Free Pat Powers!
Former State Representative Bill Peterson came up with the catchy quip “Free Pat Powers” after my 2 minutes of comments at the GOP State Convention where I explained how under initiated measure 10, my rights of free speech as expressed in the form of political contributions would be abridged because my wife holds an employment contract with a school district.
Heck, if my mother was still alive and working as a school nurse, I’d be doubly damned from donating, since the measure would prohibit donations from me because professional school staff work under contract as well.
I’ll be the first to say that some of the measure’s South Dakota supporters mean well. The problem is that – opposed to meaning well – there are some who are trying to throw the system into utter chaos. And they’ve taken some good people along for the ride on a measure which is designed to do little more that utterly disrupt the process with a poorly written measure.
Think I’m kidding?
*95.5% of the money to support the effort comes from an unidentifiable source. And the organization funneling all of this money into this so-called “open and clean government act” refuses to tell anyone where it comes from. We don’t know if it comes from sources in-state, out of state or even out of country. When they’re challenged on why they won’t provide it? Well, in response to one columnist’s probing of the matter apparently “the Bible tell them so:”
This stringent protection of the right of citizens to be quietly and privately benevolent dates back to the teachings of the Gospel (see Matthew 6:1-6 and 16-18) and our Republic’s founding. If Bob Mercer considers that suspect, he needs to take up the issue with Christian principle and Mr. Jefferson and his fellow patriots at the Constitutional Convention — not cast aspersions on SDCAC and its fine supporters.
Err, yeah.
Somehow when it was said in Matthew “So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets,” I don’t think there’s any part that adds “as you act as a conduit for out-of-state money towards your political agenda, and take your skim off the top.”
* Just like the looney “Jail-4-Judges” measure from 2 years ago, which voters soundly smashed at the polls, the measure exhibits the same type of paranoia against our judicial system and takes law enforcement out of the Attorney General’s hands:
The complaint may also be filed by a private citizen, or non-governmental group or entity, only if the complaining party has first presented to the attorney general a request to file a complaint, along with a sworn affidavit setting forth supporting facts, and the attorney has failed to file a complaint within fifteen days from receipt of the request.
The last time I knew, the AG was not in the business of letting people off the hook when they’ve committed a crime, despite the measure’s paranoia. If they decline prosecution, it’s with good reason – they can’t prove a crime has taken place.
This measure basically says that “no matter how unfounded, or lacking in evidence a complaint might be, go ahead and add it to the workload of our already clogged court system, and slow down the process for victims of child abuse, rape and murder.”
*”I hoped you liked interning for the legislature. Good luck on finding a job.”
Similar to the ban I’d have on donating money, the measure places even more draconian measure on legislative interns and pages:
Section 5. No person may enter into a government contract if such person also employs, hires, or retains the services of a current or former legislator or legislative staff member who is less than one year removed from such public position. A person who knowingly violates this prohibition is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, in addition to other penalties, forfeit any contractual rights to any payment or reimbursement.
This is probably the biggest smoking gun that the measure came from an out of state group trying to peddle it’s wares in South Dakota. Other states have – sometimes well paid - state legislative staff. In our little state on the prairie, other than to some part time session staff, we have Legislative Pages and Interns. And with this measure, they’re basically screwed.
Good luck getting a summer job, kids. Because after you’ve interned or been a page, you’re considered poison. No business, gas station, or lawn mowing service that has a government contract can legally touch you. Whether you’re first job out of college is working for a legal services group that contracts with a city, A hospital which contracts with a county to treat the indigent, or you’re pouring concrete out on the interstate – if you’ve interned at the end of your collegiate career, hiring you is verboten.
Still think the measure is all about “open and clean” government?
Sorry. It’s anything but.
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
The “citizen action” provision is one of the less talked about problems with this act. Allowing any citizen to initiate a claim at any time against any public figure sounds to me like a recipe for harassment of all politicians in the judicial system. That wastes the time and money of elected leaders and the courts.
If a citizen thinks they have “dirt” on someone, he can take it to the prosecutor – that is how our system works.
By the legal definition of “contract,” wouldn’t every student at a state university have a contract with the state? A contract need not be a signed formal writing – there is a contract where I pay you and you agree to provide me with some service – like teach me a class.
Sounds like the Bible passage has to do with HUMILITY. I think the Authors of the bill should look that word up. Along with the word pharisee.
Stay tuned for more on Initiative 10 with
“Free your ‘MINE’ and the rest will follow.” OR “CAN’T…BUY…ME…PAGE”
Where is the money coming from to fight IM 11? Where did it come from to fight Referred Law 6? I don’t see that it matters much where it comes from, as long as it’s not taxpayer’s money. The money that will fight IM 11 (and probably IM 10) could well be money from our taxes. (Planned Parenthood ring a bell?) I expect you’ll be just as OUTRAGED about that – or not. I bet not.
Good post, PP. Don’t forget the part of 10 that precludes contributions to anyone who has the intentions to make contributions to candidates. Meaning there’s a so called “soft money” ban in there as well. In a small state like this, Goodbye, Political Parties.
i still stand opposed to this intitiative, though i’m open to hearing the arguments in favor.
however, i do agree with some of the principle behind it.
whether opposed to or in favor of, let’s remember this quote from an unverified source (likely de tocqueville):
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury.”
Just out of curiousity, PP – Since a major concern of yours is that a big chunk of the money funding this ballot initiative comes from an anonymous source… do you have the same problem with the money that went to Vote Yes for Life anonymously through the corporation Roger Hunt set up?
When the legislature essentially codified that arrangement, isn’t it really approving the same thing – preventing voters from knowing who is really funding this stuff?