Political Smokeout

Tea Party Express talking to potential SD Senate candidates

Strategists for the tea party group Tea Party Express spent several days in South Dakota this week interviewing possible Senate candidates as they weigh possible involvement in the Republican primary.

So far Mike Rounds is the only declared candidate, and unlike the Senate Conservatives Fund, the Tea Party Express is considering backing the former governor.

“He’s the front-runner at this point, so he’d be high on our list to talk to,” said Sal Russo, the group’s chief strategist. “We haven’t made any judgments at this point.”

But Russo and his team interviewed several other potential candidates, including state Rep. Stace Nelson, who reported speaking to the group in an in-depth 90-minute discussion.

Russo said his group is solely concerned with fiscal conservatism, not social issues or foreign policy. It’s on fiscal issues where Rounds has drawn most of his criticism from conservative activists.

The group is a political action committee subject to campaign finance limits, so it doesn’t have the potential to make a huge splash like some of the new, post-Citizen United Super PACs and 501(c)4 groups. Russo said it would help arrange bus tours and rallies to boost whichever candidate it supports, and consider making independent expenditures such as TV ads or postcard campaigns.

With multiple outside conservative groups now eyeing South Dakota’s primary, it’s possible that the groups could end up backing different horses. That happened last year in states like Nebraska and Missouri. In the latter state, Tea Party Express backed former treasurer Sarah Steelman over eventual primary winner Todd Akin.

“We thought she was a far superior candidate to Todd Akin,” Russo said. “Few would disagree with us today.”

Russo said that might happen this year, but predicted less infighting among conservative activists than 2012.

“I think generally people are committed to winning the Senate, so I don’t think there’s going to be too much,” said Russo. Compared to some past years, he said, there’s less interest in “impossible-to-win candidates.”

Tea Party Express will return to South Dakota in “the next month or two” for another look at the situation.

More interesting tidbits from the Dykstra interview

Earlier, I transcribed every reference to Rep. Stace Nelson from the Gary Dykstra interview that attorney Joel Arends said implicated Nelson in last year’s robocall campaign.

That’s not all that’s interesting in the 72-page transcript, the accuracy of which Dykstra affirmed in an affidavit. A few other choice bits:

Involvement of other conservative activists

On pages 37 and 38, Arends asks Dykstra if, in addition to Daniel Willard and Stace Nelson, state Rep. Manny Steele or Lincoln County Republican Party chair Betty Otten (who beat Arends to win the post) were involved in the robocalls.

To each, Dykstra answers with a succinct “no.”

The Ron Paul campaign

On page 31, Arends asked Dykstra if he knew that Willard “went out and bought a TracFone at Wal-Mart?”

“It wouldn’t surprise me. I mean, we used some TracFones for the Ron Paul campaign,” Dykstra replied.

Dykstra and the grand jury

In the interview, Dykstra discloses that he testified to the grand jury in the criminal robocall case against Willard. On page 66, Arends asks Dykstra if there is “anything you have told me here today that would be inconsistent with that, with what you told those proceedings?”

“I don’t think so, but — I — not to my knowledge, I guess,” Dykstra replied.

Dykstra’s deal

At the end of the two-hour interview, Dykstra’s attorney Brad Schrieber reads a statement into the record about the agreement that led to the interview.

“Part of the agreement was that in cooperation for that there would be no civil liability, or Gary would not be brought in as a defendant in this lawsuit or any other lawsuit by Joel or his client related to this matter,” Schrieber said.

Regrets, he has a few

“Was there any thought of, you know, asking for advice from legal counsel (during the robocall campaign)?” Arends asked Dykstra.

“Unfortunately not,” Dykstra replied.

What exactly did Gary Dykstra say about Stace Nelson?

When Joel Arends filed his affidavit last week implicating state Rep. Stace Nelson in last year’s robocalls, one of the pushbacks was the unusual nature of the affidavit: an attorney attesting to what he was told in an interview. Nelson himself called Arends’ affidavit “hearsay” — and a judge said he was inclined to agree yesterday.

Now I’ve got my hands on a transcript of the interview on which the affidavit was based, with Sioux Falls activist Gary Dykstra. Dykstra signs an affidavit attesting to the accuracy of the transcript. It’s embedded below so you can judge for yourself.

But first, here’s a summary of all the references to Stace Nelson (thanks to the handy index included in the back of the file — though it’d be a lot handier if it had indexed references to “Stace” as well as references to “Nelson”):

Read More

Stace Nelson’s robocall response

Rep. Stace Nelson just submitted an emailed statement in response to the affidavit alleging he was involved in last year’s anonymous robocalls. In it, he doesn’t directly deny the charges, but calls them “hearsay” and says he stands by his previous statements, in which he has made certain specific denials about sending telephone calls.

Nelson’s statement:

In 2011, myself, the DAV, the American Legion, and the VFW were successful in opposing and killing Governor Daugaard’s SB 188 which sought to cut educational benefits to National Guard members as they were in combat in Afghanistan. Since that time, I have been outspoken in numerous public forums in telling voters that it was Governor Daugaards bill and that it was supported and voted for by GOP Legislative Leadership to include Sen Russ Olson, Sen Dan Lederman, Rep David Lust, and Rep Brian Gosch.  My advisement of this to the public sparked righteous outrage with almost every person that received that factual information.   

From news accounts, my understanding is that what is at issue is that telephone calls were made to voters in these politicians’ districts advising them that these legislators in fact voted to cut educational benefits to National Guardsmen who were in combat, and the calls failed to list their website address in the telephone calls.

I stand behind the statements that I have previously made about these matters.  The only thing that has changed to the situation, as it pertains to myself, is that a lawyer in the civil case has filed a late affidavit in the matter, that is 100% hearsay, containing vague claims of my involvement.  Of note, that same affidavit does indicate by name and deed those purportedly responsible for the detailed efforts in the matter they are suing over.   

Curiously, Mr. Arends has now added himself as a witness in his own civil case with this affidavit that contains his opinions on what Mr. Dykstra meant or said.   It should be noted this contorted hearsay account of what Mr Dykstra supposedly said, was the end product of an orchestrated departure from the normal procedure of a sworn deposition in front of Mr Willard’s attorney.  Subsequent news reports indicate that Mr. Arend bragged he was attempting to hide evidence from Mr. Willard’s attorney. I find it extremely disconcerting that a lawyer, and now a witness in a case, has admitted that he is attempting to hide evidence from the court and the other party.   

Of particular note, these hearsay vague claims come on the heels of statewide discussion on my considerations of entering the 2014 US Senate race.  A race in which Lederman and his Rushmore PAC (parties to the civil case) have publically came out in support of Mike Rounds.

We should all be extremely suspect, and concerned, with the unusual circumstances of this matter.  Especially when this civil case is awaiting a motion to dismiss hearing in several days.

Respectfully,

Stace Nelson  

Affidavit: Stace Nelson involved in robocalls (updated)

A legal filing has accused a state representative of sending anonymous political robocalls last year, citing an interview with a Minnehaha County man who said he was also involved.

Gary Dykstra was interviewed as part of a civil lawsuit over the robocalls. According to an affidavit filed by Joel Arends, attorney for the plaintiffs in that lawsuit, Dykstra described coordinating the robocalls with Daniel Willard and state Rep. Stace Nelson.

“Mr. Dykstra stated that he met with Daniel Willard and Stace Nelson on at least three occasions to discuss, plan and execute the conduct complained of,” Arends writes in his affidavit.

The affidavit also claims Dykstra said he “submitted phone scripts to Daniel Willard and Stace Nelson for approval and dissemination.”

In an emailed statement, Nelson called the claim “contorted hearsay” and suggested the affidavit was political retaliation.

The robocalls, which attacked Republican politicians leading up to the 2012 elections for their positions on veterans and other issues, have also led to criminal misdemeanor charges against Willard. That case was recently delayed.

Prosecutors and the civil plaintiffs — state Sen. Dan Lederman and his political action committee — allege the robocalls violated South Dakota’s election laws.

In the interview, Dykstra was “sworn to tell the truth by the court reporter,” according to the affidavit.

Arends’ affidavit is not a transcript of the interview, but rather Arends’ sworn statements about what Dykstra said in the interview.

Dykstra’s attorney, Brad Schrieber, declined to comment until he had a chance to review the affidavit.

A Fulton Republican first elected in 2010, Nelson has clashed with Republican Party leadership over his years in the Legislature, including being kicked out of the House Republican caucus in 2012.

Recently, Nelson said he was doing “soul searching” about whether to run for higher office, including possibly governor or U.S. Senate. An outspoken conservative, he has attacked some Republican leaders for alleged corruption and liberalism.

In his statement, Nelson noted Lederman’s support of Mike Rounds in the U.S. Senate race that Nelson is considering entering, calling that “of particular note.”

Previously, when asked whether he was involved in the robocalls, Nelson had made specific denials.

“I didn’t put the postcard out and I didn’t make the telephone call,” Nelson said last August.

In September, he declined to comment when asked if he knew who was sending out the robocalls.

“I’m not going to speculate about who’s behind this. I don’t think it really matters,” Nelson said. “From what I’ve seen, I think there’s substantial compliance with the law.”

On Thursday, Nelson said he “stand(s) behind the statements that I have previously made about these matters.”

In an interview, Arends said he subpoenaed Dykstra after his name was given in an “anonymous tip.” Dykstra was originally asked to be deposed, but then agreed to an interview instead.

As part of that deal, Arends said Dykstra will not be added to the lawsuit.

In a deposition, both sides in a lawsuit have the right to be there. Arends said he believes that an interview will allow him to keep certain discovered information from Willard’s lawyer, R. Shawn Tornow.

Tornow declined to comment Thursday until he read the affidavit.

In an email, Attorney General Marty Jackley said he “can only disclose matters that are of public record” and that “any specific grand jury matters are privileged.” He didn’t address questions about any possible changes to the criminal case as a result of this filing.

That criminal case is currently on hold. The original trial judge has recused himself from the case and a new judge has been appointed, but a new trial date has not yet been set, Jackley said.

The civil suit filed by Lederman will have a hearing Monday afternoon. At that hearing, a judge will consider Tornow’s motion to dismiss the case. Arends will submit the affidavit of the Dykstra interview as part of his argument against dismissing the case.

(This story has been updated several times as new information was acquired.)

Here’s the affidavit:

Conservative lawmaker Nelson pondering Senate run

An outspoken conservative state lawmaker is considering challenging former Gov. Mike Rounds for South Dakota’s U.S. Senate seat.

Stace Nelson, a representative from Fulton in rural Hanson County, said activists both in and out of South Dakota have asked him to run for higher office. That could include the Senate race, where some conservatives want an alternative to Rounds, the only declared Republican candidate, or challenging incumbent Gov. Dennis Daugaard.

“I’ve had quite a few folks from across South Dakota asking me to run for governor, asking me to run for Senate,” Nelson said. “It seems like there’s more every day,” Nelson said.

And Nelson is listening, with money being his primary concern.

“If I win the lottery, I would declare for one of those offices in a heartbeat,” Nelson said. “Short of that, I’ve got to do a lot of soul-searching.”

Nelson, first elected to the state House of Representatives in 2010, is a populist conservative who has repeatedly clashed with Republican leadership. Last year he was kicked out of the House Republican caucus, though he was re-invited this year after winning reelection. He’s outspoken on a variety of conservative issues including gun rights, cutting taxes and spending, and abortion, and helped lead a group of rural farmers in a successful battle against a large dairy proposed for Hanson County. A Marine veteran, he cuts an imposing figure at 6’7” and 320 pounds.

Political science professor Jon Schaff of Northern State University said Nelson or someone like him probably will challenge Rounds from the right.

“Stace Nelson strikes me as being exactly the kind of person who might make a run at this,” Schaff said. “I don’t know if it’s because he really honestly thinks he can beat Rounds, but certainly there’s going to be a certain wing of the Republican Party who is unhappy with Mike Rounds’ moderate Republicanism. They’re going to want to make at least an airing of the grievances, if you will, against that more pragmatic, less ideological wing of the Republican Party.”

Across the country, many Senate seats have seen primary battles between establishment Republicans and more conservative candidates — many won by the conservative challengers. Some of those conservative primary winners, such as Missouri’s Todd Akin, went on to lose to vulnerable Democrats in the general election. Others, such as Kentucky’s Rand Paul, also triumphed in the general election and earned a Senate seat.

In his state legislative races, Nelson is noted as a fierce campaigner who works hard and doesn’t mince words about his opponents.

But his fundraising has been unexceptional. He spent close to $15,000 for his House campaign in 2012. Rounds raised more $250,000 in just over one month last year after entering the race.

“The old Marine side of me would love nothing more than to serve South Dakotans,” Nelson said. “But what makes me extremely qualified to be a good public servant probably makes me extremely unqualified to raise the money to run against the two main political machines South Dakota has, (Daugaard) and Rounds.”

Sen. Tim Johnson, the current occupant of the Senate seat, is retiring. His son, U.S. Attorney Brendan Johnson, is widely rumored to be considering running as a Democrat for the seat.

At least one national group, the Senate Conservatives Fund, has promised to raise money for an acceptable conservative challenger to Rounds. And Nelson said he’s had other people promise him money if he runs.

“I’ve had folks tell me that if I declare my candidacy I can get the support and get the endorsements of conservative organizations,” he said. “I think the grassroots is there.”

Schaff was skeptical of Nelson’s chances against Rounds, but noted that “lightning does strike.”

“I have no doubt that someone like Nelson, the second he would announce, would probably have about 20 percent of the electorate,” he said. “Whether he could ever build up to 51 percent of the Republican electorate, obviously you have to say he’s a long-shot to do that. But stranger things have happened in politics. You only have to look at Mike Rounds — who would have thought at this point in 2001 that Mike Rounds would become governor of South Dakota?

But Schaff said a Nelson victory would probably have to involve Rounds either getting complacent or making major gaffes, and said both seem unlikely from a disciplined, veteran candidate like Rounds.

Nelson said he hopes other conservatives will run for both Senate and governor, so he doesn’t have to — and believes Rounds and Daugaard don’t count.

“We do need to get back to Reagan conservative Republicans that do truly believe in fiscal responsibility and reining in both our state and our federal government,” Nelson said. “I don’t see Gov. Rounds or Gov. Daugaard as being up to the task. In fact, I think they’ve been part of the problem.”

Rounds, who expects to face one or more primary challengers, said he’s focused on building up his campaign organization and fundraising.

“You have the plan for doing a primary,” Rounds said, when asked about Nelson’s possible candidacy. “You focus on that, and this doesn’t change anything.”

In the Legislature, Nelson has clashed with many of his colleagues. He’s noted for passionate speeches and strong claims about what ideas and people are or are not conservative.

“He just comes up with ideas that are radical and off the wall,” said former state lawmaker Gene Abdallah, who served with Nelson for two years.

But Nelson has forged close alliances with many of the most conservative lawmakers in the House. Rep. Don Kopp, R-Rapid City, called him “extremely intelligent.”

“Stace is a real good man,” Kopp said. “He’s fiercely patriotic. He’s very bold in his stands. He isn’t afraid to come out with his opinions on anything.”

(This post has been updated to correct the two “political machines” Nelson refers to. He says he referred to Mike Rounds and Dennis Daugaard, not Rounds and Tim Johnson.)

‘Building South Dakota’ amended, near passage

A committee of legislative leaders unanimously approved a package of economic incentives Thursday, putting it very close to final passage.

The bill was amended to include a “trigger” protecting the general fund in the event education, health care and state employees don’t get their annual increases.

The “Building South Dakota” package includes incentives for large project and money sent into areas such as education, housing and infrastructure.

It now is before the House and Senate, which have to approve the amended version produced by the conference committee.

The House previously approved a different version of the bill, 56-13.

Senate Majority Leader Russell Olson, R-Wentworth, predicted smooth sailing for the bill in the Senate. He said there are some objections for members about the complexity of the bill, but predicted there wouldn’t be any procedural attempts to split it into multiple smaller bills such as that attempted by Rep. Stace Nelson, R-Fulton, in the House.

House overwhelmingly approves ‘Building South Dakota’

By a 56-13 vote, the South Dakota House passed a complex, bipartisan economic development package Tuesday.

It was passed without amendment and will now head over to the Senate, where the bill’s sponsors plan on introducing an amendment to clarify and fix existing language.

The vote came after several proposed changes by Rep. Stace Nelson, R-Fulton, both rejected on voice votes.

Nelson asked the House to split the bill into multiple parts, arguing it was unconstitutional by containing multiple subjects. Other lawmakers disagreed, saying all the bill’s parts are related to economic development.

He also proposed an amendment adding new open meetings requirements, which a majority of lawmakers argued was unnecessary given existing open meetings law.

Outside of Nelson’s motions, there was very little debate on the bill. Rep. David Lust and Rep. Bernie Hunhoff spoke in favor of the bill as effective economic development, and Rep. Don Kopp spoke against it on the grounds that it contained too many subjects.