First the GOP. Then the Dems. Then most organizations in SD. Now, the Argus comes out and slaps down IM10.
From today’s Argus Leader editorial section, comes a big endorsement for the NO position on the train wreck known as Initiated Measure 10:
South Dakota voters have become accustomed to finding all manner of oddness on our statewide ballots from time to time.
It’s no wonder – it’s fairly easy, given a lot of time or a little money – to get something before voters.
The latest example is Initiated Measure 10, the so-called open and clean government measure. It purports to put an end to unseemly no-bid contracts being bought through campaign contributions and to stop government entities from using public money for lobbying.
If the goal of the measure is to crack down on unnecessary no-bid contracts handed out by the state, then it should tackle that problem head on. But it doesn’t.
and…
Already, too few of us are willing to be part of a political process that too many, on scant evidence, claim is irredeemably corrupt.
If IM10’s supporters have evidence of such things, we’d love it if they’d share it.
Word is that the IM10 are going to be getting some more bad news this week. And with good reason. This doesn’t speak to the best of us. It comes from the worst paranoid fantasies arising from the mind of anti-government radicals.
If we need legitimate reform, lets openly debate it in the legislature. Let’s lay our cards on the table, so we know who is pushing it. Unlike the backers of IM10 – the same people who are demanding openness – who are hiding the 90% of their funding.
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
OOOOOOOOO,,,now the Argus is our friend ?????????
10 does not gag anyone, it gags the river of money flowing to “gravy train riding lobbyists”
I have never heard a candidate say – vote for me and I will hire the best lobbyist I can to speak for you in Pierre. It seem we are paying twice, we pay our elected officials then we pay lobbyists to do the job of our elected officials. We may as well bypass electing our officials and elect lobbyists directly and pocket the savings.
The no on 10 folks talk like we need lobbyists to protect us from the dirty deeds of the legislators. I thought the legislators were looking out for us ? maybe not heh ?
Rick –
I’m placing more trust in the GOP and practically every organization in South Dakota, including the Municipal League, towns and townships, etcetera and so on, than the Argus.
But the point is, no matter what side anyone is on almost any issue out there, everyone thinks im10 is a incredibly bad measure.
That, coupled with the fact that the SDCAC is filtering incredible amounts of money from out of state to support the measure should give us all pause, and cause us to question “why.”
The prohibition against funding groups that conduct lobbying says they cannot lobby at ANY level which includes city governments that fund economic development groups and shelters helping people escape domestic violence. If these good organizations talk to members of the city council they are lobbying and Initiated Measure 10 then says they can no longer receive money for administrative support.
It gags business people by saying if they have won a contract bid with government they cannot give support to selected candidates. If they do routine business with government without using bids – such as an office supply store– they cannot support ANY candidate for ANY office in the state. For businesses that win bided contracts, the limits on political support are also applied to their extended family, including distant relatives such as a “step-sisters-in-law”. What’s more, the attorney general says for businesses with no-bid contracts the ban on ANY political contributions applies to families and employees.
It gags teachers, firefighters and police officers because they are deemed to have a “no-bid” contract because they work under the provisions of a collective bargain agreement with the South Dakota Education Association (for teachers) or other labor organization (for firefighters and police). They don’t even have to belong to the public employees union; they just have to work someplace that has an agreement with a union. Initiated Measure 10 says they are prohibited from supporting ANY candidate for ANY office.
If that isn’t a gag law, one has never been written.
The previous post is from http://www.voteno.org and corresponds to the concerns of Doug and Rick.
This measure would be very harmful to South Dakota restricting the input of thousands of South Dakotans from participating in the legislative process on the local and statewide level through direct communications with legislative bodies and through political donations. This includes the relatives of those who do business with the state or any of its political subdivisions. If your sister-in-law is hired to shovel the snow from the Elk Point High School, you could be restricted from donating to a city council candidate in Buffalo or for any other elected position in the state. That does not open government, it closes it off for honest South Dakotans.
I would highly encourage people to read the measure and consider the consequences.
I think it would be really helpful to have discussion on ALL the proposed Constitutional Amendments and Initiated Measures instead of just flogging away, day after day, week after week on PP’s favorite group of whipping boys.
Seems like if one were trying to offer a truly informative political forum, he could afford to devote at least one thread each to the other ballot issues, no?
Eric;
I respectfully disagree fully with your claims. It does not restrict a single citizen from direct comminucation with any elected official. It does not prevent family of a no-bid contract holders from donating to their candidates.
Please cut n paste the language from the measure you think does either of these things, ok ? go to cleanupsd.com click on read the act then cut n paste here so we all can read.
I will emphasize the wording that proves 10 does not keep family from donating to candidates of their own.
from sec#7,,,commas and capitals are my own emphasis
Section 7. Any person entering into a no-bid government contract awarded by the state or any of its subdivisions shall be considered a holder of the government contract and shall contractually agree to,,, cease,,, making, inducing, or soliciting,,,, contributions or independent expenditures, directly or indirectly,,,,, THROUGH,,,,,,, any officer, employee, immediate family member of any officer or employee, vendor, or agent,,,
see the word through ??? that means the contract holder cannot funnel money through his family etc,,,,,it does not say the family members are prohibited from donating their own money.
When this started, I didnt care if 10 passed or not. I have since become horrified at the outright lies being told by the no on 10 folks. If this measure is so bad, why the need to lie ??
I cant even talk to my husband, its a gag law, locks thousands of South Dakotans out of the process,,,,all lies.
PP:
We’re screwed. The Argus endorsement is the kiss of death. All our hard work against this craziness undone. Everyone hates the Argus. Thanks for nothing, Argus Leader! 
Todd Epp
SD Watch
http://www.southdakotawatch.net
One of the many problems with IM 10 is how confusing it is. Unlike legislative bills, which are limited to one subject, IM 10 hits many areas.
Section 7 prohibits the relatives of no-bid contract holders from contributing to ANY candidate for ANY office. You don’t have to take my word for it. Here is the section of the Attorney General’s explanation from the Secretary of State’s Ballot Question Pamphlet of how IM 10 would affect governmental contract holders. This explanation by the Attorney General was not challenged by the proponents of IM 10.
“It would prohibit persons who employ legislators or recent legislators from obtaining government contracts. It would prohibit, until two years after contract termination: some public officers, candidates and their agents from soliciting, accepting or directing contributions from some holders of competitively bid government contracts AND THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS; and no-bid
government contract holders, their officers, employees, agents, vendors AND FAMILY MEMBERS from making contributions to, or independent expenditures for, all candidate campaigns.”
Here is the definition of “immediate family member” from IM 10:
(5) “Immediate family member,” includes any spouse, child, spouse’s child, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, parent, sibling, grandparent, grandchild, stepbrother, stepsister, stepparent, parent-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, guardian, and domestic partner;
This section would, according to the Attorney General’s statement, restrict thousands of South Dakotans from participating in the political process through donating to candidates.
This is just one of the many areas where IM 10 would be damaging to South Dakota.
well, I guess we need to ignore the actual language and go with the AG’s OPINION. Maybe he should have read it first. The word “THROUGH” in section 7 should be clear to about 4th graders on up. Wasnt it the State AG that said video lottery was not gambling and therefore constituional. Some opinions arent worth much, even from bigshots, heh ?
Just a comment on the funds issue. The “no on 10″ folks ordered almost a million dollars worth of media with $3,500 dollars in the bank. They did that without revealing where their funds came from. At this point, it is just the pot calling the kettle black. 504c donors do not receive a tax break for their donations like 503c donors do, therefore, their donors identities are protected by law. If you dont like the law, why blame “yes on 10″ ?? “yes on 10″ can only reveal that their money came from SDCAC, thats it. SDCAC did not, will not, nor do they have to, reveal where it came from. If you dont like it, IM 10 should not be the whipping boy. Find out who passed the law and who voted for it and go after them. Dont be surprised if it was Republicans !!! like maybe McCain Feingold ? I wonder how Tim Johnson voted on that ??
Rick –
That argument might hold water if the SDCAC didn’t organize the petition drive, hire the staff, and as they’re doing now, handle a lion’s share of the campaigning for the measure.
PP;
I am basically on your side with the money issue. But I see wrong on both sides and I still say the laws were deliberately written to allow this type of activity. I would be thrilled with full disclosure. Meaning absolutely no “non-itemized” donations, no “passing the hat” at a “function” so thousands of dollars can change hands anonymously, Time limits tightened for reporting, etc ,,,,but until those things are made illegal, this is the system we are stuck with. Soooo lets judge initiated measures based on the facts and not “where the money might be from”. Not everyone that gives money anonymously for a campaign is “evil”, or an “out of stater”. Believe it or not, there are nice folks that love God and country from other states.
I’m still trying to figure out how 10 limits free speech.
It is interesting that now, there is support for looking for corruption. How can it be found if all records which might show it are kept secret?
Mexicans now own what was the SD Cement Plant. I still haven’t heard anything that suggests to me that transaction made any sense unless something was “rotten in Denmark”. We know for sure something is rotten in Mexico.
Maybe 10 should be supported to get the attention of the secretive powers that be in South Dakota. There is that old story about getting a horse to do something by slamming his testicles between two bricks just to get his attention.
I would like to see two columns of text. Claims of each side on this issue matches cross column with other side. I see a lot of money being spent by special interests attacking 10, and think that these groups which usually don’t give a rat’s rear about free speech are all of a sudden so deeply concerned. Perhaps it is paranoia on my part, but I suspect the concern for free speech masks the actual concerns and interests.