South Dakota Politics

Republicans know Senate post is ripe for the picking

The latest in the Capital Journal.Here's a snippet: 

South Dakota is one of several states where Republicans are competitive, if not likely, to pick up a seat in the U.S. Senate. There are as many as a dozen seats currently being held by Democrats that are at least plausible pick-ups. In some cases, as in South Dakota, the Republican candidate is a clear favorite.

Why this GOP advantage? Partially it is timing. The 2008 election, spurred by Barack Obama, sent many Democrats into office. Democratic Senators elected that year are now up for re-election. Because of that 2008 success, Democrats now have more seats to defend.

Also, the Obama coattails in 2008 brought some marginal Democrats into office. In states such as North Carolina, Alaska, and Arkansas, Democrats won in normally “red” Republican states. Without Obama on the ticket in 2014, to say nothing of the president’s decline in popularity, these marginal Democrats find themselves imperiled.

Only sensible campaign finance reform is more, not less, political liberty

My latest in the Capital Journal.  The mandatory snippet:

South Dakota Democrat Senate candidate Rick Weiland has denounced the McCutcheon decision saying it “may be the worst decision made by any Supreme Court since the Dred Scott case reaffirmed slavery in 1857.” This is absurd. I can easily come up with at least half a dozen cases clearly more heinous than McCutcheon. For example, 1896’s Plessy v. Ferguson decision in which the Court put its stamp of approval on racial segregation.

Mr. Weiland has made campaign finance reform central to his campaign. His campaign website says “the first bill” he will introduce will allow Congress to “regulate the raising and spending of money with respect to federal elections.” This is a broad grant of power to Congress to limit political speech. It certainly seems odd that the first thing this prairie progressive wants to do is to restrict money in politics by reducing our free speech rights.

Mr. Wieland is also a fierce opponent of the related Citizens United decision from 2010. In that case the government’s own lawyer, who defended Mr. Wieland’s position, admitted in oral argument that using the government’s logic the government could ban political books and films. This is not a “pro-democracy” position.