South Dakotans for Open and Clean Government opens shop. It could be much easier to park at the Capitol during the 2009 session.
I hadn’t checked the Secretary of State’s campaign finance filings for a while, but I see that the South Dakotans for Open and Clean Government have opened up a PAC for their ballot measure. And I got reading, and contemplating. And this little measure might end up being the most explosive and hard fought measure of the 2008 campaign season.
Judicial Accountability? Who cares. Abortion? Snore. This one could be the one that has everyone in South Dakota with an opinion hollering one way or another.
Not familiar with the Open and Clean Government ballot measure? As it states in part:
No public body public officer, person in the employ of the state or any of its political subdivisions, or candidate for public office may, directly or indirectly direct permit, receive require, or facilitate the use of tax revenues or any other public resources for campaign, lobbying, or partisan purposes, including payment of dues or membership fees of any kind to any person, league, or association which directly or indirectly engages in lobbying, campaigns or partisan activity. No candidate, political committee, or political party may accept any contribution from any state, state agency, political subdivision of the state, foreign government, Indian tribe, federal agency, or the federal government. A violation of this section is a Class 1 misdemeanor.
I read that a little while back, and sent a note to Tonchi Weaver of Rapid City, one of the three sponsors to ask about the measure. Tonchi noted that:
The average American views politics and government with a combination of apathy and cynicism because of what they perceive as systemic corruption. This has always been one of my frustrations, because I believe our forefathers meant for us to be vigilant of – if not participatory in – our own government. I think this measure will help to dispel that attitude by restricting what is often seen as an incestuous relationship between elected officials, lobbyists, and contractors by inserting a degree of separation between public service and personal gain. (This has been a local concern.)
Simply stated, it protects public pockets from being picked. Best of all, it will cost taxpayers nothing to enact.
Our state’s initiative process has been abused of late by outsiders who’ve taken advantage of it to further their agendas, but I believe this change in existing law will benefit and protect taxpayers in South Dakota.
That’s a fairly generic statement for this ballot measure without showing too much of the hand they’re holding. But from my reading this is going to be a broad measure which will shut down practices that have taken place in the past few years. And some that are such a way of life that they aren’t even noticed.
Remember last election, where I pointed out that the SDACC was spending dues money on fighting the repeal of the cell phone tax:
But with the SDACC therein lies another question – with tax dollars being paid to them in the form of it’s dues – does passing them through this organization suddenly make it legal? Especially in light of the fact that the organization was created (or at least enabled) through legislation?
If the case is “yes” – what is there to stop the organization from raising dues to build a taxpayer funded warchest for any measure they choose, such as the drink tax? In effect, they’d be spending property tax and wheel tax revenues to convince people they need another tax.
(Read that here.) Of course, the campaign didn’t agree with how I viewed it, but if this ballot measure passes, I don’t think there’s any question of it being out of bounds. Why?
Because “no public body public officer… may, directly or indirectly… facilitate the use of tax revenues or any other public resources for campaign, lobbying, or partisan purposes, including payment of dues or membership fees of any kind to any person, league, or association which directly or indirectly engages in lobbying, campaigns or partisan activity.”
I think even the no-on-8 group might concede that there could have been an indirect use last year since taxpayer paid dues were co-mingled with fees for seminars (which were also paid for with tax dollars). And certainly, officials of the organization spoke and campaigned on the measure.
So, an organization of public officials – where the dues are paid for by tax dollars – which engages in campaigns would effectively have any and all of those dues (both direct and indirect) shut off from those purposes.
They’re going to view that as bad. But there’s a part of this that will really make public officials howl in anger. Under the way I’m reading this proposal, those organizations technically couldn’t even lobby.
No public body public officer, person in the employ of the state or any of its political subdivisions, … may, directly or indirectly direct permit, receive require, or facilitate the use of tax revenues or any other public resources for … lobbying …. purposes, including payment of dues or membership fees of any kind to any person, league, or association which directly or indirectly engages in lobbying…..
Again, I removed some of the extensive language to make it more clear, but I don’t think the meaning changes at all. No taxpayer dollars can be used for lobbying, under penalty of a class one misdemeanor.
SDACC, SDACO, Municipal League, the State’s Attorney and Sheriff’s Associations, ASBSD, and any other organization that has #1) lobbyists, and #2) has dues directly paid for by their governmental body would technically have the spigot of public funds abruptly cut off. No more appropriations for dues. Or at least, no more lobbying.
And for the state itself, it may also make those blue badged guys pretty scarce during session. Because if the state can’t spend any money directly or indirectly on lobbying, that means no public officer will be permitted to advocate for one position over another. They might be able to serve in an informational role, but as soon as there is advocacy – boom! That could be considered lobbying.
So we have this little measure that no one has really paid attention to. And it stands to possibly overturn a way of life for government in South Dakota, possibly since statehood.
Should be interesting to watch.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
This is a really stupid idea. County commissioners are not full-time employees; they have lives and jobs. Why not allow them to hire someone to support their agenda in Pierre full-time?
How is this “Open Government”. Isn’t the best remedy for these types of things MORE free speech, rather than less?
In my opinion, as long as our public bodies, officers, state employees, county employees, city employees, and candidates DISCLOSE that they are using public resources to campaign, lobby, or be partisan, what is the big deal? Do you mean to tell me that the City of Wall can’t send somebody to Pierre to go lobby for a bill that would increase tourism dollars that pour into Wall?
And as long as our candidates, political committees, or political parties DISCLOSE that they are accepting contributions from states, state agencies, counties, or cities, tribes, federal agencies, or the federal government, what is the problem?
Just because you’ve got the money doesn’t mean your campaign or lobbying effort is going anywhere. People have to vote for it, first. And people learn about what they’re voting on because money is donated to buy access to speech – tv, newspaper, mailings, radio, main street leafleting, and gas money to get to the Rotary Club or to Pierre.
More speech, not less!
The way I’m reading it, it means the public lobbyists for school districts, townships and rest are dead. It leaves the lobbying in the hands of the fattest of the fat cats and they all ready have plenty of money and bought-and-paid-for elected officials in their pockets. Are you sure this wasn’t cooked up by business and industry?
I think the “open” part has to do with Government contracts. It makes the Secretary of State’s office come up with a database of anyone that currently has a government contract. It will require the contractor to provide a “summary” of what the contract is for, how long it is supposed to last, and the contract amount. Basically allowing the public access to more detailed information that is currently out there. I have seen some contracts and the description reads “for professional services”- that seems a little vague.
This petition actually looks like it will affect a lot of different areas such as lobbying, political contributions, and such.
ANY law that restricts the access of any person to the public process of government should be struck down. Where the funding comes from is irrelevant, whether the person is a public official or private party is irrevelant and whether the party is a concerned citizen, fatcat corporation or union is irrevelant.
Free and open should mean that: anything goes. If you don’t want your school board to spend tax dollars to lobby, vote them out. If a legislator can’t resist the lobbying onslaught, vote him out. Laws like this are doubly insidious as the not only restrict free speech, but, they give an appearance of fairness where none exists.
I don’t see what this bill has to do with open gov’t. Requiring that contracts or contributions be disclosed is open gov’t. Banning local units of gov’t from hiring a lobbyist isn’t open govt – its just stupid.
AND – wouldn’t this make the very existence of Associated School Boards and similiar groups illegal?
some here are confusing free speech with taxpayer paid speech.
I don’t want my tax dollars payig for lobbyists.
part time county commissioners can use my tax dollars and do it themselves. That’s why we elected them.
We don’t need taxpayer funded lobbyists lobbying our legislature for more bigger government.
Down with big government and down with my tax dollars paying for big lobbyists.
#9, listen to yourself: You hate big government so what’s your solution: pass a law!
You kinda see the problem, don’t you?
This bill is as stupid as Hal Wick proposing a law via initiative process. He is in the legislature.
Think about the implications:
Legal Services gets tax money. They are experts on legal care for the poor. They can no longer come and explain the impact of the law on those they defend.
Tourism provides aid to local regional associations for advertising. Now they can’t come and explain the impact of a new law on Tourism.
Various handicapped associations recieve moneys to provide local aid to handicapped children. Now they can’t come to explain the impact of a law on handicapped kids.
Are we as taxpayers served because all municipalities, counties, and school boards can pool their resourses to have an expert watching for laws which could have adverse impact on them? Or would we better off if we had nobody watching out for the interests of these representative groups.
Legislators are not omniscient. They don’t always have all the information. Sometimes they need advice and counsel of experts. This is what lobbyists are. It isn’t a dirty word.
Talk about a formula for only the uninformed to be able to talk to the legislature.
online degree doctoral accredited accredited distant degree online
PP:
there are exceptions for public officials to lobby.
what’s prohibited is the use of taxpayer money to pay lobbyists to lobby on behalf of government officials.
basically, the government official will have to go Pierre himself and make the case instead of paying a lobbyist to the job we elected/appointed these people to do.
the only losers here are the lobbyists and associations which means more of an opportunity for citizen activism.