BOX ELDER, SD — Emmett Reistoffer is a lifelong South Dakotan and founder of Genesis Farms, a cannabis dispensary headquartered in Box Elder. He has been involved in public policy for years now with his optimism on the economic possibilities of conservative-led cannabis reform. This week, he has undertaken a new ambition, announcing his intentions to run for state legislature in district 35.
The Brief
A focus of Reistoffer’s views focus on material aspects of government and tries to find a happy medium based in the historical legislation of other conservative states. His major issue is the introduction of a Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, which would limit government spending based on inflation and population growth, intending to curb slush funds created with excess taxes. This excess would then be refunded to taxpayers, and he believes, can serve as a boost for everyone and can create economic activity In lower-income areas.
A major focus was on children today and opening opportunities to them. He has stated his intentions to push for judicial reform and provide juveniles the opportunity for alternatives to what he sees as a black-and-white system of either “a slap on the wrist and you get lost, let go and you don’t learn your lesson, or… you get sent to a prison in Iowa”.
Overall, he has said he wants to “Fight for the little guy” in the House, focusing on kids, veterans, the disabled, and lower-income people, and wishes to do so by cutting wasteful spending on the state-level, and encouraging reorganization on the county level.
A Transcript of The Discussion
We sat down with Reistoffer for around an hour to speak on his beliefs, his intentions for office, and his life. What follows is the complete transcript of that interview.
Fiona Ton: Could you introduce yourself in your own words?
Emmett Reistoffer: I was born and raised in Sioux Falls, so I’m an East River kid at heart, but I moved West River a little over 4 years ago. And I absolutely love Rapid City. I recently bought a new home near the Oaks Golf course, and so I’m kind of finding my happy place. I found a need for a new representative in district 35, and I think I’m a great fit.
I love the community, I love public service. I’ve spent most of my career working on public policy, mostly in the cannabis space, but also on some other issues. I moved West River a little over 4 years ago to start a company called Genesis farms. It’s based in Box Elder, and we employ close to 150 people statewide. I’ve had a fantastic career. I’ve gotten to travel across the state of South Dakota. We have facilities in Aberdeen, Brookings here on Pierre, Mitchell Sioux Falls, Rapid City Spearfish, and our main headquarters is based in Box Elder. So I’ve gotten to see the explosion and growth in Box Elder, where we set up our facility, we were the first company to break ground on America’s Way, where we’ve been located for the past few years. We are now surrounded by development. So I have seen it in just the 3 years we built our company from the ground up. I have seen multiple companies come in and set up shop automotive distribution, Amazon, an RV campground, food distributors, trucking companies. You name it. There’s also more hotels and restaurants being built; and there’s so much excitement about this growth, but I think there needs to be. I think there needs to be a vision to make sure this growth is handled appropriately. And quite frankly, someone should be in Pierre fighting for district 35.
The current representatives are term-limited, but I have heard from countless people that they think more needs to be done. And I kind of saw the call to action by talking to the business community, talking to veterans doing police ride-alongs with both box, elder and Rapid City police officers, I’ve seen how this growth creates a lot of challenges. So while I’m excited, I understand the challenges ahead, and I want to fight for district 35. This district has a lot of low-income folks. A lot of service members, a lot of veterans, a lot of disabled folks, a lot of folks living in unsafe housing conditions, and we have both rich and poor and I think that means it’s a unique district that needs someone like me who’s taken on tough issues to roll up their sleeves and work really hard for the people of district 35
Ton: And that’s what made you want to run for the house?
Reistoffer: Absolutely, I’ve gotten to know all the lawmakers in the area, and I get along with most of them. I think there’re some folks that have a lot of really good ideas and without naming names, I also think there’re folks that just sign up for the job to just put the title on their resume, and they’re not really showing up and bringing ideas forward when they get to Pierre. I’m going to commit right now and I’m excited. I’m talking to you so I can get out there and publicly state it. I am running to fight for the people and to bring ideas. I don’t want to just sit back and vote on other bills that people bring forward. I want to bring forward my own bills.
I want to take the lead on different issues and I can give you a couple examples when I did my police ride along. I learned about how these mobile home parks were developed long before normal safety building codes were put in place, and the living conditions in these mobile home parks are appalling, and I don’t want to drive up rents or drive up the cost of living. But I think there should be a way to at least make sure the roads are paved, so kids can do normal kid-things like ride their scooter, ride their bike or go rollerblading without breaking their arms and ankles, which is what’s happening right now, because they don’t have paved roads. The roads are deteriorating, there isn’t even running plumbing to some of these housing units, there’s no lighting, there’s no normal street lights, and we would never let that happen in any other neighborhood. But because these are private developments that were “grandfathered in” long before normal safety codes were put in place, we essentially have property owners, profiting off of people living with federal government housing vouchers, but are not putting in place the same quality of life standards that we expect in any other neighborhood.
So that’s one issue, and I realize that may not be the most popular thing but that’s why I want to throw it out there to show that Hey, I’m, I am fighting for the little guy. I was once that kid, I lived in a trailer park when I was really young. That’s where my family got started. And we grew out of that and moved on to bigger and better things. And I would like the same for those young kids living in those mobile home parks to have a better future, and I don’t think politicians go to mobile home parks and think about those kids. I want to be the first one to do that, and then there’s some other things that maybe other folks can relate to like the air force base, how we’re generating more excise tax per capita in the city of Box Elder but not returning more of that excise money back to our own community. So what that means is all of the construction production happening at the air force base, all of the supplies and materials and contractors that are getting paid is generating excise tax revenues for the state of South Dakota. But it’s going into the general fund and getting spread out across the whole state.
Now that sounds awesome, but what’s not so awesome is the extra cost that Box Elder has to carry for all the trucks driving on their roads? All of that construction has a cost on the infrastructure and being the home of the Ellsworth air force base, where all this growth is happening. I think we should see more of a return of the excise taxes generated in my district should be returned to my district. So there’s a couple issues, I guess I could keep going on.
Ton: You spoke to the issues facing veterans, facing the disabled, facing working class families, broadly the vulnerable in our society, and about wanting to change things for the better. What practical measures would you take to improve the quality of life and improve on the issues that people like this face in their day-to-day?
Reistoffer: That’s a great question. Because of all these different groups of people, there’s a commonality on how we can help everyone. You know, I would love to zoom in on veterans issues to zoom in on children to zoom in on seniors. But there’s one single issue that affects everybody and where I can find the greatest benefit for everybody: and that is tax relief. You’re going to hear that from a lot of politicians right now. A major candidate for governor has said he is committed to repealing property tax. And then you got folks saying, that’s not possible. I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. I’d rather not just say no to a big idea, but I also don’t want to come out and say something that’s just not realistic right now.
So what I’m proposing is what I think is a compromise for South Dakotans. It’s called the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. This has been around in Colorado for a long time back in the 80s and 90s. When this first went into effect, Colorado saw exponential economic growth that was far above pace than the rest of the country. Now, in recent decades, the taxpayer bill of rights has been a controversy there. And it’s largely because that state has elected tax-and-spend liberals. I hate to say it like that, I try not to be partisan, but the folks that don’t like it are the folks that want to raise taxes and spend more money on special interest projects.
South Dakota is a conservative state, we love freedom, we love keeping our taxes low. That’s a big pride point in South Dakota, that we have no income tax. I have absolutely zero interest in ever-changing that, I think that sets us apart, and that’s why we’re so attractive to business and why we are doing better than most of the rest of the country economically to prevent things from getting out of control. There is fear with tax increases, and I think TBoR is the perfect solution. What it does is it puts a formula in the budget process that ties government spending to population growth, and inflation now, and if the state tax base grows and exceeds beyond the formula, the excess revenue gets returned to the taxpayers. It doesn’t go into a slush fund for politicians to say “hey What do we want to do with this extra $50 million this year?” no, no, no, that money needs to go back to the taxpayers. It was not originally planned to be collected.
According to my research, I’m not ready to release it publicly yet because I want to make sure I have 100% of all of my facts correct. But according to my research so far, we would have been in the tens of millions of dollars in tax refunds just in the past decade. And in the years ahead, this could get worse and worse; we know there are folks getting elected that go to Pierre and ask for special spending projects. We know the former governor [Kristi Noem] has abused her own credit card hard and there are countless other examples. I think the prison being one of the biggest examples of failed leadership in South Dakota, and this is why I’m running. Other people are going to run, and they’re not going to say things like this.
I call it “No-Bull Leadership”, because I think the people in my district have that kind of style. They don’t like the polished politician with the suit and a tie. I’m going to be going around. Maybe I’ll be wearing a polo, but probably just a T-shirt. I want to be real with them about what’s possible. I don’t want to say, I’m going to repeal property tax because I don’t think that’s going to happen right now, you know, literally, a third of the state’s budget goes towards public schools. And I’m not ready to start shutting down public schools. But I do understand the concern about property taxes going up. So rather than saying I’m going to get rid of property taxes, which isn’t going to happen. I’m proposing TBoR so that will provide tax relief. And it will at least put guardrails or limits in place.
So we know when the politicians say I’m going to cut spending? great, then put it into law. That’s what TBoR would do. TBoR says you can’t spend our money beyond what we approve.
So I think that’s a good compromise, and I’m pretty sure I’m the first person in a long time that’s talked about this concept. And I think it’s going to really get some heads spinning, and folks that really reject this idea without thinking about it or letting me make my case, I think are the ones we need to be wary of.
I just want transparency. I want accountability. I want us to know where our money is going. I think that’s been a big concern in the last few years. Has that trust really been shattered? And I don’t want to keep beating app our former governor it’s time to move on and that credit card, Truthfully was a drop in the bucket when you look at the whole state budget, but it was more of the moral issue of it seems seeing an elected official stay at 5 star hotels in Florida, New York, or wherever it just broke people’s trust. Personally, I thought Kristi was doing a great job marketing, South Dakota. She has brought a ton of investment, a ton of people are moving here, I see the good in it. But I don’t think the optics were so good for her with folks here at home.
I looked at it, and I thought, you know, this is a drop in the bucket when you look at the whole state budget, but I understand why people are upset about it. I think we can market South Dakota, just fine, and we can still keep that trust intact. And spend money appropriately, if we want to pay for marketing, send it to tourism and do it the right way. We don’t need to send a politician around on a roadshow with the President to advertise South Dakota.
Ton: To get ahead of potential concerns about the Taxpayer Bill of Rights and revisit something you touched on briefly: Over the past few years, a lot of new people are coming in and we’ve also seen a rise in the inflation rate. How would this Taxpayer Bill of Rights account for these potential issues?
Reistoffer: Right now I just want to propose the concept, and then I think all of us, all the representatives representing all of their constituents should come together and come to an agreed upon formula. So as of today, I am just advocating for the concept of protecting taxpayer money. Having agreed upon limits in law, not just campaign talking points, but limits that we can put in-law and say this is what we think is fair. And that formula in Colorado is tied to population growth and inflation. So if the tax revenues, you know, grow higher than inflation, that’s what I’m really talking about is when you know, the idea is not to underfund services that people want, because inflation is going up, that’s not the idea at all that formula will have to account for inflation.
Ton: Good to know.
Reistoffer: There’s a good chance there might be years when I did my model over the past decade, it was like half the years. There would have been a refund half the years there wouldn’t have been, and the refund can be little or it can be a lot, but it’s more about the concept. Not about the specific annual refund or if there’s going to be a refund or not. It’s just about the concept of saying, Hey, in law, we have spending limits. Think of it like speed limits for spending, you know, we are going to stay at x amount of dollars. This is your cap. This is what we agreed on every year in our budget: that we need to run the government if we generate more tax revenue than what’s needed. That goes back to the people we don’t get to just sit around and say, let’s come up with something to spend this money on. That’s what I’m trying to avoid, and I think that’s the fear that a lot of voters have.
Ton: Going to some of the more broad points that you have stated in this press release here: You talked a bit about the idea of a smaller Government of cutting Red Tape and wasteful spending. That’s obviously been a big issue nationally in the last year. What wasteful spending in the state government would you be looking at first in office?
Reistoffer: One of the biggest ones I’m looking at right now is actually County Administration, which, you know, technically isn’t state government, but state law governs county administrations and how county governments are funded and operate. And I’m looking at the state of Utah, even though they have 3 million people, we have just shy of a million people in terms of land area. South Dakota has 66 counties. Utah has something like 12 or 13 counties.
Back in the day, probably before my day, I think there was a thought that everyone liked having their local courthouse down the road. You know, the farmer could come into town. Go get his deed for his property or go pay his tax or whatever you know we like that. The truth is, it’s 2025, so much is online. There is so much that we can do to innovate our systems and to share resources and cut costs. So I think it’s at the county level that we can save money right now, and I’m not hearing anyone in the state legislature talking about that. It blows me away when I think of 66 courthouses, 66 sheriffs, different 911 dispatch centers in every one of these areas, all of these duplicative forms of government administration, all creating higher costs.
When you have counties that only have a few thousand people, the cost of that county is significantly higher for those people. I think it’s something we need to talk about. And look, when you have 3 million people divided amongst 12 counties, with 12 county courthouses. You obviously can be more efficient and so I’m not saying I’m not proposing to force counties just to consolidate, but I think there should maybe be some incentives at the state level, or ways to help counties consolidate. And maybe the counties don’t actually merge, but the counties can consolidate departments and administration.
Ton: In your statements on free people, you’ve stated you stand in favor of personal freedoms and family values. How would you define those in your vision of them?
Reistoffer: Well right now, I don’t have a certain bill that kind of falls in that that I’m thinking of I’m thinking about a lot of other ideas that have come up over the years. What’s important to me is, if you want a homeschool, you can homeschool, if you want to send your kid to a private school, you can send your kid to a private school.
I am supportive of the concept of vouchers for education. But I want to do it in a way that doesn’t attack public education. And that’s really what that point is about is freedom and family values. I’m thinking of this debate over education vouchers is really what I’m thinking about. I think both sides have gotten kind of radical in their talking points. You’re either for public education or against it, and I don’t think it’s so black and white. I think there should be a way to make sure that families can homeschool, and can go to private schools without undermining our public school systems as a whole.
Just in general, South Dakota is an appropriate freedom state, you know, right now, I don’t think there’s a real fear in the legislature of freedoms being taken away, but you know, I will always stand for freedom. I’m really a libertarian at heart, and if you look into my history, you’ll see I used to be involved with the Libertarian Party.
So I’ve been pretty consistent my whole life on the side of freedom. But you know, I just, I don’t want to become radical and say, I’m against public education or I’m for vouchers, or whatever I think we need to try to find a way to make it all work. So everyone can be happy.
I hope that wasn’t too much of a politician-answer! [Laughs]
Ton: How would you approach reforms to the criminal justice system as you’ve said you intend to?
Reistoffer: I’ve spent a large part of my life working on the cannabis issue. That’s what I’m known for but that’s exposed me to so many other issues in our justice system, and even today, according to what little information I can find online, it’s very difficult in South Dakota. But based on what I can find, we still have 284 people in our state prison for nonviolent marijuana crimes. That’s somewhere around $5 to $7 million a year. That taxpayers are paying, and even though almost every state surrounding us has decriminalized it, some states have legalized it, and I look forward to that debate in this state.
But as it pertains to arresting and incarcerating people, I tried to get involved in the 2014 task force, commissioned by governor due guard that was aimed at reducing recidivism in the state of South Dakota, and I will never forget as a 24-year-old with very little experience going to the Capitol excited to share some of my ideas about drug courts.
And I couldn’t even find out what room the meeting was in. And when I did, and they saw me coming up the stairs, they shut the door and I remember basically getting bullied by members of our state government, telling me that my ideas were too radical, and I wasn’t welcome to participate in those meetings. That’s when I first started realizing, this is not open government. It’s not a good government. And a lot of it I believe is because that justice system has been broken for decades.
I’m a firm believer that there is no correlation between a drop in crime rate and the more you lock people up. We’ve actually seen it in other conservative Republican states like Missouri, Texas, Utah, even Alaska. We have seen incarceration rates go down and crime rates go down as well. Things have, of course, been a little bit shaky in the past few years with the border crisis in Texas. So they have, you know, other issues that don’t really compare to South Dakota; but in general the idea is we need more focus on rehabilitation, less focus on just locking people up.
I believe in being tough on violent crimes, but I believe in helping people who struggle with addiction and really getting more resources for reentry into the community, getting resources for the children of prison inmates, because we know that the children of prison inmates are significantly more likely to become criminals themselves. And so you have to intervene early.
We have to help those children, and we have to bring back the juvenile justice programs we used to have when I was a teenager. And I saw it work for me and my friends, when we got in trouble, there was a boot camp in the Black Hills, there were counseling centers in different communities. My understanding is all the funding’s been cut for that. Now if you are a teenager and you get in trouble, it’s either a very minor crime where you get a slap on the wrist and you get lost, let go and you don’t learn your lesson, or it’s a very major crime where you get sent to a prison in Iowa. But there’s no middle ground to rehabilitate these kids.
I think that’s really where it starts if we really invest in juvenile corrections in a smart way. It’s not about just locking up, kids. It’s also not about just slapping them on the wrist. And saying, you know what you did is wrong. You need to let them know what they did was wrong and you need to get them programming with role models, mentorship, maybe some physical training like boot camp. I am all for getting creative. And I think that’s really why our justice system is suffering so much because of the lack of creativity, we have just thought throw more money at building more jail cells and more prisons.
And that’s going to fix the problem. But I’ve just seen in other states what I’m looking to as an example. The Texas right on crime institute has been working on reforming the Texas criminal justice system.
I think South Dakota was very similar to Texas. In the 80s and 90s, when the drug war was fully rampant and incarceration rates were climbing in all of these states across the country, Texas learned its lesson. Thankfully, a long time ago they started to reverse those trends and have seen recidivism rates improve. So we need to look at other conservative Republican states. I know some folks are going to look at me and say that, you know, label me a liberal or whatever when I’m talking about reforming our prison system. But I’m looking at conservative states that are showing a difference.
So I actually believe if you are a conservative, like I am, then we should be saving our taxpayer money and make sure that every dollar that goes into that prison gives us something to show for it. And if our recidivism rates keep getting worse and our incarceration rate, the rates keep getting worse, whatever we’ve been doing hasn’t worked. But like I said, I welcome Governor Larry Rhoden’s new task force. I hope that it will be more open to public input like Governor Dugaard’s task force in 2014.
I think we need to look at other states. We need to look at nonprofit models, ministries’ Juvenile justice programs and get more creative, which isn’t easy for people to do. And that’s why, you know, other politicians years past have thought just spend more money on locking more people up, like that’ll get crime to go down. But that’s not what’s happened.
I want to do the hard work to fix our broken justice system.
Ton: Tangential to the topic of Marijuana with these nonviolent offenders: You’re a candidate, as you’ve said with a history in the marijuana industry. The nation as a whole has been revisiting Marijuana as an issue in the past. In South Dakota, it’s been a little bit of a “two steps forward, one step back” issue. With that in mind, what would you say to people who see you and consider you to be a singularly pro pot candidate and might not be receptive to that?
Reistoffer: I would just say it’s here whether you like it or not. I have actually spent the last year going around the state speaking at city council meetings and meeting with police chiefs and sheriffs trying to shut down illegal marijuana stores because even though I’m an advocate for better policy, which means regulation. Because prohibition has failed, I believe in-law and order and being consistent and so we created a medical program, and I have worked closely with the state to make sure this program rolls out as smoothly as possible.
I’ve often been considered the most conservative person in the room. When we have these debates, because I don’t think it should be a free-for-all and I don’t think marijuana should be sold on every corner. I don’t think there should be advertisements next to schools. I think there needs to be common sense, and that’s why it’s important that we actually legalize and regulate cannabis, because when we keep it illegal, we have no control over it.
Local law enforcement couldn’t even keep up with it. We counted close to 30 or 40 stores in Sioux Falls, all selling marijuana illegally with signs in their windows. In Rapid City, there’ve been several, and the sheriff has done a darn good job on shutting them down.
I would say that this debate’s not going away. I am not going to push something that the people don’t want. I will focus on public education. I will raise awareness about what we’re predicting is a $150 million that will leave South Dakota, and go over the border to Minnesota in the next few years, as Minnesota implements full legalization. And we can’t just ignore it. Whether you love it or hate it or don’t really care, nobody can ignore this. It’s an issue that has to be addressed.
And that’s why I think I would be a good member of the legislature to lead on this issue, and I will be willing to work with folks who don’t like cannabis. Because I already have. We wouldn’t have gotten this far with our medical program.
Ton: So we have all our bases covered, on the issue of technology: Responsible innovation was something that you touched upon in your announcement. With the rise of AI worldwide, there’s been some interest in data centers in South Dakota. We have a data center in Sioux Falls trying to get permission to build there for instance. And that as a means of bringing jobs and growth to the state, however conversely, we’ve had communities in other states who have invited these data centers into their community that have brought up concerns about contamination to drinking water about the promised job creation mostly being temporary positions. With all this in mind, what is your stance on these sorts of expansions?
Reistoffer: Well, I think we don’t need to be inviting folks to South Dakota if we don’t need them here, but if they want to come here and if they can create good-paying jobs, I think we should take them seriously and look at the benefits.
I believe in a free market, so I’m not going to just say no for the sake of saying no, but it’s all about balance and looking at everything on a case-by-case basis.
Some of the worst offenders out there like Blockchain technology, for example, I was shocked when I learned about that. And I certainly would not want one of those massive data centers in our community. If there’s any indication that it will have a adverse area impact on quality of life or impact our health, or if there are just unknown risks and we’re not ready for it, then by no means should we be rolling out the red carpet and bringing someone in that might hurt our communities. I think that’s common sense. I don’t think anyone disagrees with that, but I don’t want to just say no to all data centers either.
I think we should be open to it. We should look at, you know. We already have local control that handles land use and zoning. So that’s really where that comes down. But when the discussion comes to me as a state legislature, if I want to provide incentives to bring them here, I’m not so interested in that right now because I would say if they want to come here, let’s talk to them. But let’s not go out of our way to attract them here if we don’t, if we don’t need them.
There is another part of the technology issue, though, that’s not the data centers, which is AI safety. And I think that issue, this is like the next big tobacco.
I love AI. I use it every day and I had to very quickly learn how it works. What is it good for? What is it not good for? I’m an adult and I feel confident that I understand now how to use it safely, but when I’m hearing about 10-year-olds and 12-year-olds and teenagers using AI and social media there’s unknown dangers I feel are being downplayed.
We don’t know what this is going to do to generations 5 years from now; we could be creating real serious psychological problems in our youth. We’re hearing about suicides, harassment all types of stuff, and there is still as far as I know. There is no AI safety in our school curriculums. And I don’t think the state government should come in, but I think we should be talking about it, and making sure that we’re investing in AI safety and teaching people what’s a healthy amount of time to spend on. Social media, what’s good use? What’s not so good use? Our education system, I think, just has not kept up with the technology, and I think that’s something we need to seriously look at.
Ton: Social media is a big concern for me as well, and I I’ve seen sort of both sides coming at it when it comes to sort of restricting or regulating use of it by minors where on one side we have “Yes, we see these horrible things coming about we see increased rates of suicide. We have bullying. We have all of these mental health issues which appear to be connected with social media” and then on the other side there is “Well if you’re a teenager, If you’re a child, there aren’t a lot of real-world places where you can have community outside your family. You can’t go to the mall by yourself, You can’t go to a park by yourself, Etc”. Do you have thoughts on how to approach keeping kids safe while keeping them from being isolated completely?
Reistoffer: You must be my age or younger, I’m guessing, because you see it too. We’re going to spend a lot of time figuring this out, and I’m just worried it’s going to take too long, because I already see it.
I mean, I remember when I was in high school. I had a friend who is an older brother that was in college at the university of Minnesota, and there were only so many colleges that were allowed on Facebook; it was the very first generation of Facebook. and he snuck us college emails so we could create some of the first Facebook accounts. And I just remember those days sometimes, I see how different it changed, how we talked there, and how it wasn’t like 10 times a day, it was more like once a week. It was “Here’s my trophy from the baseball game” types of things, and just the culture that’s evolved around it.
So no, I’ll admit. I don’t have a good answer to that, but I mean, first of all, I’m running for office. So I’ll just say I don’t think it’s our state legislature that’s going to solve this issue. It’s our parents and our teachers. They need to talk more, but unfortunately, I think there’s too many battles between parents and teachers. There’s mistrust there, and that kind of hurts me because I remember when I was in school; my house was The Haunted house for Halloween, and my teacher would March the whole class, a block away, and my mom would be dressed up. The whole class would come over to my house and there was just this real sense of community back then that I think it’s kind of lost.
And I get it times have changed. It’s never going to be exactly like that again. But there should still be more of an effort between parents and educators. There needs to be more activities, whatever I can do I haven’t figured this out yet. But if there’s something as a state legislator that I can do to help give kids more options for activities, I’m all for it that.
I think whatever we can do to invest in our youth. I’m all for it. I would always err on the side of supporting it, not opposing it. If something doesn’t make sense fiscally, or it’s not the right time, you know, I’ll think about that, but if there is a good idea out there about, but what to do to help our kids, I’m going to be all for it, and I’m going to listen to that idea.
Ton: Lastly, I believe you wanted to speak on the issue of ethical government?
Reistoffer: Yes. So when I talk about ethical government, I’m talking about open government and good government.
We can improve our government processes. Starting with open government, I will look at all 50 states and what laws they have. I’ll look at federal law like the freedom of information act. I will talk to the local journalists, including you, but I know folks over at Dakota scout and Argus Leader, Rapid City Journal. Et. Cetera, over the years, I have seen journalists have to take the state government to court to get records.
I think that’s unacceptable. I know in Colorado I was able to submit open government requests several times to get information. I was even able to obtain emails from lawmakers to state agencies and back-and-forth South Dakota. Right now, we have 0 state laws that require open government. So I think starting with an open government task Force that looks at all 50 states, that’s about repairing trust in state officials.
I’m going to get a lot of opposition from my fellow legislators on it, I get it, I’ll get opposition from state agencies. People are going to say “This is going to create a lot of work, there’s going to be a cost associated with open government”.
I’m going to say, “I don’t care because in the long run, I bet over the course of 10 years. If we have open government laws, you’re going to see a lot less egregious things like Governor Noem’s governor’s credit card”. If you can get open, government requests early when misuse of taxpayer money is happening, we’re going to save a lot of money in the long run.
So get ready. There’s going to be pushback, but I’m going to fight for open government, and I’m not looking for some California model or East Coast model, or whatever. We’ll come up with the South Dakota set of standards that makes sense, but it needs to be fair, It needs to be transparent. And I’m looking forward to fighting for open government.