**Update 2018.05.31 14:28 CDT: As noted below by a sharp-eyed commenter, there appear to be two “Citizens for a Strong America” in the political world, and the one attacking Krebs is not the Koch-y Wisconsin PAC I initially thought it was. Seth Tupper of the Rapid City Journal provides this explanation:
Citizens for a Strong America Inc., which lists an address in Charlotte, N.C., has been mistaken — including by the Krebs campaign — for a politically active nonprofit of the same name in Wisconsin that has been led by a man with ties to the billionaire Koch Brothers. But although the two organizations share a name, there is no apparent connection between them, and their missions do not align: the Wisconsin group has supported conservative Republican causes and candidates and has opposed Democrats, while No Labels has preached political moderation and worked with people of all political persuasions [Seth Tupper, “Super PAC Attack on Krebs Has Ties to ‘No Labels’ Movement,” Rapid City Journal, updated 2018.05.29].
I have corrected the headline and text below to reflect Tupper’s new information.
Somebody is working far too hard to beat Shantel Krebs:
Citizens for a Strong America appears to have spent $26,077.31 to put this card in a Brookings mailbox and several others this week. The addressee left the recipient address twelve years ago, so Citizens for a Strong America should probably buy a better mailing list. CfSA can afford it: at the end of April, they reported $1.7 million in cash on hand. They spent $37,235.25 to attack Shantel Krebs as a tax-and-spy liberal in another exaggerated card last week, one of eleven mailers on federal candidates they’ve reported so far this month.
CfSA, not to be confused with a group in Wisconsin spawned by the Tea Party movement in 2010, appears to have no big donors from South Dakota. Their treasurer, Ruth Rochelle Stoner, now files the dark-money group’s FEC reports from Charlotte, North Carolina.
We should review the sources cited on this dark-money card:
1. SDLRC, 2008 HB 1250, vote 54-14, 2/5/2018
- Joe Kafka, “House Approves Increase in Legislative Pay,” AP, 2/5/2008
Yes, then-Rep. Shantel Krebs voted in 2008 for an ultimately rejected bill to raise legislator pay from $6,000 to $8,000 per Session. So did her colleagues in the House Kristi Noem, Larry Rhoden, Tom Brunner, and even arch-conservative Gordon Howie. Marty Jackley should quickly repurpose this card for some last-minute fun against Noem in the gubernatorial race. Rhoden and Brunner voted to raise and index legislator pay this year (see HB 1311, which passed!), as did my Senator Al Novstrup.
But the attack misses the point: as we discussed during this year’s debate on legislator pay, our legislators had been stuck at $6,000 since 1998. We may not like specific legislators, but in general, compensation for legislating needs to keep up with inflation just like compensation for other jobs, or we’ll see a decline in interest and talent in that job.
Plus, the CfSA card gets the chronology wrong: it says Krebs voted for higher taxes, then voted to raise her pay, but the tax hikes cited next came after the 2008 legislator-pay vote.
2. SDLRC, 2013 SB 115, vote 30–5, 2/5/2013
- Bob Mercer, “Governor to Legislators: Fertilizer Tax Hike Stinks,” RCJ, 3/20/2013
- Bob Mercer, “Legislation Could Lead to New SD Brand-Inspection Fee,” AAN, 1/24/2013
Yes, then-Senator Krebs voted to raise the commercial fertilizer inspection fee to support fertilizer research, as did now-SDGOP chairman Dan Lederman, Larry Rhoden, Bob Ewing, Jeff Monroe, and (there he is again!) Al Novstrup. Governor Daugaard vetoed that measure, and that veto stuck. Krebs also voted with Rhoden and Ewing for 2013 SB 16, a measure authorizing the Brand Board to establish a service fee, in committee, but then joined a unanimous Senate in tabling the bill the following week.
3. SDLRC, 2009 HB 1007, vote 57–12, 2/24/2009
- Jonathan Ellis, “Higher Fee a Path to Better Roads,” that Sioux Falls paper, 12/30/2008
- Jonathan Ellis, “Roads Drive Push to Hike Gas Tax,”that Sioux Falls paper, 12/27/2009
Krebs supported raising road taxes in 2009. So did Kristi Noem, Dan Lederman, Charlie Hoffman, and David Novstrup. (Larry Rhoden and David’s dad Al voted to table this one.)
The 2009 road tax push stalled; the Legislature took until 2015 to work up the courage to fill some potholes and brace some bridges with that year’s $85-million road tax hike., which was supported by—yup!—Al Novstrup.
- Jenny Michael, “Retailers May Be Compensated for Collecting Sales Tax,” AP 3/1/2006
Remarkably, CfSA attacks Krebs here for voting for a tax break for businesses. 2006 HB 1110, prime-sponsored by Krebs, gave anyone who properly collects sales tax a 1.5% credit, capped at $70 per month. Governor Rounds vetoed it, but Krebs and her colleagues overrode that veto. Also voting for this tax break were Tom Brunner, Gordon Howie, Lee Schoenbeck, Jerry Apa, and Al Novstrup.
The address side of the card shouts that Krebs “repeatedly raised taxes on others while raising her own taxpayer-funded salary.” That sentence, based on the sources provided, is incorrect. She did not raise her salary in the Legislature, and she did not raise any of the taxes cited in this card. The only measure cited in this card that became law was a tax credit to businesses that collect sales tax.
Why this out-of-state PAC has such a bee in its bonnet about Krebs is anyone’s guess. Such attacks are usually reserved for the frontrunner, and unless CfSA has newer intel than its obsolete mailing list, I find it unlikely that she’s on top. Besides, if CfSA really wants to push this attack line, it only invites similar attacks on other RINOs on South Dakota’s ballot:
In a three way primary who is the PAC paying for these attack cards supporting?
Good question, Nick! I have a tough time imagining Dusty going this route. He knows he can beat Shantel honestly. No one supporting Dusty would go this route… because I’ll bet they would be the same mainstream Republicans who would admit that, yeah, we need to fund our roads, pay for Brand Board operations, and maybe even raise legislator pay to keep up with inflation. Dusty wouldn’t get traction with a rabid, deceptive Tea Party group like CfSA. They must be backing Tapio, who will exaggerate and fabricate about Muslims as surely as these honyockers are exaggerating about Krebs.
My thoughts also. Apparently Tapio considers Krebs a bigger threat to his base than Johnson is.
This just goes to show that Mr. Tapio and Ms. Noem are both sighted short and are fighting over the actual minority of voters in this election who are insaner than most. Mr. Johnson 61%, Mr. Tapio 21%, Ms. Krebs 18%.
But incredibly, Dusty adopted this attack on Krebs in last night’s debate! Maybe there’s a tighter race between Dusty and Shantel than we imagine!
The conclusions in the comments about the PAC supporting Tapio are incorrect. They are made because the supposition of the CfSA in the article itself is incorrect.
My own previous research led me to strongly doubt that the current CfSA is connected to a previous PAC of the same name.
This CfSA appears to be a subsidiary of No Labels, which targets ideological extremists and supports moderates who would work to find compromises before being obstructionists.
After reading this article, I found a RCJ article supporting my conclusion:
“Citizens for a Strong America Inc., which lists an address in Charlotte, N.C., has been mistaken — including by the Krebs campaign — for a politically active nonprofit of the same name in Wisconsin that has been led by a man with ties to the billionaire Koch Brothers. But although the two organizations share a name, there is no apparent connection between them, and their missions do not align: the Wisconsin group has supported conservative Republican causes and candidates and has opposed Democrats, while No Labels has preached political moderation and worked with people of all political persuasions.”
http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/super-pac-attack-on-krebs-has-ties-to-no-labels/article_d908ad17-1253-5e60-b7eb-ac90e8dd2f14.html
That’s very interesting, Joshua. Thank you for that correcting material. That new interpretation makes Dusty’s resort to the same attack line make sense.