasking the USDA to revitalize its enforcement carried out by the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration — or GIPSA —, which enforces the Packers and Stockyards Act and is responsible for enforcing rules and regulations in meat and grain markets.
In 2010, the USDA proposed regulations that would increase contract transparency for poultry and swine farmers, a decision commonly referred to as the “GIPSA rule.” Before the regulations were finalized, Congress prohibited USDA from implementing its final recommendations. This lasted until 2015, with policy riders that suppressed the release of the final rule.
GIPSA was allowed to draft and propose a finalized rule in the 2016 appropriations process. When then-President Donald Trump took office, his administration threw out all new GIPSA rules changes.
Now, despite the Biden administration’s work to tackle consolidation and power in the meat industry, farmers and agricultural reform advocates have become increasingly frustrated with the pace of new regulations from the USDA and Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack.
Frerick, author of “Barons,” is among those frustrated.
“The meat industry is the closest we have to a criminal organization in modern day American business and the USDA just seems incompetent to deal with them,” Frerick said. “It’s allowing them to keep engaging in these incredibly abusive practices to both our workers and farmers.”
He said there was a heavy sense of deja vu this year when it came to fights over policy riders and meat industry monopolies influencing legislation.
“The meat industry has so much money and power,” Frerick said. “It's going to win in the darkness.”
This article first appeared on Investigate Midwest and is republished here under a Creative Commons license. The above copy was obtained via the site's Clipboard feature. The code for some very groovy interactive graphs in the story about lobbying and campaign contributions from 2004-2023 that were created with Datawrapper became unreadable in the paste, so go to the article to have that experience.
Investigate Midwest is an independent, nonprofit newsroom. Our mission is to serve the public interest by exposing dangerous and costly practices of influential agricultural corporations and institutions through in-depth and data-driven investigative journalism. Visit us online at www.investigatemidwest.org.
Photo: USDA Supervisory Agricultural Meat Graders at the annual national beef correlation event, Aug. 13, 2019. In 2019, the top four beef packers — Tyson Foods, JBS, Cargill Beef and National Beef — processed around three quarters of the nation’s beef in 27 facilities across the nation. photo by Preston Keres, USDA via Investigate Midwest.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.
On Tuesday, when voters in three counties decide whether to ban tabulator machines in future elections, it will be the culmination of a statewide citizen group’s multi-year movement to switch South Dakota elections to hand counting.
The votes – in Gregory, Haakon and Tripp counties – were forced by citizen-initiated petitions. Proponents of the ban claim that tabulator machines lack transparency, that election officials are breaking a state law that dictates where ballots can be counted, and that hand counting ballots is cheaper than machine counting. County auditors — the elected officials who oversee local elections — say machine counting is accurate, transparent and more efficient, and they worry a switch to hand counting could be more expensive.
Whatever the outcome, members of the South Dakota Canvassing Group plan to continue their push for hand counting.
“There’s a fire going here and will not be going out soon,” said Steve McCance, one of the lead petitioners for the Gregory County ballot question.
The nonprofit organization is part of a nationwide movement that started after the 2020 election, motivated in part by claims that the election was “stolen” from former president Donald Trump. Trump filed more than 60 lawsuits contesting either the election or the way it was administered. None of the cases succeeded, and he’s currently under criminal prosecution for allegedly attempting to subvert the election.
Polling by South Dakota News Watch and the Chiesman Center for Democracy shows that 67% of South Dakota voters accept the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, but only 20% are “very confident” that American election results reflect the will of the people.
Robert Tate, one of Tripp County’s lead petitioners, said it’s important that Americans have confidence in elections.
“If we elect an elected official and he’s not doing a good job, then we complain about him for four years and then we can vote him out,” Tate said. “But if we don’t have confidence in our elections and then our governor or our president isn’t doing a good job, we complain about how they stole the election. We don’t want that. That’s not good. ”
Several tabulator ban petitions were circulated at the county level across the state earlier this year, with some counties — including Lawrence, McPherson and Charles Mix counties — rejecting them. Officials in some counties said the petitions could conflict with federal election requirements, according to their legal counsel.
Push for hand counting focused on transparency
Aside from concerns about accuracy, South Dakota Canvassing President Jessica Pollema said the group is dedicated to transparency.
“The elections belong to the people, but they’ve been contracted out to a third party that’s blacked out an audit trail. People don’t trust that,” Pollema said. “Once there’s full transparency, people will possibly be able to trust the system again.”
Whatever the outcome, members of the South Dakota Canvassing Group plan to continue their push for hand counting.
“There’s a fire going here and will not be going out soon,” said Steve McCance, one of the lead petitioners for the Gregory County ballot question.
The nonprofit organization is part of a nationwide movement that started after the 2020 election, motivated in part by claims that the election was “stolen” from former president Donald Trump. Trump filed more than 60 lawsuits contesting either the election or the way it was administered. None of the cases succeeded, and he’s currently under criminal prosecution for allegedly attempting to subvert the election.
Polling by South Dakota News Watch and the Chiesman Center for Democracy shows that 67% of South Dakota voters accept the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, but only 20% are “very confident” that American election results reflect the will of the people.
South Dakota county auditors contract with Election Systems and Software, known as ES&S, a national company based in Omaha, to lease and operate tabulator machines. The company “doesn’t sign an oath,” Pollema said, and the group’s members have not been able to audit the system themselves through public records requests.
Tate said he and other members of South Dakota Canvassing asked for cast vote records and were told they “did not exist.” Activists nationwide requested such records.
A cast vote record is the electronic representation of how a voter voted (without personally identifying information), which is not a public record in the state and is only able to be produced with certain software in a few counties, officials said.
Will Adler is the associate director of the Elections Project with the Bipartisan Policy Center, which advocates for election policy reform approved by a task force of election officials aiming to make elections more secure, fair and trustworthy.
Adler said allowing cast vote records and images of marked ballots to be public records would “improve transparency a lot.” Two bills introduced during the 2024 legislative session that would have made cast vote records public — one introduced by the Secretary of State’s Office and one by Sen. Tom Piscke, R-Dell Rapids — failed to pass out of committee.
“In general, that’s a more promising avenue to move towards that would allow members of the public to understand why they can trust the tabulations,” Adler said.
State law allows for several forms of transparency in elections, including the use of poll watchers to observe the election process and public test runs of tabulators before each election to check for accuracy. Petitioners in Tripp County held a hand counting seminar the same day as the county’s tabulator test on May 30.
In 2023, the South Dakota Legislature addressed transparency by passing a bill to require post-election audits. County auditors must randomly audit at least 5% of ballots cast in voting precincts after the primary and general elections. South Dakota was one of the last few states to implement audits.
Some counties have decided to audit more than the required 5% after the primary, including Tripp, Haakon and Gregory counties.
Adler said post-election audits are a step in the right direction, though he said some other states are implementing “risk limiting audits,” which can change the audit amount based on the closeness of the race.
“This allows you to have really high confidence in a really efficient way and leveraging that human insight,” Adler said. “That allows you to have quick tabulation and quick comprehensive audits.”
“I plan and prepare for the worst, but I work for the best outcome,” Pinney said.
The worst case scenario, for Pinney, is that it could take up to 15 hours for paid election workers to count the ballots, making mistakes and having to recount. County commissioners set election worker rates at the beginning of an election year. Precinct workers are required to be paid, according to state law.
The three county auditors’ estimated budgets for machine counting vs. hand counting vary, depending on how long it could take workers to count ballots. At their quickest possible pace, hand counting would be cheapest, though auditors don’t expect that.
“Honestly, we know it would never take just an hour,” said Tripp County Auditor Barb DeSersa. “Some precincts are larger than others, so it’s hard to judge how many hours it would take. It also depends on the voter turnout.”
South Dakota implemented machine tabulators in the early 2000s. Mark Nelson, one of the lead petitioners in Haakon County, was an election worker over 40 years ago and said hand counting back then “wasn’t that difficult.”
But even if it is more expensive to hand count, that money stays within the county by paying residents rather than an out-of-state corporation, said South Dakota Canvassing’s Pollema.
Pollema said hand counting can be cheaper, especially if using a specific kind of tally sheet that her group has determined can be used to count 250 ballots per hour with up to 11 races on one ballot with a trained team.
Adler said that even if auditors used the tally sheet South Dakota Canvassing Group is proposing, hand counting could still have a higher risk of error and costs.
“Regardless of how you implement it, the fact is humans are extremely bad at repetitive tasks like counting ballots,” Adler said, referencing studies on human error in different industries. “I think there’s just no way around it.”
Tripp County hand counted ballots for the 2022 election. DeSersa was awake for 40 hours straight between Election Day and the day after, with a significant amount of that time supervising hand-counters. Several races had to be recounted, sometimes three or four times that night.
Group alleges elected officials breaking law
Pollema and petitioners also claim that ballots must be counted within the precinct boundaries where they were cast, and doing otherwise is unlawful. But that statute only refers to hand counting ballots, not tabulating, said Sara Frankenstein, a Rapid City lawyer who specializes in election law.
“Ballots absolutely can and are required to be taken to the central location the county auditor deems,” Frankenstein said, referring to elections that include tabulator machines. “So they aren’t doing anything illegal by following those very laws.”
Whether the bans pass or not, South Dakota Canvassing will continue pushing for hand-counted elections, attending state Board of Elections meetings and supporting legislative efforts that align with their values, Pollema said.
“The people need to have the government under their watchful eye. That’s why we’re in this mess,” Pollema said. “We’ve been a little apathetic to our approach of watching our government. Now the people realize what’s going on and have decided to participate at all levels.”
This South Dakota Searchlight article is republished under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
Photo: Workers count ballots using a tabulator during the Sioux Falls city and school board election on April 9, 2024. (Makenzie Huber/South Dakota Searchlight)
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.
In South Dakota, state house members are elected at large in our senate districts, unlike the custom in Minnesota, where each state senate district.
In Senate District 1, home to Bluestem Prairie's world headquarters, three candidates are seeking the two Republican spots in the November general election. News reports suggest that a major issue in the election is legislation passed this past session to help Summit Carbon Solutions' ethanol carbon pipeline.
Three Republicans are seeking two spots on the November ballot when they meet in the District 1 House primary on June 4.
The top two vote getters will advance to the general election and face Democrats Dana Pulfrey of Claremont and Steven McCleerey of Sisseton. Two of those four candidates will serve two-year terms in Pierre.
Logan Manhart, 25, of Aberdeen; Tamara St. John, 57, of Sisseton; and Chris Reder, 51, of Warner; square off in the GOP House primary. . . .
Different takes on Senate Bill 201
No topic has garnered more attention during this election season than Senate Bill 201, a measure signed into law during the 2024 legislative session. It’s been described as a “Landowner Bill of Rights.”
Not everybody appreciates that phasing, though, and there’s a move to refer 201 to a statewide vote in November.
The bill was designed to help allow Summit Carbon Solutions‘ proposed carbon capture pipeline while establishing some protections.
Reder and Manhart describe themselves as advocates for property rights in their opposition to SB 201.
“I’m pro property rights and against risky CO2 pipelines,” Manhart said, noting the topic is personal because his in-laws near Leola were sued by Summit, a case that was related to Summit’s original proposed route.
Summit is in the process of revising its route as it plans to resubmit a construction permit application to the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission.
“My concern is the removal of local control,” Reder said of SB 201.
South Dakota legislators talk about the importance of local control, he said, but that wasn’t the case with 201 and he questions why.
The bill largely overrides county zoning and siting authority. That power is instead given to the PUC.
Reder said he also worries about pipeline safety and cited a 2020 pipeline rupture in Satartia, Miss., as a prime example why.
That incident showed the challenges with emergency response efforts, and Reder wonders if electric vehicles would need to respond to pipeline leaks. He also worries about how a potential leak would affect animals in low-lying areas and the trained therapy horses at the veterans ranch near Warner.
St. John said the pipeline question is too complex to have a simple yes or no answer and that she doesn’t know any legislators who have taken the pipeline proposal lightly.
As a member of the Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate, she said she has sympathy for anyone who might have land taken from them as part of the Summit project.
“All of these things that surround the pipeline are really complicated bills and it’s hard to convey if you’re a yes or no,” she said.
St. John said she voted in favor of SB 201 because of the landowner protections it includes. She said she worries about what would happen were the pipeline to move forward without those regulations, though she also knows the final version of 201 didn’t satisfy people on either side of the issue. She said her support of the bill also doesn’t mean she backs the pipeline.
“What caught my attention and (the attention of) those within my district was aviation fuel and ethanol and what it means for the area,” she said.
Summit and ethanol officials have said sustainable aviation fuel projects will follow the pipeline.
If voters decide to repeal 201, she feels legislators will once again field bills related to the topic. Eminent domain reform is another issue legislators will be tackling again in the near future, she said. . . .
Read the rest of the article at the Aberdeen Insider.
One incumbent and two challengers are running in Tuesday’s primary election be the District 1 Republican candidates in November. District 1 includes Marshall, Day and Roberts Counties and a portion of Brown County. . . .
In the Republican District 1 House primary, Tamara St. John of Sisseton is seeking reelection to a two-year term. Challengers Logan Manhart, Aberdeen, and Chris Reder, Warner, are also running in the primary. Republican incumbent Joe Donnell, Sisseton, is not seeking reelection.
Both Manhart and Reder focus on the CO2 pipeline in their answers:
What sets you apart from your fellow candidates? ‘ LM: I do not support Eminent Domain for private gain, nor do I support Risky C02 pipelines. Not everyone in this race holds the same view. I am also pro local law enforcement, and am Socially Conservative.
CR: Some of the main things that separates myself from the incumbent is Property Rights, complete and total refusal for Eminent Domain for Private Gain, I have a perfect score on the Family Values Dakota Voter Survey, I also question the voting of the $135 million budget increase. Our families are hurting more than ever but year after year there is no cutting, only more and more spending. I also have an A Rating with the NRA.
TSJ: I’m the only incumbent in this race who has introduced, passed, and got legislation signed into law. I’m also the only female, Native American, lifelong resident with the deepest roots in our District. I’m the only incumbent who is NRA endorsed (A rated), 100% right to life, earned the “Conservative Achievement” award for my voting record, and so much more. I have nothing bad to say about either of my opponents and I appreciate their willingness to run and possibly serve. Two of us three will move on to the general election and possibly go on to serve next session in Pierre. It’s not an easy job and it takes a lot of communication, consultation, and engagement with people you may disagree with in order to be effective. I’m proud of the open, honest, and authentic record I’ve established in always going about things with respect, yet never wavering on my principles or the promises I’ve made to my fellow neighbors in District 1.
If elected, what would be your number one priority and how would you address it? LM: Protecting Private Property rights and standing against Risky C02 Pipelines. I would support any bill that would allow Farmers to protect their lands from private companies putting C02 Pipelines on their property if they do not want it.
CR: Property Rights is a HUGE issue in the State of South Dakota right now and needs to be fixed immediately. This “Landowner Bill of Rights” is a complete travesty and total disinformation. Quite simply removing local control and allowing a private company to forcefully take a property owner’s land is flat out wrong. We in SD are allowing a precedent to be set that will NOT stop with just this co2 pipeline. What is next? Your house in town for a hotel? Any property is up for sale in SD to any private company, this in not just a rural problem, this is an entire state of South Dakota problem. This will fundamentally change the entire Foundation of this wonderful state if we don’t take a stand!
TSJ: You never know what’s going to be the biggest topics of discussion in Pierre session after session, but one piece that needs further discussion is property taxes in South Dakota. Unfortunately, this issue of rising property taxes keeps climbing without any relief in sight. It doesn’t just impact homeowners either. Those who are renting apartments or homes are stuck facing increasing rent prices and rising costs of living too. Luckily, there’s a summer study that is focusing on this very issue and I’ll do what I can to help advocate for a responsible solution to this growing problem. . ..
District 1 campaign finance reports largely routine
District 1 candidate Chris Reder’s financial report was routine. No individual contributions topped $300, and in-state PACs contributed $5,850 to his campaign with all but $100 coming from Dennert’s Honest Leadership PAC.
All pre-primary campaign finance reports are available through the South Dakota Secretary of State's SD Campaign Finance Reproting Service Home. I've embedded the documents here for readers' convenience.
Logan Manhart’s report showed $17,017 in contributions of more than $100 from individuals, the largest of which is $3,130 from Grant and Marcia Manhart.
He also received $5,050 from Protect South Dakota Property Rights, an in-state PAC.
St. John’s filing listed $950 in individual donations as well as $12,625 from in-state PACs, including from the Dusty PAC, South Dakota Ethanol Producers PAC and MORT PAC. That’s the political action committee of House Majority Leader Will Mortenson.
Waltman and Goss didn't note two direct contributions from entities in St. John's report, both of which are connected to the ethanol industry and the pipeline discussion. Poet LLC of Sioux Falls contributed $500, as did GSG Strategies of Pierre (page 2 of PDF). In December 2023, Carrie Stadheim reported for Tri-State Livestock News in South Dakota Ag Alliance Launched:
Two business colleagues are working together to achieve a consensus in the state regarding carbon pipelines.
Jason Glodt is an attorney from Pierre who lobbied on behalf of Navigator, which is a proposed carbon capture pipeline project that was denied a permit by the South Dakota PUC. Rob Skjonsberg is a Jones and Stanley County cow-calf producer, staff member for Senator Rounds (R-SD) and founding board member for South Dakota Landowner & Outfitter Alliance. The two men work together at GSG Strategies, a public relations advocacy firm. On Nov. 30, 2023, the two announced their intent to create a coalition to mediate solutions for “rural development issues, such as the controversial C02 pipeline proposal.”
According to a news release, the two have launched “South Dakota Ag Alliance” to work on issues such as carbon pipeline issues. . . .
In regard to CO2 pipelines, the organization will urge the legislature to establish landowner guardrails that include 1) land survey reform; 2) liability protection; 3) minimum depth of carbon-capture pipelines; and 4) additional recurring compensation for landowners. In exchange for these concessions, they will also support improving legal and regulatory certainty for businesses, said the news release. . . .
Most of the action in Tuesday’s South Dakota primary election is in Republican legislative races, where a fight for control of the party has drawn in players ranging from upstart challengers to fundraising groups affiliated with members of Congress.
There are 44 Republican legislative primary races across the state, and only one Democratic legislative primary. Winners will go on to represent the party in the Nov. 5 general election, when all 105 seats in the Legislature will be up for grabs.
Republicans currently hold all but 11 of 105 legislative seats, and their grip on the majority is not in doubt. But the party’s direction could be influenced by Tuesday’s results, many of which will be the final result. Among 35 districts, 16 of them lack general election contests for House seats and 20 lack general election contests for Senate seats, due to candidates running unopposed or one party (mostly Democrats) failing to field a candidate. In other words, in some districts, the primary election is the de facto general election. . . .
Go to the Searchlight to read the article, which doesn't mention the District 1 Republican primary but is nonetheless a fascinating read.
The winners of the Republican primaries will face off against Democrats Dana Pulfrey of Claremont and Steven McCleerey of Sisseton. McCleerey has prior service in the legislature.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.
Recent Comments