IM10 Great for churches… (but just ignore that domestic partnership thing)
The latest salvo from the IM10 people. (as opposed to the ones being lobbed at them)
Now, Page 2…
And finally, page 3
I have to say that I don’t think I’d even seen the Pro-life/Pro-choice groups use language as direct as this in attempting to influence the ministries around the state.
So how do you get a church full of god-fearing folk to support unconstitutional legislation? Well, you hit some hot button language…
In 2006, the South Dakota AFl-CIO passed a resolution formally opposing South Dakota’s voter-approved Marriage Protection Amendment. As the Associated Press reported that year: “The AFL-CIO In South Dakota has passed a resolution that opposes Amendment C. a November ballot measure on same-sex marriages:’
Similarly, the national AFL·CIO adopted a resolution endorsing homosexual activists’ political agenda, Including opposing all state and federal marriage amendments and promoting “transgender” cross-dressing rights on the job. (Copy enclosed)
Likewise, tho University of South Dakota Board of Regents uses your church members’ tax dollars tho exact same way: to collect union dues for an affiliate of the liberal National Education Association, whose officials use tho union’s dues money to lobby for taxpayer financed “reproductive freedom” (abortion on demand) and promote the homosexual agenda In public schools nationwide.
Of course, they miss out on that little part where the measure itself introduces “domestic partnership” into the state’s legal lexicon. Despite that fact that it’s not recognized by the state constitution. And what do they want the churches to do?
- We would appreciate an opportunity for a representative of South Dakotans Open and Clean Government to meet with you and/or your church leadership or to speak to your members in whatever forum you deem appropriate to explain Measure 10 and how it will protect your members and their tax dollars.
- If you agree that Measure 10 Is an Issue on which you and your church should take a stand, we urge you to speak out from the pulpit and to the community. If you are willing, we invite you and your church leaders to serve on a local “YES On 10″ campaign committee In your county.
- And because Measure 10 is a ballot Issue-not a political candidate ··you and your church can openly and directly endorse and support a YES vote on Measure 10. You could even legally write a check from your church operating fund as a campaign contribution to tho YES on 10 campaign, or to put up your own billboard urging a YES vote on Measure 10.
Not asking for much there. “You could even legally write a check from your church operating fund.”
The word I’m getting is that since no statewide organizations have come forward to back Lee, Dena and the rest of the IM10 crew, they are now soliciting support from individual churches.
The thing is, this is a double edged sword for the churches. Most churches and religious leaders probably like the idea of moving forward with the concept of faith-based initiatives. However, IM10 would severely constrict the ability of churches (or church-affiliated groups) to continue to be socially active. Why?
If a church-affiliated group were to get public monies for a faith-based initiative, they then could not lobby, as defined by IM10, because they could not “attempt to directly influence legislative activity by communication with any member or employee of any legislative body or with any governmental official or employee who may participate in the formulation of legislation in this state.”
Unless they cared to set themselves up as a 501 (c)3, which some religious organizations are a bit reluctant to do, if they aren’t downright persnickity about it.
So, anyone this this is going to drum up the IM10 movement any badly needed support?
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
Grud –
Aside from this being somewhat off topic, the transparency website bill part of this isn’t bad. It’s the rest of it that’s execrable.
In fact, I talked to one atty tonight who actually was asked to review it before IM10 was filed as a measure. He said the same thing, and pointed out to them before that it’s being bogged down with the rest of the nonsense.
What’s happening this election is that the SDCAC crew has taken any goodwill it had built up among conservatives and from all their nutty and downright cantankerous behavior they’ve not just burned all their bridges, they’ve blown up any part a bridge might be attached to in the future.
When they’re going after Bill Napoli as not being conservative enough, you’ve got to wonder who is steering that out of control crazy train.
So, if I hear you correctly, you think there’s a chance that you and Gant and Greenfield might not be swayed by some fluffy sounding names like “Open and Clean Government”, or “Taxpayer Transparency”, or “Conservative Action Council” on the packaging alone and will pay attention to the substance in the future. And perhaps Orv had it right the first go-round. Orv’s a young man (by my standards) but he does show wisdom beyond his years at times.
Grud – we never were.
Not everything coming out of their org is bad. But then again, not everything coming out of it is good.
And IM10, aside from the transparency website, is horrendous.
The transparency website is fluff. “no bid contracts”. That’s not enough. Who cares? I want to see the actual meat, actual payments, actual stuff. Not some list of contracts that your wife has with Brookings county or whatever. The “transparency” described in that measure is about as transparent as the duct tape. We need Scotch (c) 3M brand, or some sort of Packing-tape level of transparency.
IM 10 is worthless in that regard.
the transparency stuff is good. so is the ban on taxpayer-funded lobbying. don’t you agree, pat?
actually, grud, it should be the state auditor who has the greatest ability to lay bare the bones of government.
Actually, lexrex, the idea of banning taxpayer funded lobbying may make a good sound bite, but when you step back and look at the big picture, it is just not a good idea.
Here’s why:
The way that IM10 is written, groups like the Municipal League and the County Commissioners Association could not communicate a position on ANY issue to their membership because the staff of these organizations would then be “lobbying” (as it is defined in IM10) and since these organizations are funded by public monies, the staff could be charged with misdemeanors simply for doing their jobs.
And remember, it’s not just about taxes. These groups work on many other issues that have direct impacts on everyday South Dakotans. Issues like stormwater disposal, feedlot management and zoning, public safety, highway and street construction and maintenance to name just a few.
In my years around the Capitol, I have seen these groups operate both during Legislative session and during the interim. The information they provide to legislators and executive branch departments is vital to the process.
The other important thing to remember is that these organizations bring a collective voice to the process. Can you imagine how difficult it would be for a legislator or an executive branch agency to try and gain a consensus on any issue if they had to get input from 310 different cities, 170+ school districts or 66 different counties? That is just unworkable and would create an increased bureaucracy that no one wants.
Lastly, the overwhelming majority of our local elected officials serve in a part time capacity–many have full time jobs. In many localities, it is difficult to get people interested in running for public office (ie. city council, school board or county commission) as many people just don’t have the time in today’s busy world. If we pass IM10, these local elected officials will now have to take time away from their families and their work to make repeated and regular trips to Pierre to represent the interests of their local body in front of the Legislature, or the various agencies of state government.
My concern is that when that burden is presented to a potential candidate for public office, they will likely shy away from that extra duty, and the pool of potential candidates will be infinitely small. That is not a good thing for local governments or for the taxpayers they represent.
Bottom line is this: if you want to ban taxpayer funded lobbying, be careful what you wish for, because it might just come true.
greg, good points, but i’m not sure why a legislator would have any extra trips to pierre. i’m not doubting you, i’m just asking you to explain.
as for gaining a consensus, i’m not sure it has be any different than other legislative questions. if i were a reprsentative, i’d gather input from the schools and cities in my district, and represent them to the best of his abilities. a consensus is determined by the legislators coming together and debating, sharing, and discussing. as a legislator, what else do i need?
as a citizen, then i wouldn’t have to worry about paying taxes to have someone lobby to raise my taxes. in sioux falls, we defeat local attempts to raise taxes, but pay for lobbyists to go to pierre to do just the opposite. something about that rubs me the wrong way.
compared to you, greg, i know i’m a mere simpleton. you have more experience with this than i, but i’m just not sold. willing to reconsider; just not sold.
Lexrex,
I totally agree with Greg. The taxpayer ban on “lobbying” is counter-productive.
If municipalities can’t support the Municipal League to lobby on behalf of the interests of our cities, how will legislators know the full impact of what they are considering on cities? If Cabinet members can’t testify before a committee or talk to legislators in the “Lobby” (genesis of the term “lobbyists”), you are not going to have good legislation. For my college age daughter to not be able to lobby for her causes because I have a government contract (I don’t have one) is an unconscionable offense against the right of all citizens to petition their government. Basically SDCAC is making a direct “ad hominem guilt by association” attack on my daughter. Her basic rights are denied just because she is my daughter.
There is a perception that “lobbyists” are evil. They are not. They provide information to the process. Information is the most important commodity in a democracy.
With regard to the transparancy issue, it is a good thing but it has to be done properly. When one considers all the other ill-thought out components of this measure, one should have pause with regard to the depth of the thought on this group’s concept of transparency, especially in light of their own unwillingness to be tranparent on their own finances.
From Lee Beard: “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.”
For them to hide behind Holy Scripture is offensive to me. The Word is not a shield to hide behind but a window into THE Light.
Mathew 6:1-6 is specifically about announcing your generosity to the poor with “trumpets” to gain public accolades. And Mathew 6:16-18 is about fasting (personal acts of contrition for our sins) and making them pure by not searching for or opening them up to public accolades.
These teachings are not about hiding POLITICAL contributions from public scrutiny. For Lee to claim that his cause equates to either of these acts is disgusting and a egregious act of taking the Teaching out of context to the degree of using the Word to tell a lie. This my friend is sacrilegious.
Frankly, Lexrex, when I look at the total body of work of this group, I question their credibility on anything. There is a Latin term for acting in a way that discredits all of the arguments proposed by a person/group. It is called “Tu Quogue”.
An example:
SDCAC claims that it supports eliminating improper spending of money by government by limiting people from the process who might have an interst in the spending of the money but doesn’t disclose its source of money. What if it being supported by government money or someone who has an interest in government contracts? How do we know if they hide behind Scripture?
When one takes overt acts in contrast to the most central principle they espouse, the person/group can be dismissed as lacking credibility.
Lexrex, my point on local officials having to make regular trips to Pierre is simple. The job of a group like the Municipal League is to gather information, develop a position on a particular issue, achieve consensus and then advocate that position to policy makers in the Legislature and the executive branch.
If IM10 passes, the Municipal League staff could gather information and submit that information to its member cities. That is where their involvement would end. Then it would be up to each city to develop a position and advocate that position. That means local elected officials or city staff would have to travel to Pierre on a regular basis to make sure the interests of their city are represented fairly. In essence, the collective voice of local government groups will be silenced.
In addition, since the Municipal League staff could not offer any direction or guidance on an issue to their member cities (since that would be “lobbying”), I believe many cities will have to increase the use of outside consultants due to the complicated nature of any number of these issues. There is little doubt in my mind that this would lead to increased costs and bureaucracy for local governments across the state. So instead of decreasing the burden on taxpayers, I believe it will INCREASE the burden on taxpayers.
Also, please remember that IM10 makes an exception for state employee lobbyists. They are NOT impacted by IM10. Since local government representation will be fragmented at the same time that state government representation will be unaffected, there will be a significant shift of power to the three branches of state government.
Like I wrote earlier, be careful what you wish for….
One other thought, Troy Jones makes a point about his college age daughter in his post. Did you know that if Troy’s daughter took a position as a legislative intern, she could not work for any company/business that had a government contract?
IM10, section 5 states, “No person may enter into a government contract if the 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 a public position.” Since the threshold for contracts is $500, most businesses in South Dakota would be precluded from hiring some of our most talented youth.
So the message that we, as a state, will be sending to the young people who want to take part in the legislative process is: “Thanks for taking an interest in public service, but go look for a job outside the borders of South Dakota!”
That’s just one more of the unintended consequences of IM10….
actually, lex, if you read the statutes and constitution the State Auditor only pre-audits claims against the state. Legislative audit has all the dirt, and the governor controls all the books.
But IM 10 says the Sec. of State will lay those bones clean.
So be it.
troy, thanks for the loooonnnnnnggggg response. no truly, thank you. a couple things:
you said, “If municipalities can’t support the Municipal League to lobby on behalf of the interests of our cities, how will legislators know the full impact of what they are considering on cities?”
my response is — and this is in response to you, too, greg — that legislators would find out the same way they find out about other issues: from the people in their district.
and of course, as a former lobbyist, i don’t think lobbyists are evil. i do hold, however, ill feelings toward taxpayer-funded agencies that use my tax dollars to lobby for things with which i disagree, such as the tax increase that i just voted down in my local election. such taxpayer-funded end-arounds are quite annoying.
as for all the stuff you say about SDCAC, troy, that’s really not what i want to talk about. i’m talking about banning taxpayer-funded lobbying and transparency more in priniple than in IM10 form. as i’ve said many times before, i do not support IM10. i think it’s poorly written, and violates the freedom of speech by banning political donations.
greg and troy, you’re probably wondering why i don’t think it violates the freedom of speech or right to petition by banning lobbying. i’m not sure what IM10 says, but i believe troy’s daughter SHOULD be able to lobby, just not in regard to business related to troy’s contract. and i don’t believe the municipal league should use my tax dollars to lobby for a tax increase that i voted to defeat in my local election.
greg, again i’m not defending IM10, but i’m not sure that’s a correct reading — in regard to troy’s daughter. as i read it, IM10 doesn’t say you can’t hire a former legislative staff member if you ALREADY have a contract.
regardless, such a situation isn’t that big of a concern to me. (again, i’m speaking in principle.) what i’d be concerned about is if troy’s daughter or a representative of her company actually used my tax dollars to lobby in favor of continuing the award, grant, or contract.
as thomas jefferson said, “To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”
Lexrex,
I have a proposal for you. You, Greg and I all agree IM10 is a bad initiative for a host of reasons. We disagree on the concepts behind it. How about we quit discussing the concepts so as not to create confusion on the merits of IM10? Then after the election, you give me a list of all the pieces that you believe has conceptual merit and we debate them here one by one to see if there is an opportunity for common ground.
Word around Pierre is that the website referenced by Rounds in his veto message is in the final stages of preparation. One would expect that it would include all the data and info like salaries and vendor information, contracts etc that make up the made up need for this information…
yes, troy, i think we should avoid making general statements about the concepts of transparency, bans on taxpayer-funded lobbying, etc. i will only do so in response to those who make such general statements.
i look forward to bringing you around to mine and jefferson’s and the u.s. supreme court’s and possibily judge lori wilbur’s reasoning on the use of tax dollars to increase a person’s or an agency’s largess.
I was just out looking at who the original, anti-SDCAC group consisted of. While PP and his buddies, the heavyweight tag team champions of the 3rd and 1/2 floor of that one funny-looking building in Pierre, were busy backing CAC last session, this list seems to have been staunchly anti-CAC. Now, CAC starts to attack these Senators, the GOP starts to bash the CACjob Whackjobs, and suddenly PP is leading the CACbashwagon.
How long before Senators Gant and Greenfield jump on board, especially now that somehow God (who is dead, or never existed in the first place) is involved.
Senator Lintz
Senator Schmidt
Senator Dempster
Senator Hansen (Tom)
Senator Hunhoff
Senator Smidt (wasn’t this the vote that pushed PP into his election?)
Senator Apa
Senator Duenwald
Senator Gray
Senator Knudson
Senator Napoli (”excused”, meaning he did the chicken walk)
http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2008/RollCall2819.htm