Join Our Campaign
Proven Experience
Steve Kolbeck has the experience needed to represent District 2
- Elected to The Brandon City Council from 2004 until 2006
- Served as South Dakota Public Utilities Commission from 2006 until 2011
- Kolbeck currently serves two gubernatorial appointments: the South Dakota Housing Authority and the South Dakota Workforce Development Council through the Department of Labor. He has received gubernatorial appointments from the last three Republican governors.
- Kolbeck is a member of the Brandon and Sioux Falls Chambers of Commerce and serves on the Immerging Issues Committee for the Sioux Falls Chamber that focuses on legislation and public policy issues.
- He serves on the Sioux Falls Development Foundation Board of Directors where he is the current vice president and is in line to be president. In his role with the Sioux Falls Development Foundation, Kolbeck is chairman of the Real Estate Committee and co-chair of the Talent and Workforce Committee. Kolbeck serves on the Forward Sioux Falls Board of Directors as a member of the Joint Venture Management Committee.
NRA-RVF Rating
AQ
A pro-gun candidate whose rating is based solely on the candidate’s responses to the NRA-PVF Candidate Questionnaire. The ‘AQ’ rating is the highest rating a candidate can receive.
Get to know more about Steve Kolbeck from this article!
Kolbeck's Questionaire
Name: Steve Kolbeck
Age: 51
Profession/place of employment: Principal Manager - XCEL Energy - South Dakota
Prior public/community service: Brandon City Council '04-'06, SD PUC '06-'11
Listed - Wife: Stacy (Teacher at Brandon Valley), Sons: Wilson 23, Alex 21, Joseph 21, Daughter: Mary 17
Question #1
Question #2
Question #3
Question #1
The Senate is schedules to hold an impeachment trial for Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg in late June for allegedly committing acts of malfeasance while in office, charges that stem from a 2020 crash investigation into the death of Joe Boever.
Given what you know about Ravnsborg’s conduct, which included lying to law enforcement about his cellphone usage the night of the crash and using members of his staff to glean information about how the investigation might be conducted, do you support the House’s decision to impeach, and would you vote to convict at trial?
I would vote to impeach Attorney General Ravnsborg. I understand the incredibly hard position the Senate is in and that some worry about setting a precedent for impeachment proceedings due to a misdemeanor conviction. However, I feel a worse precedent will be set if the Senate does not impeach him. Saying no to impeachment in my opinion sends a message that elected officials in South Dakota cannot be impeached for almost anything or the litmus test to be impeached is too high. As a former state-wide elected official, I can attest that once elected, you are always serving in your official position regardless of who, what, or where you are. Representative Goodwin, Mortenson, and others laid out very good arguments on this in the House while arguing for impeachment to proceed.
To support my vote, I would argue that a precedent is a specific set of events that would need to be duplicated. In my opinion, in this case, that would be the misdemeanors he was convicted of, injecting himself in the investigation, lying to law enforcement about his cell phone usage, and the loss of life.
So again, in my opinion, the precedent set if they impeach AG Ravnsberg would be: the Attorney General of the State of South Dakota specifically, lies to law enforcement, uses their state-wide elected Attorney General position to insert themselves into an active investigation; which they eventually plead guilty to misdemeanors that caused an accident, that resulted in a loss of life.
I believe that person should be impeached and removed from office.
Given what you know about Ravnsborg’s conduct, which included lying to law enforcement about his cellphone usage the night of the crash and using members of his staff to glean information about how the investigation might be conducted, do you support the House’s decision to impeach, and would you vote to convict at trial?
I would vote to impeach Attorney General Ravnsborg. I understand the incredibly hard position the Senate is in and that some worry about setting a precedent for impeachment proceedings due to a misdemeanor conviction. However, I feel a worse precedent will be set if the Senate does not impeach him. Saying no to impeachment in my opinion sends a message that elected officials in South Dakota cannot be impeached for almost anything or the litmus test to be impeached is too high. As a former state-wide elected official, I can attest that once elected, you are always serving in your official position regardless of who, what, or where you are. Representative Goodwin, Mortenson, and others laid out very good arguments on this in the House while arguing for impeachment to proceed.
To support my vote, I would argue that a precedent is a specific set of events that would need to be duplicated. In my opinion, in this case, that would be the misdemeanors he was convicted of, injecting himself in the investigation, lying to law enforcement about his cell phone usage, and the loss of life.
So again, in my opinion, the precedent set if they impeach AG Ravnsberg would be: the Attorney General of the State of South Dakota specifically, lies to law enforcement, uses their state-wide elected Attorney General position to insert themselves into an active investigation; which they eventually plead guilty to misdemeanors that caused an accident, that resulted in a loss of life.
I believe that person should be impeached and removed from office.
Question #2
Gov. Noem this year successfully blocked an attempt to reduce the state sales tax rate by .5% and a separate effort to eliminate sales tax on groceries also failed to earn passage.
How do you feel about the governor’s cautious approach to protecting existing government revenues amid record-setting surplus in state coffers in recent years?
I believe the Governor was correct to oppose any major tax shifts in this time of fiscal uncertainty. With the historic nature of the past few years, I think we can agree our State budget is not a “real” budget for the time being. The amount of Federal stimulus in our state has skewed almost everything. Not long ago when I was Chairman of the SD PUC and during the Daugaard administration all agencies were asked to cut 10% from their budget. Those times could be right around the corner again. That’s why the State of South Dakota has historically saved in times of plenty to be ready for times of not. Having been a former regulator I learned one of the most important things for long term success is stability. Making drastic revenue policy shifts due to short term changes can have negative effects. The best thing to do was what the Governor suggested, and that is ride this thing out for a little while longer. If the current recession talk becomes a reality, we will be glad we did.
How do you feel about the governor’s cautious approach to protecting existing government revenues amid record-setting surplus in state coffers in recent years?
I believe the Governor was correct to oppose any major tax shifts in this time of fiscal uncertainty. With the historic nature of the past few years, I think we can agree our State budget is not a “real” budget for the time being. The amount of Federal stimulus in our state has skewed almost everything. Not long ago when I was Chairman of the SD PUC and during the Daugaard administration all agencies were asked to cut 10% from their budget. Those times could be right around the corner again. That’s why the State of South Dakota has historically saved in times of plenty to be ready for times of not. Having been a former regulator I learned one of the most important things for long term success is stability. Making drastic revenue policy shifts due to short term changes can have negative effects. The best thing to do was what the Governor suggested, and that is ride this thing out for a little while longer. If the current recession talk becomes a reality, we will be glad we did.
Question #3
Legislators in 2022 spent hours debating whether state government should prohibit employers from mandating the COVID-19 vaccine.
For challengers: What is governments role in refereeing relationships between employers and employees with regard to vaccinations and individual rights?
The traditional conservative view is that employees have a right to find a different job if they do not like what an employer is asking of them. This is the basic premise for anti-union discussions and anything to the contrary could be considered a pro-labor stance. The argument gets clouded because of our current lack of political discourse and distrust of the medical community. We also have to remember this is all centered around the political nature of COVID-19 which hopefully we are on the back end of. Having set the table with that, I do not believe the government should be telling employers what they can and cannot ask of their employees. This is a slippery slope and could continue to other government regulations. In my opinion some confuse this with government control of health risks, like smoking in a restaurant. The difference in my mind is the employer is asking something of the employee, whereas in the case of a smoking ban the government is asking something of the business owner. I don’t see those as the same thing and feel they fall into different public health risk and private employment risk issues.
For challengers: What is governments role in refereeing relationships between employers and employees with regard to vaccinations and individual rights?
The traditional conservative view is that employees have a right to find a different job if they do not like what an employer is asking of them. This is the basic premise for anti-union discussions and anything to the contrary could be considered a pro-labor stance. The argument gets clouded because of our current lack of political discourse and distrust of the medical community. We also have to remember this is all centered around the political nature of COVID-19 which hopefully we are on the back end of. Having set the table with that, I do not believe the government should be telling employers what they can and cannot ask of their employees. This is a slippery slope and could continue to other government regulations. In my opinion some confuse this with government control of health risks, like smoking in a restaurant. The difference in my mind is the employer is asking something of the employee, whereas in the case of a smoking ban the government is asking something of the business owner. I don’t see those as the same thing and feel they fall into different public health risk and private employment risk issues.