When Kristi Noem says “I’m all in,” she means her money is all in.
In September, Rep. Kristi Noem said she opposed Initiated Measure 22, the Anti-Corruption Act, because “We shouldn’t be taking advice from out of state special interest groups when it comes to using our tax dollars and changing our election laws, which is why I oppose Measure 22.”
She left out the other 1.9 million reasons she opposed the campaign finance reform measure passed by voters last week. Jonathan Ellis confirms that the new campaign finance limits of IM22 have flushed our Congresswoman out into the field of gubernatorial fire:
Although she didn’t say it, Noem’s decision to run for governor was forced by a ballot issue that voters approved last week. Initiated Measure 22, which becomes law on Wednesday, contains a provision barring candidates for governor from collecting more than $4,000 a year from any person or political committee.
Once effective, the language would mean that Noem couldn’t transfer more than $4,000 from her congressional campaign account to an account for a governor’s run. Under current law, federal office holders can transfer all of their money into a state account.
For Noem, that would mean forfeiting a huge advantage: Prior to Tuesday’s election, her congressional campaign was reporting nearly $1.9 million in the bank, an amount that would make her a formidable candidate in the Republican primary [Jonathan Ellis, “Noem Announces Historic Bid for Governor,” that Sioux Falls paper, 2016.11.14].
For forty years, the Supreme Court has held that money is speech, so it seems fair to suggest that campaign money is also “advice”. If Rep. Noem really doesn’t want out-of-state interests advising us on South Dakota politics, then she surely will only transfer $706K of her $1.9M campaign kitty to her new gubernatorial campaign committee, since that’s the trackable amount (72% of her itemized individual contributions, 2% of her PAC contributions, 34% of that combined $2.1M haul) that came from South Dakota donors.
Read that again: for every dollar Noem raised from South Dakotans, she raised two dollars from the out-of-state special interest groups that she cites as enough reason to check No on your ballot.
So if Noem transfers more than $706K to her gubernatorial campaign fund (and I’m being generous, allowing her to claim that she spent her out-of-state money on her latest run for Congressional figurehead first and saved all the South Dakota money for just this rainy day), she falls to her own criterion for voting against her on November 6, 2018.
Sad part is Kristi maybe the best option. Hopefully a better option arrives in a timely manners
She specifically says “Here in South Dakota, we know what’s best for our state. We shouldn’t be taking advice from out of state special interest groups when it comes to using our tax dollars and changing our election laws, which is why I oppose Measure 22.”
This seems very specific to IM 22, and not politics in general. She is clearly contrasting the views of South Dakotans versus the views of non-South Dakotans, specifically when it comes to changing elections laws.
It is fair to think that she is open to the advice/money of special interest groups in other regards, and that it is a bit ridiculous to paint this as a either/or fallacy (she is either all for taking money in ever circumstance, or she is completely against taking money; oh look, she said no to money here, and yes to money there, therefore she is going against her word!)
But bonus points for once again choosing an unflattering screen grab of Noem. Pots shots where you can take them, eh? Why not use an official photo from the state website?
https://sdsos.gov/elections-voting/assets/kristi_noem.png
She will be a real force in Congress over the next two years, wont she.
It will not make any difference how much money she can raise, she will not win in the primary.
Mike R, I believe you misspelled farce in congress. Fixed it for you.
(she is either all for taking money in ever circumstance, or she is completely against taking money; oh look, she said no to money here, and yes to money there, therefore she is going against her word!
I believe this is what might be called situational ethics or lack of same.
If the young lady is breaking the law or not following the rules, then I expect Mr. H will file a complaint somewhere. Otherwise, she must be following the law. So, what is it they say? Tough noogies? I’m sure that’s a libbie term I’m spelling wrong.
Joe, I choose this screen shot because the closed eyes reinforce the point I’m making: Noem’s selective attention to principle to reinforce her selfish interests. She says she doesn’t like out-of-state influence that pushes laws that inconvenience her campaign financing, but she doesn’t mind taking out-of-state money so she can use taxpayer money and change laws. She retools her language to say she opposes making a career of Congress to avoid sounding like a hypocrite on the more conventional complaint about making a career of politics. Don’t look at principles, says Kristi, just look at me!
Tom Lawrence on Kristi Noem: ” but she never seemed entirely comfortable in Washington, D.C. She slept in her office and came home every chance she got. Can you name a bill she sponsored, a speech she delivered, something she accomplished?”
Heard more than one person say she stays on message because she has never had an original thought. Pretty and on message is tough to beat when there isn’t a media to test her or keep her honest.
David Newquist, there was that one trip to China with her BFF disgraced and corrupt congress critter out of Illinois…she looked like she was having fun being a tourist. Oh sorry, she was there to shed her in depth insights on foreign policy, the global economy and human rights. I must have missed her follow up reports. Although her BFF didn’t fare so well after getting his pic taken with his SD girlfriend.
The quote Newquist spotlights from Lawrence backs my portrayal of a Congresswoman with her eyes closed.
Jana, I agree we need more media engagement. Political coverage from our TV, radio, and newspapers seems to consist mostly of handing our elected leaders the mic and letting them talk.