Lawmakers grill South Dakota officials about Noem's credit card use
Gov. Kristi Noem presents her annual budget address to lawmakers in the South Dakota State Capitol on Dec. 3, 2024. (Makenzie Huber/South Dakota Searchlight)
Revelations about Republican former South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem's credit card use prompted a legislative oversight committee to question state officials Thursday in Pierre about how the state approves credit card spending for travel and other expenses.
The Dakota Scout obtained and published records earlier this year showing about $750,000 billed to the Noem office's state-issued credit cards during her six years in office, including travel expenses related to her book tour and a Canadian hunting trip, plus expensive stays at hotels such as The Venetian in Las Vegas. Noem resigned the governorship in January after she was appointed U.S. secretary of Homeland Security.
'Out of control': Kristi Noem on defense over Homeland Security spending overrun
The governor's credit card is intended to pay for travel-related expenses. Allowable expenses, said Bureau of Finance and Management Commissioner Jim Terwilliger, include flights, hotel rooms and meals.
Sen. Taffy Howard, R-Rapid City, who chairs the legislative Government Operations and Audit Committee, said she doesn't view 'several $500 charges for Sirius XM radio' as 'allowable expenses.'
'The taxpayers have an issue with that. I have an issue with that,' Howard said.
Since the information was published, Terwilliger said the state canceled the satellite radio subscriptions and made internal policy changes for credit card expenses.
Many of the expenses related to the Governor's Office credit cards come from security details ensuring the governor's safety during travel, Terwilliger said. The state has since separated accounts between security and the governor's other expenses to better track what costs are directly related to the governor's spending.
Noem traveled to other states and Canada during her time as governor, sometimes appearing at campaign events supporting out-of-state Republicans or for President Donald Trump.
Lawmakers questioned if taxpayer-funded security detail should only be for state-related expenses, rather than campaign-related travel; how governor travel expenses are determined as a benefit to the state; and how many people in the Governor's Office have a credit card, among other questions.
While Terwilliger said he doesn't believe any of the credit card charges were campaign related, security for the governor is a '24/7, 365-day mission.' Security is provided by the state Highway Patrol. Terwilliger said he could not say how many people have access to one of the credit cards, saying it would provide information for 'potential bad guys that want to do harm.'
Howard was not satisfied with the responses.
'It's our job as legislators to set up parameters,' Howard said. '…Your answer cannot always, when legislators ask for an explanation, the answer cannot just be hiding behind security all the time. We have to figure out a way we can ask questions and get them answered without someone just saying, 'Well, that's security. You can't know.''
The State Auditor's Office reviews the credit card charges once an invoice is submitted by the Governor's Office. Auditor Rich Sattgast told lawmakers he has never denied a charge from the governor.
He said the Legislature could set stricter parameters on elected officials' spending to improve oversight or limit spending.
'For the vast majority of elected officials, there has not been what would be seen by the public as an overstepping of their jurisdiction of spending money,' Sattgast said. 'So I think having the public be aware of it and being accountable to the public is probably the primary aspect of it.'
Jenna Latham, with the Auditor's Office, said the governor and some other elected officials can stay in expensive hotels because 'they answer to the taxpayer.'
The office will occasionally question if an expense is allowable and ask for justification. Sometimes the expense will get scratched and covered by the individual, 'but if they come back, you essentially have to approve it,' she said.
'There's not much that can stop us,' Latham said, adding, 'we have to follow the rules.'
Howard told lawmakers that they can propose legislation recommendations at the end of the year 'if there's different legislation that we think should be brought.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How I'd Allocate $10,000 Across These 3 Brilliant TSX Stocks for Growth and Income
Written by Puja Tayal at The Motley Fool Canada Investing in the stock market is not just about buying the dip and selling the rally. Knowing what you want from your money is crucial in determining which dips to buy. If you want to put $10,000 to work and help you get growth and income for the long term, you might have to choose two different stocks. However, there are a few stocks that can give you both. A good strategy could be to invest in three stocks – one for income, one for growth, and one for both. Starting with the stock that gives you income and even grows your money in the long term. The non-prime lender goeasy (TYSX:GSY) is a stock that has given regular quarterly dividends and even grown them by strong double digits in 10 out of the last 11 years. goeasy is in the business of giving unsecured and secured loans through easyfinancial and easyhome brands. Over the years, it expanded its business horizontally by Offering new loan products — point-of-sale financing and automotive loans — and ancillary services like creditor insurance and warranty coverage; Expanding its distribution channel; Expanding its Canadian presence; and Strengthening its underwriting model to give loans to more customers while controlling credit risk. All these efforts have helped the lender increase its loan portfolio over the years and grow its share price by 800% in the last 10 years, which is 10 times the 79% rally of the TSX Composite Index. goeasy stock also offers a 3.8% dividend yield from the interest earned on the loan portfolio. The yield might look small, but if you had held the stock for 10 years, the $0.5 dividend per share would have grown to $5.84. A $3,000 investment in goeasy in June 2015 would have bought you 154 shares, which are now worth $23,639, and have increased your annual dividend from $77 to $899. Now is a good time to buy and hold the stock, as high credit risk has pulled down the share price. It is trading at a forward price-to-earnings ratio of 8.71, below its five-year average of 10.76. Business jet maker Bombardier (TSX:BBD.B) is a growth-oriented stock that can give you double-digit capital appreciation. Although the management is considering paying dividends in the next two to three years as its free cash flow (FCF) stabilizes, meaningful returns will come from capital appreciation. Here's why. Bombardier's main business is selling business jets. The order book for business jets can fluctuate, which would be reflected in its share price. For instance, the company completed the flight test of its next-generation Global 8000 in May, hinting at a better product mix in the future. Moreover, the defence and pre-owned business jet verticals present opportunities to boost orders and grow the share price. As for dividends, the business jet maker could use its recurring revenue from after-market services. A $3,000 investment in Bombardier stock in June 2020 is now $23,000. This stock tends to rally in the second half as aircraft delivery volumes surge and free cash flow comes in. Although the stock has already jumped 32% from its April dip, there is more upside as the company secures orders for Global 8000. You have the growth, now comes the dividend. Many dividend stocks intend to help you generate passive income for your retirement. They offer dividend-reinvestment plans (DRIP) and even grow them annually to adjust for inflation. You can bank on them to pay dividends in every market condition, thereby complementing your pension. Telus (TSX:T) has a 21-year history of growing dividends. It offers DRIP to automate your retirement planning by accumulating dividend-paying shares. You can be assured about the dividends as Telus pays them using subscription money. The dividend-growth rate has slowed from 7-10% to 3-8% as competitive pricing and network sharing reduce its margins. However, it is working on monetizing its 5G network, which will help strengthen its balance sheet and FCF. This could help it grow dividends for years to come. You could consider investing $4,000 now while the stock trades closer to its 10-year low and lock in a 7.4% dividend yield. The post How I'd Allocate $10,000 Across These 3 Brilliant TSX Stocks for Growth and Income appeared first on The Motley Fool Canada. More reading Made in Canada: 5 Homegrown Stocks Ready for the 'Buy Local' Revolution [PREMIUM PICKS] Market Volatility Toolkit Best Canadian Stocks to Buy in 2025 Beginner Investors: 4 Top Canadian Stocks to Buy for 2025 5 Years From Now, You'll Probably Wish You Grabbed These Stocks Subscribe to Motley Fool Canada on YouTube Fool contributor Puja Tayal has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool recommends TELUS. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. 2025 Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Nancy Mace said 'due process is for citizens.' Here's who it's really for
In early June 2025, Republican U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina wrote an X post (archived) that read: "Due process is for citizens." Her comment had been viewed more than 2.4 million times as of this writing and had amassed more than 6,500 likes. The same claim has appeared in multiple X posts. In a similar tone, in May 2025, another X user wrote: "Due process is for citizens, not invaders." (X user @NancyMace) In short, due process is the legal principle that the government must follow fair procedures before depriving a person of life, liberty or property. It serves as a safeguard against arbitrary actions by the state, ensuring that people are treated justly under the law. For a more detailed explanation, see our full breakdown in this article on former President Bill Clinton's 1996 immigration law. While Mace's post did not explicitly say that due process protections are, or should be, limited to only U.S. citizens, her replies below the post reinforced that interpretation. However, the U.S. Constitution protects all "persons," not just citizens, under the due-process clauses of the Fifth and 14th amendments. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that these protections apply to anyone physically present in the United States regardless of citizenship or immigration status. An MSNBC article on the topic similarly concluded that Mace's "implication … that noncitizens don't get that protection" was "incorrect." The South Carolina representative doubled down on her stance in the replies below her post, suggesting that noncitizens should not be entitled to due-process protections in the U.S. For example, when one X user wrote, "The Constitution doesn't say 'only citizens.' Due process applies to persons — that includes non-citizens. That's settled law," Mace replied by saying: "Skip due process coming in, don't expect it going out. Citizens first!" Other replies further suggested she believed only U.S. citizens should be entitled to such protections (archived, archived, archived). (X users @FJBIDEN_22 and @NancyMace) These exchanges were not the first time Mace commented on due process. In late May 2025, she weighed in on the principle in response to a federal judge's decision to block the deportation of eight noncitizens convicted of violent crimes. The day before U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy issued a 17-page order in which he emphasized that "the Court recognizes that the class members at issue here have criminal histories. But that does not change due process," Mace criticized the ruling, telling Fox News (archived): "They didn't want due process on their way in illegally, they shouldn't get due process on their way out." However, the representative's comments about due process contradicted remarks she made about the principle in the past. In February 2023, Mace wrote on X (archived): "Everyone deserves the right to due process. Even those we vehemently oppose." (X user @NancyMace) Snopes has reached out to Mace for comment on whether she maintains that due-process protections should apply only to U.S. citizens and how she reconciles that view with her 2023 statement. We will update this article if we receive a response. The U.S. Constitution's guarantee of due process appears in the Fifth and 14th amendments, both of which state that no person should be deprived "of life, liberty or property, without due process of law." As shown, the language uses "person," not "citizen," with regard to due-process protections. Further, the Supreme Court has repeatedly interpreted that due-process protections apply to everyone within U.S. borders regardless of citizenship or immigration status. In Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel Mezei (1953) the Court emphasized (Page 212) that "aliens who have once passed through [U.S.] gates, even illegally, may be expelled only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of fairness-encompassed in due process of law." Similarly, in cases such as Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) and earlier decisions dating back more than a century, the Supreme Court made clear that the government cannot detain or deport people arbitrarily. In the 2001 case, the Court underscored that "the Due Process Clause applies to all persons within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent." In simple words, noncitizens must be given fair procedures, such as notice or a "credible fear interview," before being deprived of their liberty. The Supreme Court expressed the same view in the case of Reno v. Flores (1993), stating: "It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings." This was not the first time Snopes addressed a claim regarding Mace. For instance, in late May 2025, we investigated a rumor that she ordered staffers to create burner accounts to promote her online. Meanwhile, earlier in June 2025, we also fact-checked a rumor about whether the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, signed by Clinton, allowed deportation without due process. "327K Views · 15K Reactions | Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) Responds to Arguments That Illegal Immigrants Convicted of Heinous Crimes Deserve Due Process after a Judge Blocks a Deportation Flight to South Sudan | 'They Didn't Want Due Process on Their Way in Illegally, They Shouldn't Get Due Process on Their Way Out.' Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) Responds to Arguments... | by Fox News | Facebook." 2022, Accessed 6 June 2025. "U.S. Constitution - Fifth Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | | Library of Congress." 15 Dec. 1791, Constitution Annotated. "U.S. Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | | Library of Congress." 9 July 1868, Deng, Grace. "Did Nancy Mace Order Staffers to Create Burner Accounts to Promote Her Online? Here's What We Know." Snopes, 30 May 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. Dunbar, Marina. "Court Halts Trump Administration's Effort to Send Eight Men to South Sudan." The Guardian, The Guardian, 23 May 2025, Gabbatt, Adam. "Group Stranded with Ice in Djibouti Shipping Container after Removal from US." The Guardian, The Guardian, 6 June 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. " 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. "Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993)." Justia Law, Rubin, Jordan. "Due Process Is Not Limited to Citizens, Contrary to Nancy Mace's Claim." MSNBC, 4 June 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. Wrona, Aleksandra. "Bill Clinton Did Not Sign Law in 1996 Allowing Deportation without Due Process." Snopes, 5 June 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. "Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001)." Justia Law,
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Poll: Majority of Democrats give thumbs-down to their leaders in Congress
Most Democrats disapprove of how their party's lawmakers in Congress are handling their jobs, according to a new national poll. Fifty-three percent of Democrats questioned in a Quinnipiac University survey released Wednesday gave their party's congressional members a thumbs-down, while 41% approved of their performance. According to the poll, conducted June 5-8, just 21% of all voters approved of the way Democrats in Congress were handing their jobs, with seven in ten disapproving. Head Here For The Latest Fox News Polling The 21% approval is the same as in Quinnipiac's February national poll, matching "an all-time low since Quinnipiac University first asked this question of registered voters in March 2009." The survey indicates 79% of GOP voters approve of the way congressional Republicans are handling their job, with 13% disapproving. Read On The Fox News App Where Trump Stands In Fox News Polling 100 Days Into His Second Term Among all voters, 32% approved of how GOP congressional members were performing their duties, while just over six in ten disapproved. Overall approval for Republicans in Congress has dropped eight points since Quinnipiac's February poll, with disapproval jumping nine points. The Democratic Party has been in the political wilderness since November's elections, when Republicans won back control of the White House and the Senate and defended their fragile House majority. And Republicans made gains among Black, Hispanic and younger voters, all traditional members of the Democratic Party's base. Since President Donald Trump's return to power earlier this year, an increasingly energized base of Democrats is urging party leaders to take a stronger stand in pushing back against the president's sweeping and controversial agenda during the opening months of his second administration. And their anger is directed not only at Republicans, but at Democrats they feel aren't vocal enough in their opposition to Trump. And that's fueled a plunge in the Democratic Party's favorable ratings, which have hit historic lows in several surveys the past couple of months. The new poll from Quinnipiac also indicates a decline in Trump's approval ratings among voters nationwide. Thirty-eight percent of those questioned in the survey said they approve of the way the president is handling his duties, down three points from Quinnipiac's early April poll. Fifty-four percent in the new poll gave Trump a thumbs-down for his handling of his job as president, down one point from the April survey. Trump's approval ratings were mostly above water as he returned to the White House in late January, but his numbers soon slid underwater in many national surveys and remain in negative territory nearly five months into his second article source: Poll: Majority of Democrats give thumbs-down to their leaders in Congress
