IM10 campaign still sputtering over their opposition.

OK. Time for me to take a swipe.

I’m glad the people running the YES on 10 are so completely inept. I mean, I guess if one campaign deserves horrible media relations, it’s this group.

A comparison of tactics, for all the interested parties out there.

Campaign finance reports were due Friday. No on 10 could have filed it, and let Yes on 10 pounce on the news that NEA is bankrolling the media purchase. Notice, though… No on 10 came out with it, when they could control it, on Friday - the best possible day to dispose of potentially damaging news.

What does YES on 10 do? The absolute UNTHINKABLE. They call a press conference ON SATURDAY. They don’t wait until Monday, when they could get the full attention of reporters and assignment editors.

Then, they let the CONSERVATIVE ACTION COUNCIL send out a press release. Yes on 10 should have called the Conservative Action Council and said: “Hey, shut up during this, OK. We only have one shot to call out the opposition for their funding source, and we don’t need your organization reminding everyone that nobody knows where SDCAC gets their money.”

Lucky for us, Yes on 10 is handled by a bunch of venom-spitting morons.

And… I seriously… seriously… hope they didn’t file their spending reports on time. It’s not on the SOS website yet - but that may be because the staff hasn’t gotten it online yet. Because if they’re late even ONE day… that dooms them.

inept ??? hahahaha, I cant even talk to my husband, its a gag law,,,whoa is right,,,,,,,

BTW,, yes on 10 itemized every single donation,,,right down to a 1 dollar donation and some 3 dollar ones,,,they have been on the SOS website that way since like July ? (not really something you do if you are “hiding” something)

I’m not really gonna say I told ya so, but I didnt think it was wise to bash “yes on 10″ for the “money” and I said so before,, anyways,,, now that its backfired on the “no on 10′ers”,,,just eat the slice of humble pie and we move on to the election. I would bet this news will help the 26% of undecideds to make up their mind.

10 might not beat PP’s 28%

How can you brag about winning ? the lies told were terrible. If this was the Olympics, “no on 10″ would be disqualified for performance ehancing lies. So, ya, you are probably gonna win,,,,but I wouldnt brag about it. As a friend of mine once said,,,I would rather loose on the high road than win on the low road,,,

Rick -

Point is, campaign finance reports were due Friday. No On 10 is up on the web, Yes on 10 isn’t.

Second point - you know damn well we’re not talking about where Yes on 10 got their funding, we’re talking about where the Conservative Action Council got their money.

I’m sorry, but there’s no way I am buying a cat like Lee Bread being able to raise even a fraction of $410,000 in state. He got the money from Howie Rich, the New Yorker who thinks its OK for elections to be bought and sold.

As far as NEA financing this - I think that’s fine. That’s funded by teachers in this state. That’s why, in part, they belong to NEA, so they can get this kind of support when someone threatens their rights.

Rick - I will issue this challenge to you one last time - FIND ME ONE, JUST ONE, lawyer that doesn’t work for Yes on 10 that is willing to say that the No On 10 ads are outright lies.

Until then, the only lies being told are coming out of your mouth.

The lawyers for the tv stations that pulled the teacher ads must agree, heh?

Also, it is my understanding,IM 10 was submited and reviewed by th LRC, AND APPROVED.

LRC is an impotent and wasteful bunch of hacks. and even they think 10 is stupid and would cripple the world. ,,, ,,, ,,, LRC approved all the JAIL4JUDGES ads too and that guy got no bonus that year.

Rick -

You’re breaking news here, eh? Or are you lying? Did lawyers pull the ads from the station, or did No On 10 just have different ads to place? You know, that’s what the campaign might be intending - to offer different messages from different people? I’m sure Yes on 10 would do that, if they could find more than a few tin-hatters to support this thing.

If the media pulled the ads, why didn’t the media report it?
If the media pulled the ads, why didn’t Yes on 10 jump on it in a release? I think you’re lying. I think you lie alot.

And so what if the LRC approved the measure? Their role is not to reject measures, it’s to make sure they are in proper form.

PP, love your blog. Hope you don’t retire.

Rick, it’s hard to know who’s who in cyberspace, but I’ve been working with the No campaign. I’m not certain of your sources, that’s your business. I do know that LRC reviewed 10 and recommended quite a few changes (mostly grammatical). The most significant change was that the proponents consider splitting 10 into 2 separate measures (like they did in Colorado). None of their recommended changes were made, but the proponents aren’t required to make them either. LRC doesn’t review for constitutionality, good or bad law, etc.. They make style and form suggestions so that proposed law is consistent with existing law. The file is public and the copy I’ve seen has lots of recommendations. But APPROVE just means they’ve read it, no support is implied. If I remember, there’s even a disclaimer to that effect in the LRC notes.

Re: the teacher ad. I know that the ad was scheduled to be rotated out because I helped place the schedule. And I know factually that not a single lawyer for any TV station in the state recommended that the ad be pulled. We talk to the stations all the time. Eleanor (the teacher) said what she did because if 10 passes she’s a no bid contractor and it becomes a lot more complicated to talk to an elected official (even her husband). In part because her actions are subject to court challenges if 10 passes (section 8). Weeks later, I don’t blame her for wondering about how to lobby and contribute in the post 10 world, as the proponents seem pretty lawsuit happy.

Don’t forget that the proponents criticized the Republicans when they passed a resolution to oppose 10. They criticized Democrats when they did the same. They kept Rapid City legislator Mark Kirkeby on their promotional materials even when he wanted off. They sent threatening letters to cities and counties demanding copies of all contracts within an extremely limited time frame. They sued Brown County when they passed a resolution in opposition. They spent thousands on radio and tv claiming that taxpayer funds were supporting the No campaign. Oh wait, 48 hours later they learn that the NEA joined 64 other South Dakota groups and brought money, and so that’s who they attack (I wonder if they’ll pull the old spots now that we all know they’re not factual). And there’s several days left.

I don’t know about their campaign finance report, sometimes the SOS office just doesn’t post the paperwork until they get a couple of questions resolved, sometimes its a big deal sometimes its not. At this point, no one should read more into it than it is. But I’ve always thought that it was pretty cynical that the proponents won’t reveal the source of the laundered $400,000 from the CAC because they fear for retribution to their donors (their words). But they’ll hang the 20 some contributing South Dakotans out to dry even though they only contributed a few bucks.

The initiative process is great and I’m proud we’ve got it, but both sides have spent a lot of time and money because some out of state guy with cash offered to pay a few “lobbyists” (isn’t that what Dena and Breard are too) to try to get something passed.

The proposed measure wouldn’t have survived a hearing in the legislature. And I don’t think it would have died because everyone is secretely profiting from back room deals or that there’s some vast conspiracy. I think it would have died because it’s without merit. And traditionally crap doesn’t survive long in the legislature. It’s a poorly written solution to a problem that we manage to avoid in South Dakota. I love politics, but after living through this campaign and this Presidential campaign I sure understand why everyone is cynical.

Steve Willard

Bottom line, the no on 10 campaign was full of lies. After months of bashing “yes on 10″ about undisclosed, out of state money. The “no on 10″ campaign takes almost 3 times as much money from an out of state donor. I wont even bother to list the donors positions on several issues that are not in line with the average South Dakotan.

If 10 was as poorly written as you claim, it should have been easy to campaign using the facts instead of lies.

I’ll ask you again,,,is this phrase an accurate result of IM 10 “…I cant even talk to my husband…” ?

I’ll use talk and lobby as if they’re the same because the measure does.

She can’t talk to her husband from the school. She can’t talk to her husband at school facilities. She can’t use school stationary to write him a note. She can’t represent that she’s talking for the union or the superintendent or the principal or anyone else. She can’t talk to him if she’s on a paid day off. She’s got to hope that she doesn’t have a relative that entangles her. But if she’s home and on her own time and ensures that everyone listening knows that she’s talking on behalf of herself, then she’s probably okay. But if the proponents don’t think so they can take her to circuit court. And now she has to defend herself. You tell me, is it an accurate statement? Or is it just badly written?

Re: the lies. Is the lie so good that 65 organizations bought it. Or are all the organizations participating in the lie?

Steve Willard

Section 3. The provisions of this section do not limit public officials in the performance of their constitutional duties, and do not apply to:…

(4) A public employee acting in an uncompensated personal capacity, undirected in any manner by, and who does not purport to represent the interests of, a public employer; and..

She can’t talk to her husband from the school,,not true

She can’t talk to her husband at school facilities,, not true

are you kidding me Steve ?, now you are claiming IM 10 makes all speeech by employees lobbying ?

IM 10 recognizes employees, 10 does not assume that all speech from employees is lobbying.

BTW Steve, most folks are already restricted from speaking on behalf of their employers. I am fairly certain that unions dont want just anyone speaking for them either. The focus of IM 10 is tax dollars, and contributions from contract holders, not speech.

Rick, I work for one of the 2 health care biggies in Sioux Falls. I am not only allowed but ENCOURAGED to petition elected officials as an employee if it pertains to my work.

Best drop your shovel, sir.

All right, I’ll play a little longer.

Section 1. 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…

Section 4 (sub 3) defines lobbying as ”includes attempts to directly influence legislative activity by communication with any member or employee of any legislative body or with any government official or employee who may participate in the formulation of legislation of this state”

If a teacher calls from the school to “attempt to influence legislative activity” it’s lobbying whether she’s talking or writing or whatever and she’s certainly using a public resource. Legislative activity isn’t limited to the legislature it includes any legislative body. I certainly believe that the poor drafting creates consequences that weren’t intended and I guess you could say there’s little or no cost if she uses her cell phone in a school closet, but I think the court could conclude pretty easily that there’s a cost even if they have to conclude that it’s “indirect.” Of course if she calls with a grocery order, she might be okay, but she’s still using public resources that are maintained at a cost. And if the CAC decided to take her to court because she made a call from school, then maybe she oughta hold onto the grocery list so she can prove it.

I think we agree with the fairly narrow exception allowed, but putting our citizens in a place where they have to defend themselves from Howie Rich and his hired help doesn’t seem very productive.

I like the dialogue, but I’m not sure you and I will ever agree. And I’m curious, is this the only point where we differ? How about the all the other junk that’s within this thing? Or the tactics (I forgot to mention that they were spying at PP and I should do that as he’s hosting)? Or that 60+ organizations are encouraging their members to vote no?

Do you seriously believe that all those organizations just took the opponents word for it and didn’t vet it for themselves? That’s not the case. Thanks though for the opportunity. Even though we disagree, at least we can have the conversation without one of us worrying about the legal consequences of our conversation. Not yet anyhow.

Steve Willard

Bah. Open and Clean Government is coming our way. PP knows all the back room dealings of state government. Sibby probably thinks PP is still on the payroll and just taking a paid sabbatical (sp?) to do Rounds’ bidding in squashing this bug.