The Lake County Dems spent their account down to $138.86. Time for more fundraising!

The Lake County Dems didn’t get anyone to run for their local District 8 Legislative seats, so they have some room to help friends around the state. But it seems unusual that they would single out one Legislative candidate, Joseph Zweifel in District 12, with a donation that matches their other top donation to gubernatorial candidate Dan Ahlers. They gave $250 to three of the other statewide candidates—Frank Kloucek, Terrence Davis, and Margaret Kuipers—but ignored statewide Democratic candidates Tom Cool and Raeann Mettler.

But at least the Lake County Democrats are supporting Democratic candidates. The Lake County Republicans raised a little less money than their Democratic neighbors, $5,470 in the pre-general reporting period, but they didn’t give one penny of that cash to candidates in Lake County or anywhere else. Instead, they took $1,230 from seven statewide candidates (three of whom, Monae Johnson, Jon Hansen, and Austin Hoffman, didn’t win nomination in June) and spent $3,958.09 on their Lincoln Day Dinner back on April 8. In other words, the Lake County Republicans haven’t spent any money to support their candidates in the general election. They are just sitting on $3,300.70 in the bank.

But go ahead, LCGOP chair Ken Meyer and treasurer Heather DeVries. Leave that money right there in the bank. That’s good political strategy.

We interviewed one of the candidates running for the District 12 Senate seat. Two candidates are running for this seat: Republican Kari Shanard-Koenders and Democrat Joe Zweifel.

…We reached out to each of the candidates for an interview. Koenders responded, but Zweifel did not. Here are Koender’s answers to the questions asked [Quinn Gienapp, “Koenders Weighs in for District 12 Senate Seat,” KELO-TV, 2026.10.21].

Zweifel could sure use some free publicity, since he apparently can barely afford to buy any. His pre-general campaign finance report shows he’s raised only $3,531 ($1,500 of that from the Lake County Democrats—thank you, friends!) and spent only $968.69 on printing, postage, and advertising. His Republican opponent has raised $25,185 and spent $23,054.86 to sell voters on her candidacy. When you’re getting outspent by a factor of 24 (heck, even when you can compete on campaign finance), you take every call you get from a reporter who will put you on the air.

And Shanard-Koenders set herself up for easy rebuttal. Consider her namby-pamb about civility and common-sense:

“I feel it’s gotten a little stickier these days and maybe not so kind and not so common-sense,” Koenders said. “I just thought I could inject some common sense and some civility into the process, and thought the legislature could use some of my leadership skills as well as the medical side of things” [Gienapp, 2026.10.21].

“Not so kind and not so common-sense”? Gee, Kari, that sounds like the guy your party put in the White House. Will your injection of civility include telling people that Donald Trump is a mean old man who ought to show more respect to lawmakers, reporters, and allies?

Amidst her mostly useless fluff and professions of ignorance, Shanard-Koenders took only one clear policy position, showing she’ll flack for Big Tech billionaires:

Koenders said that the guardrails in place are helpful for controlling data centers locally. She expressed that moratoriums should not be put in place, instead seeing how the state can use the centers, while also ensuring there are no negative impacts on citizens.

“I don’t believe in moratoriums. I think we kicked the can down the road too much with the moratorium,” Koenders said. “I would like to see us do what we can. First of all, we need data centers in this nation, and we need them in South Dakota to hold our data. It’s a big concept to consider all of what goes into a big building and data center and what comes out of it. I think the noise reduction, making sure there’s no noise, making sure there’s no overuse of the water, and making sure there’s no overuse of the electricity so that residents get charged” [Gienapp, 2026.10.21].

Oh! Shanard-Koenders gave Zweifel the perfect set-up to talk about his alliance with a coalition of Democratic legislators who will take a much firmer stand against data centers and defend local governments’ right to ban them. But Zweifel didn’t answer the reporter’s call, so he leaves the floor and the headline all to his opponent.

Hoffman said he had never seen a fire erupt from a turbine before and that the damage from the blaze completely destroyed the turbine.

“One of the blades was on fire, and the whole generator up there was burnt,” Hoffman said [Quinn Gienapp, “‘Completely Destroyed’; Highmore Turbine Fire a Rarity,” KELO-TV, 2026.10.21].

Nobody died, human, bovine, or otherwise. Chief Hoffman couldn’t say what caused the fire, but remember: the stuff that burns in a wind turbine is the oil that lubricates the parts inside. And keep some perspective: had this been an oil refinery fire or spill, we’d have had toxic carcinogens all over Hyde County, evacuations, and long-term health hazards.

“Oil and gas industry failures tend to be pretty mundane, but anytime something goes wrong with renewable energy, people just become incensed,” the Alliance for Affordable Energy’s Jackson Voss said in a phone interview. “Oil and gas is either not treated with that same level of concern or is treated as if it’s overblown.”

…“If a wind turbine breaks down, there’s a small possibility someone gets hurt … but when an oil and gas spill happens, it’s a real potential public health hazard,” Voss said. “Often, it’s many times more expensive to address and requires years of mitigation” [Wesley Muller, “The Stark Differences Between Wind and Oil Industry Accidents,” Louisiana Illuminator, 2024.08.06].

Wind energy causes fewer deaths per terawatt-hour of electricity generated than any fossil fuel source. Even dams are slightly more dangerous than wind turbines. The only energy sources less lethal than wind turbines are nuclear and solar:

But despite the relative risks, America’s destroyer-in-chief is urging the United Kingdom to tear down its North Sea wind turbines and drill for more oil. Trump yesterday declared that imported wind turbine parts threaten national security but didn’t order any new tariffs on wind-energy gear.

Baxter has rallied 63 donors to chip in more than $100, including fellow radicals Steve and Mary Haugaard ($500), Florence Thompson ($500), Julie and Mike Mueller ($125), Joel and Tonchi Weaver ($200), Janet Jensen ($150), Tony Kayser ($8,000), Al Novstrup ($200), Julie Auch ($300), and the Mission/Winner/Valentine Assmans (Mike: $4,000; Darla: $4,000; Greg & Cindy: $1,000; Chris & Cathy: $1,000).

Davis reports 65 donations of greater than $100; he just doesn’t have as many four-figure donations as Baxter. I do not see a check from his headline Republican endorser, incumbent Secretary of State Monae Johnson (and it is fitting that the election chief not be giving money to any candidates whose petitions and votes she certifies), but David has secured the $250 endorsement of De Knudson and another $1,000 from either De or her husband, former Republican legislator David Knudson. Davis also snagged $1,000 from conservative Sioux Falls mega-donor Matthew Paulson.

Both candidates have widespread party support. Baxter reports $13,475.13 from 19 county-level GOP groups, $1278.31 from three in-state Republican PACs (including $750 from the Freedom Caucus cranks), and $3,374.51 from eight right-wing candidate PACs (most odiously $649.51 from outgoing District 5 Rep. Josephine Garcia from Watertown and $500 from unfortunately unchallenged District 13 Senator Sue Peterson from Sioux Falls). Most grossly, Baxter took a donation of yard signs worth $1,736.79 from radical election-denier Rick Weible of Elkton.

Davis reports $4,425 from 10 Democratic County parties and $2,500 from the state Democratic Party. (The South Dakota Republican Party hasn’t donated anything to any candidates.) Davis has drawn another $4,400 from three South Dakota PACs: $1,000 from the Democratic Forum of Southeast Dakota, $1,000 from the non-partisan Change Agents, and Sarah Meagher’s Sioux Falls-based Everyday People PAC, which formed this year and has used money from prominent Democratic lawyer Scott Heidepriem, former Republican legislator James Wangsness, and Sioux Falls cannabis op Genesis Farms to fund Davis and unsuccessful Democratic candidate for Sioux Falls mayor Jamie Smith. Davis also availed himself of $2,500 in donated digital advertising from Democratic candidate for State Treasurer Margaret Kuipers.

On paper, I’d argue that Baxter has deployed her money much more effectively. Baxter spent all of the money she raised this reporting period and more from pre-primary, while Davis spent only a third of what he took in. Baxter reports spending $49,930.64, nearly 59% of her pre-general expenditures, on advertising, and only $9,485.75, 11% of her outgo, on “consulting”, the fun catch-all category we use for paying campaign staff and advisors. Davis reports spending only $3,500 on advertising, less than 19% of his $18,443.09 in expenditures. Davis burned 66% of his cash, $12,155, on political strategists and his campaign manager Ngoc Thach. I would think those strategists would have advised Davis that the best strategy is to flip those ratios: do like Baxter and spend a majority of your money on advertising and a much smaller fraction on salaries. Spend your money reaching the people who need to hear your name, the voters!

Davis’s pre-general report also shows no travel spending, while Baxter has spent $6,841.04 on travel.

Davis had better be planning to spend all of the $57,582.72 he let moulder in the bank on a big last-weeks ad blitz—signs in yards in every county, bouncy slogans and promises up and down the radio dial, and some ominous “Heather’s a wingnut!” blasts on Youtube—and a big noisy roadtrip to any place where he can find crowds to address and doors to knock, or Baxter is going to advertise and outwork him on her way to ruining South Dakota’s election management.

The only Libertarian candidate for statewide office, Tamara Lesnar from Grenville, reports raising $90 for her campaign for Secretary of State, lending herself $331.58, and spending $274.18—$95.58 on printing and $178.60 reimbursing someone at the IRS rate of 76 cents per mile for traveling (apparently) 235 miles, which is maybe a trip from Grenville to the State Fair in Huron and back.

The only other Libertarian appearing on any general election ballot in South Dakota this year, District 11 House candidate Tracey Quint, appears not to have even filed a statement of organization for a campaign committee, let alone any information about actual campaign financial activity. Under SDCL 12-27-3, Quint’s statement of organization should have been submitted by May 19, 15 days after her nomination was filed with the Secretary of State.

To paraphrase Citizens United, money talks. According to campaign finance reports, South Dakota’s Libertarian Party isn’t talking much… certainly not enough to be considered a serious political entity.

Mercer’s excellent crystallization of the state of Legislative campaign finance allows us to see at a glance how the unusually high number of independent candidates are doing relative to their partisan opponents. Of the eleven independents included in Mercer’s report, three have raised and spent five-figure sums.

The biggest independent spender is Joe Flood from Manderson. Flood has raised $81,029 and spent $72,263 on his bid for District 27 House. But Flood is no Brian Bengs bringing in money from lots of enthusiastic donors. Flood’s pre-general filing shows that he’s fueling his campaign with $70K of his own money and $5K from his mom in Massachusetts. I have no problem with money from moms or Massachusetts; I’m just pointing out that Flood’s rock-star fundraising and spending, the highest in any race listed by Mercer for any candidate of any party (the only candidate close is Republican Representative Taylor Rehfeldt of Sioux Falls with $69,913 raised and $45,582 spent), is not a result of a groundswell of support but an effort to buy that groundswell.

Flood is swamping his four District 27 opponents. Incumbent Rep. Liz May from Kyle raised only $1,100 and spent only $500 from the end of May to the middle of this month, but she, like Flood, reports over $7,000 in cash on hand. The three independents in the race are worse off: Elizabeth Lone Eagle  from Kyle got four contributions totaling $600 but couldn’t figure out anything to do with that money, while Evangeline Poor Bear from Pine Ridge and Jay Yohner from Martin reported zero money in and zero money out. Money isn’t everything, but if you’re not getting people to back your campaign with cash and spending that money on at least a few signs and buttons and flyers, you’re not fulfilling your obligation to get out and educate and mobilize the electorate.

The second-biggest-money independent is District 8 House candidate Clint Hoyer from Winfred, who has raised $23,405 and spent $19,680 to challenge Republican incumbent Senator Casey Crabtree from Madison, who raised $33,500 and spent $40,073 pre-general. Like Flood, Hoyer has gotten the majority of his money, $14K, from in-house, in this case from family member Jane Hoyer. But unlike Flood, Hoyer has received over $9,400 from a respectable array of in-district rural neighbors. Hoyer has thus raised more money from outside his own and his family pockets than any other independent Legislative candidate…

…except for Bryan Breitling of Dell Rapids, who is actually a stalwart Republican looking to take the District 25 Senate seat back from the angry-dad/nutbar wing of the SDGOP. Breitling raised $37,925 and spent $21,591 pre-general. None of that money appears to have come out of his family pockets. Instead, Breitling fielded donations from a whole slew of the top-line GOP donors—Lee Schoenbeck, Robert Fouberg, Senator Michael Rohl, Jim Thares, Kevin Schieffer, Jeff Erickson, Scott Stern, Kim Malsom Rysdon, Matt Michels, Charlie Hoffman (hey! at least one right-wing wild man in the establishment crowd!)—as well as a glittering array of establishment PAC money—ethanol, healthcare, contractors, retailers, PAC’n Heat, and the personal PACs of Dusty Johnson and Dennis Daugaard. Breitling’s poor Republican opponent, Bart Sample, raised $9,550 and spent $4,135. Bart’s wife Cassandra loaned him $900. Sample raised a handful of local money, got $2,050 from the Moody and Davison County GOPs, and drew $4,750 from whackadoodle PACs Liberty Tree, SD Freedom Caucus, and The People First.

The other independents are lagging in fundraising and spending. Democratic and apparently Republican defector Peri Pourier has raised and spent less her Democratic and Republican opponents in the District 27 Senate race. Sam Froehlke is at the bottom of the four-candidate heap in the District 4 House race (where Democrat Emelia Enquist outraised Republicans Fred Deutsch and Ryan Kohl pre-general!). Neal Tapio is nowhere near his two Republican opponents in the District 5 House race. Garrett Heinz is behind Republicans Dick Werner and incumbent Spencer Gosch in the low-cash-energy District 23 House race. And everybody is outraising and outspending sam Hare Jr. in the District 32 House race.

For the most part, the eleven independent Legislative candidates show that absent deep personal pockets and connections with a party apparatus, it’s hard to assemble the resources to wage a competitive campaign.

Kevin Abourezk reports in Indian Country Today that the Trump/Musk slashing of federal programs cut $469 million in grants and contracts for tribal communities. Abourezk’s source, a new Brookings Institution analysis, finds that Trump and Musk took $19.6 million away from South Dakota’s tribes out of $29.9 million the federal government had already committed to paying.

Compared to all 50 states, South Dakota lost the tenth-highest raw dollar amount and the fifth-highest share of obligated funds. No adjoining states’ tribal residents were hit harder by Trump’s cuts than South Dakota’s.

These cuts violated our fundamental treaty obligations and any trust the tribes might have placed in our federal government:

Last year, Mark Macarro, president of the National Congress of American Indians, said about DOGE: “They need to know, come up to speed real quick, on what treaty rights and trust responsibility means.”  Wizipan Garriott, the Interior Department’s former principal deputy assistant secretary of Indian Affairs, told Tribal Business News that the cuts created “a lot of confusion on multiple levels” as to whether trust obligations will be honored. And as Louise Matson, executive director of the Division of Indian Work in Minneapolis, described it: “You don’t know when or if future payments will keep your programs alive.”

The violations of trust and treaty obligations go beyond funding. For example, DOGE’s actions have also undermined Tribes’ treaty-bound hunting and fishing rights. Among the offices DOGE targeted was a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service office that provides the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho with technical and scientific support for wildlife management on their reservation land. In an interview with High Country News, Wes Martel, who served on the Eastern Shoshone Business Council and was the chairman of the Tribe’s Fish and Game Committee, said that in light of DOGE’s actions, “Most of the trust relationship we’re talking about doesn’t exist, especially now” [Robert Maxim, Glencora Haskins, Mary Elizabeth Campbell, and Ryan Williams, “DOGE’s Impact in Indian Country: Nearly $470 Million in Lost Funding,” Brookings Institution, 2026.10.16 ].

And those treaty violations weren’t mere collateral damage in Trump’s war on everyone who doesn’t golf with him or inflate his cryptocoin. Trump and Musk very deliberately targeted Indian Country, flagging programs with “tribal” in their descriptions more than any other keyword:

The numbers tell a stark story. Of the 2,999 federal grant programs tracked across dozens of government websites between January 20 and May 30, 2025, nearly a quarter were canceled, representing one of the largest systematic reductions in federal grant funding in recent history.

…Perhaps most revealing is what the canceled programs contained. An analysis of program descriptions uncovered 3,138 instances of 105 different terms that appear to have been flagged for scrutiny. The patterns provide insight into the ideological framework driving the cancellations.

Most Frequently Flagged Terms in Canceled Programs:

1. “Tribal”: 381 instances (31% of programs containing the word)
2. “Institutional”: 182 instances (14.4% or programs)
3. “Diverse”: 173 instances (18% of programs)
4. “Diversity”: 173 instances (15% of programs)
5. “Women”: 171 instances (10.2% of programs)
6. “Underserved”: 167 instances (15% of programs)
7. “Equity”: 162 instances (15.1% of programs)
8. “Underrepresented”: 123 instances (12.8% of programs)

The presence of terms like “tribal,” “diversity,” “equity,” and “underserved” in canceled programs suggests that initiatives explicitly designed to address historical disparities or serve marginalized communities were systematically targeted. Climate-related terms like “clean energy,” “climate change,” and “environmental justice” also appeared frequently in canceled programs [Zoe Kendall, “The Hidden Scale of Federal Grant Program Cancellations: How $16.7 Billion in Funding Disappeared,” Linkedin, 2025.06.03].

Lakota neighbors, if Chas Jewett and friends or your own civic consciences get you out to vote, remember Trump and Musk’s openly racist assault on your tribal programs, and vote against every Republican who said “O.K. fine” to those hateful (and wasteful, and self-dealing) cuts.

The “voting irregularities” appear to have been a screw-up by their election services provider, as explained in this draft resolution from the OST Finance Committee’s October 8 meeting:

“Electronic Software Systems”—I can Google up no such company. Might OST mean “Election Systems & Software“?

This election error was not caused by non-citizens or vote-counting machines or any of the other false threats Republicans furiously wave to push their election-suppression tactics; it came from human error, which election officials and voters caught. But this error does create frustration for voters and candidates who thought they’d done their work on October 6 and now have to revote on November 3.

On the good side, the Oglala Sioux Tribe primary revote coincides with the general election, would ought to translate into higher turnout. On the bad side, it pushes the OST general off the statewide general election date to November 17, when voters may not turn out nearly as eagerly.

• Tom Katus, Rapid City: $1,000
• Bruce Teague, Cambridge, MA: $250
• SD Democratic Party, Sioux Falls: $1,000
• Democracy in Action PAC, Rapid City: $1,000
• ChasJewettfor28A, Eagle Butte: $1,000

South Dakota, like the United States right now, has no campaign finance cops, but for form’s sake, Lakota Forward should amend its pre-general filing to list those donors separately: Katus and Teague under “Individuals”, SD Dems under “Political Parties”, DIA under “In-State Political Action Committees”, and Jewett’s campaign kitty under “Candidate Committees”.

Lakota Forward reports no expenditures yet, so the PAC has $4,250 to spend in these last two weeks. Of course, the PAC itself acknowledges that the poverty, incarceration, poor education, and systemic racism suppressing the vote in Indian Country will take more than two weeks and four figures to fix. The PAC notes that Lakota voters faced assaults on their voting rights long before the Klan swapped white hoods for red MAGA hats:

One of our organizers stood outside Tom Daschle’s office the night before the 2004 election and watched a mob gather accusing Daschle of stealing votes in Oglala County. That same night, a federal judge ordered Republican poll watchers in Charles Mix County to stop following Native voters out of the polls and writing down their license plates.

This is the racialization of the ballot box. When our people vote in numbers, the vote itself gets treated as suspect. The protections we relied on are gone now. The Supreme Court ended federal approval in 2013 and gutted what remained of the Voting Rights Act this year [Lakota Forward, “Why This Work Is Hard,” retrieved 2026.10.20].

Lakota Forward cites the Legislature’s 2025 House Bill 1066 and 2025 House Bill 1208, tightening residency requirements for voter registration, and 2026 Senate Bill 175, requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote, as the latest barriers to Native voting:

The Legislature’s Republican supermajority has made tightening voting rules a priority.

Since July 2025, a resident is someone who keeps a fixed, permanent dwelling where they live and usually sleep for thirty consecutive days. This year, new voters must show documentary proof of citizenship or vote in federal races only. A citizenship amendment is on this November’s ballot.

Whatever the intent, the effect is to dampen turnout, and it lands hardest on us. Our houseless relatives move around a lot, like our ancestors did. Some carry too much trauma to keep a home. They are South Dakotans, and they deserve a vote. A tribal ID counts as proof of citizenship, and we make sure our people know that [Lakota Forward, retrieved 2026.10.20].

We know the intent: the Republicans in Pierre and in the White(-Supremacist) House want to keep non-white people from voting and winning elections. Lakota Forward faces a hard battle to overcome that racism and claim Indian Country’s place at the governing table.

Marty Jackley’s total campaign fundraising so far, $1.72M, is pretty close to Brian Bengs’s cycle total of $1.68M. That comparison may not matter much—Jackley is running against a non-office-holding Democrat while Bengs is trying to unseat a well-warchested establishment Republican. Plus, it’s easier to get big donors to invest in flipping a Senate seat than in holding one of 435 House seats. But it is impressive to see any South Dakota independent demonstrate that he can raise as much money as a longtime Republican officeholder for Congressional race… and it is conceivable that, if Bengs deploys his cash effectively, he might get out the vote of a lot of anti-establishment independents who would lean away from the old guard and favor other outsiders (on which synergy Democrats ought to capitalize!).

But the point which I am burying here is that the U.S. House raise is shaping up much more typically than the U.S. Senate race. Establishment Republican Marty Jackley is raising goo-gobs more money than Democrat Nikki Gronli. Jackley raised more than twice as much money as Gronli in 2026 Q3. His total fundraising this cycle of $1.72M is four and a half times more than Gronli’s $386K. And as of September 30, Jackley had $1.18M in cash on hand, almost 13 times as much as Gronli’s $93K.

The arguably more depressing point is that the South Dakota Democrat running to go to Washington has raised less than a quarter of the amount the independent has raised trying to climb the other side of Capitol Hill. In Q3, Gronli’s haul was only one-seventh of Bengs’s.

On the bright side, both Jackley and Gronli report zero campaign debt. Whomever you choose on November 3, you can count on your next Representative to pay her/his bills on time.