In my Sunday story about the Bosworth campaign, you’ll recall that the campaign’s first advertising firm, SSC, says that it is owed more than $20,000 for commercials and graphics it produced. The firm has refused to release several commercials to the campaign until the debt is settled.
The campaign acknowledges the debt on campaign finance filings, but Bosworth said they won’t pay until the firm completes its work.
So there you have the dispute.
SSC’s Douglas Brown is understandably not happy to have received an email from the campaign asking him to “volunteer.” Obviously, it was a mass email sent out to the Bosworth email list.
My name is Daniel and I am working with the Bosworth Campaign to help spread the good word.
Thank you for registering to volunteer on our campaign website. We are looking for engaged volunteers to help us spread the word about Dr. Bosworth’s inspiring campaign.
If you are interested in volunteering please respond to this e-mail.
Looking forward to working with you!
Annette Bosworth, MD for U.S. Senate
Here is Brown’s response:
This is my second notice to you! Please take my name off of your list and do not contact me unless you plan to pay your outstanding debt to SSC. I personally want nothing to do with the Bosworth Campaign.
The Bosworth campaign owes my company SSC over 20K for ad work. To date, we have not received any payment for our work. The campaign continues to use our images, logo design and intellectual property agains our demands.
Please remove all images, graphic design and intellectual property from the campaign website. This include the logo design, photography and any intellectual content provided by SSC to the campaign.
All of this comes as Madville Times reports that DCI is interviewing people about the raffles that were never held, and Dakota War College is reporting about income tax liens filed against Bosworth in Utah.
The fine people over at the parks and rec department sent out a press release this morning that says the city’s six ice rinks are shutting down for the season on Sunday because of “warm weather.”
Maybe the parks and rec department is vacationing in Palm Springs right now. It’s currently -4 right now, according to my trusty Weather Channel app. It’s going to be really warm tomorrow, at 24. Then Saturday a high of 0, followed by another high of 0 on Sunday, the day the ice rinks close because of warm weather.
Indeed, in the entire 10-day outlook, the high temperature doesn’t break the freezing mark once.
Is it warm weather? Or is it an unwillingness to spend money to keep the ice rinks open?
UPDATE: The city has sent out another press release announcing the season-ending closures. This time the release doesn’t give a reason. Must not have been in the park and rec budget to go beyond the first weekend of March.
Here’s an entertaining email I received last night regarding my Sunday profile of Dr. Annette Bosworth and the financial controversies surrounding her Senate campaign:
My Dear fellow American,
why why why the dirt on Anatte Bosworth? Why the shit slinging, why do you choose her as your target? Are you jealous of her, thats what the article in the Sunday paper reminded me of, shit slinging jealousy.
You make me want to get drunk, but waite I dont drink anymore, thanks to Dr. Anatte Bosworth!! So I will have to do some thing else to get my mind of of your stupidity.I’m telling you dude pick a different target, cause Anatte has the Good Lord on her side, so you wont get far with your war your trying to start.!! Very Truly Yours,
The long strange trip of Senate Bill 114 continued today as the Senate passed the bill by a 23-11 vote. The bill would establish a license that would enable in-state and out-of-state wineries to mail wine into the state. Currently, South Dakota is one of 10 states that doesn’t permit wine to be delivered by mail.
The bill started out in Senate Commerce and Energy, where it deadlocked on a 3-3 vote on Feb. 11 because Sen. Dan Lederman was not present. So the committee voted 4-2 to send it to the full Senate without a recommendation.
The Senate sent it back to the committee, and with Sen. Lederman back, it appeared that it was doomed. The bill failed 3-4 on a motion to do-pass. That meant it was one motion away from being killed, but Sen. Ryan Maher made a motion to send the bill over to the Appropriations Committee. Maher’s motion passed 4-3.
The bill emerged from Appropriations on a 5-3 vote on Friday.
It’s had an unorthodox journey through the process so far. Now it’s off to the House.
I got a message this morning from a reliable politico who told me he received a robocall this morning attacking Rep. Jim Bolin, a third-term Republican from Canton.
The robocall took issue with Bolin for “standing with Obama” and supporting a measure that would strip gun rights from those deemed mentally ill.
I emailed Bolin to find out what he knew about it. Here’s his response:
I am a co-sponsor of a bill that is supported by the NRA and would have the state report to a federal registry those who are judged by a court to be criminally insane and a potential harm to themselves. They would then not be able to get a firearm. Some folks think this is a bad thing and because I am a co-sponsor of the bill, I am being attacked. The only reason I signed on was because Gosch, Don Kopp and Charlie Hoffman, all big A +++++ guys with the NRA. That is all I know.
Here’s a link to the bill.
If you live in Sioux Falls and you’re registered to vote, you probably got a letter from an organization called Building a Better Sioux Falls Inc. over the weekend The group is supporting a ballot measure to have a new Walmart built at 85th and Minnesota, which is going to be on the April ballot because residents near the site don’t want the Walmart and collected enough signatures to force a vote.
Building a Better Sioux Falls is a ballot question committee. It has reported receiving two donations in its first campaign finance report. One, an unitemized donation of $100. The other comes from Walmart. For $250,000.
That would be a lot of money for a statewide race in South Dakota. I bet the Democratic candidate for governor raises less.
For a citywide race, $250,000 is lavish. It’s going to be huge in what it will buy.
In other words, that mailer that went out last week, that’s going to be the first of many.
I’m guessing Walmart could have won without spending a cent. But this shows that the retailing giant is leaving nothing to chance.
During yesterday’s debate on whether South Dakotans should be allowed to order wine by mail, Sen. Tim Begalka had an interesting riff on why he was voting against the measure. Begalka, a Republican from Clear Lake, came across as utterly flabbergasted by recent trips to a couple of liquor stores as he researched the issue.
“I’ve visited two liquor stores in the last couple of weeks, specifically to see – one in Pierre and one in Huron on my way home. And I was amazed – because I don’t visit liquor stores that often – the hundreds of different brands of wines that are available on the shelf. It was the whole isle, both sides, top to bottom. Hundreds of different varieties of wine.
“I don’t know why in the world anybody would want to order one online and get something else, anyway. I mean, have you tried all those already? I don’t think we need to promote any more wine consumption in South Dakota. I think we have plenty of opportunities already, so I really don’t think this is necessary.”
A couple of observations here. First, Begalka won a controversial Republican primary in 2012 as the Tea Party candidate. The Tea Party is a different animal, depending on where you go. I’ve long maintained that self-identified Tea Party types from South Dakota are interested in limiting government in some areas, and expanding it in other areas. In some places, the Tea Party is more interested in economic issues. Here, many Tea Party advocates focus on social issues.
Begalka is more interested in keeping a government sponsored monopoly in place than he is in expanding the freedom of individuals to buy a bottle of wine.
Now, imagine if the subject was firearms. During recent gun control debates, we’ve heard the same argument Begalka makes to limit wine purchases that gun control supporters make: Why would you need to buy an AR-15 when you can buy a shotgun or another type of rifle?
I wonder how Begalka would feel if there was a proposal to further limit the ability of South Dakotans to purchase firearms on the Internet? After all, you can go down to the local gun shop and choose from hundreds of different firearms. Why would you need to order one?
It’s a reminder that those who preach for limited government aren’t always interested in limited government.
A bill that would make it legal for South Dakotans to order wine by mail cleared its first hurdle on Tuesday. Barely.
Senate Bill 114 establishes a licensing system through which in and out-of-state wineries can legally send residents wine by mail. South Dakota is one of 10 states that do not allow direct shipping of wine, according to the Wine Institute.
The bill deadlocked on a 3-3 vote in the Senate Commerce Committee with one senator, Dan Lederman, excused. The committee then voted 4-2 to send it to the Senate floor without a recommendation.
Similar bills have come up in past legislative sessions, only to be voted down amid fierce opposition from alcohol distributors, retailers and others. The opposition showed up again Tuesday.
Jeremiah M. Murphy, a lobbyist for Republic National Distributing Co., said the bill discriminates against existing South Dakota businesses that sell alcohol in the way that they are taxed and pay taxes. He said the bill would “stick it to South Dakota businesses” in favor of California wineries.
Brett Kooima, the chief financial officer for Cask & Cork Distributing, said his company already works with nearly 400 businesses statewide to identify unique wines and then bring them to the state.
“This is why we exist,” he said.
Heather Taylor Boysen, the owner of Good Spirits Fine Wine & Liquor, said that direct shipment of wine to consumers would harm her business because wineries would sell at a lower price than she could sell at retail. She also said that some wineries are already shipping into the state, despite that being illegal.
But supporters of the bill, including its sponsor, Sen. Corey Brown, R-Gettysburg, noted that South Dakota is the only state in the Midwest that doesn’t allow wine to be shipped directly to consumers.
The bill would require wineries to ensure that people making purchases are 21 or older at the point of sale, and it requires them to show ID when the product is delivered. Jeff Carroll, a vice president of software firm ShipCompliant, testified that his company helps hundreds of wineries verify the addresses and ages of people buying wines that are shipped to forty states and the District of Columbia.
Matt Keck, the owner of Prairie Berry Winery in Hill City, said his winery can ship to customers in other states, but not in South Dakota. He also said that he wouldn’t support a bill that hurt alcohol distributors, because distributors are critical to his winery.
Dianna Miller, who represented South Dakotans for Better Wine Laws, said the bills would give consumers a choice over a monopoly system run by wholesalers.
“I’m asking you to weigh the individual citizens and the choice they would like to make,” she said.
The House Judiciary Committee has advanced a bill that would strip local governments of the authority to impose texting-while-driving bans.
Instead, House Bill 1177 would replace local texting bans in seven South Dakota cities with a statewide ban. However, unlike the bans that already exist in the cities, the statewide ban would be a secondary offense, and not a primary offense. That means under the legislation, motorists couldn’t be ticketed for texting and driving unless they are pulled over for some other offense.
The most controversial section of the bill would no longer allow local governments to impose harsher bans. Rep. Christine Erickson, a Sioux Falls Republican, attempted to have that provision removed from the law, which would have allowed cities to have texting bans that were primary offenses. She was supported by another Sioux Falls Republican, Rep. Anne Hajek.
"If the cities don’t want to have it as a primary offense, they don’t have to," she said.
But the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Brian Gosch, argued that motorists need uniformity when they travel from one community to the next.
"We don’t allow local governments to change the helmet law," he said. "We don’t allow local governments to change the seat belt law."
Erickson’s amendment failed.
Rep. Timothy Johns, R-Lead, supported the bill, equating the issue to seat belt use. At first, Johns said he fought the seat belt requirement.
"I just didn’t like the government telling me what to do," he said. "But now, I don’t feel safe getting into a vehicle without putting one on."
Yvonne Taylor, the executive director of the South Dakota Municipal League, supported, most of the bill, but she asked lawmakers to remove the section that stripped cities of authority to enact tougher bans, calling it a “terrible precedent.”