Chiropractors legislative social event canceled because of IM22.

I just got a note from a reader:

Chiropractors were set to hold a legislative event in Mitchell this week which has been canceled.  I had a note from a local chiropractor that the social was cancelled due fallout of IM 22.

18 thoughts on “Chiropractors legislative social event canceled because of IM22.

  1. Fred Deutsch

    You heard right. All chiropractic pre-legislative events across the state are cancelled due to IM22. I understand the chiropractors are not the only group.

    1. Pat Powers Post author

      It’s pretty bad when a constituency can’t meet with and educate legislators about topics they probably aren’t familiar with.

        1. Anon

          But they can host a social event where all the local legislators and all the local chiropractors are invited.

          Unless you want the legislators to pay for whatever refreshments are served. And at $6000/year, I wouldn’t blame any legislator for say no thanks to having to pay at the door for every groups’ event.

          1. Bill Carlson

            Why don’t they meet with them without food and drink? Isn’t the important point the information, not food and drink? They can’t meet within constituents without food or drink being provided? I don’t see why there is such a heavy focus on events being cancelled because food or drink can’t be served for free. Just do the business of the people and take a lunch break if needed. It almost sounds like SD legislators don’t eat if it isn’t paid for.

  2. Fred Deutsch

    I’ve spent hours reading IM22. The proponents sold it to the public as a way to stop “secret gifts.” Yet I can find absolutely nothing in this measure that has to do with secret gifts. The public was hoodwinked. Instead, we have this unworkable mess.

    1. Jaa Dee

      I find nothing about that anywhere but here……….. Please support your claim with facts and explanations….

      1. Jaa Dee

        That reply was to your first claim..

        “The proponents sold it to the public as a way to stop “secret gifts”– No, they didn’t….The assumption is they have the common decency and integrity to go by the rules and will of the people.. If they do not, I believe their “secret gifts” sleaze might now be unlawful…………It’s a bitch ain’t it.

      2. Fred Deutsch

        The radio, TV and newspaper advertising was full of false claims about banning secret gifts. Go to the FB page for examples: https://www.facebook.com/voteyes22/?hc_ref=SEARCH

        One of many examples on the FB page is from Nov 4th “IM22 bans secret unlimited lobbyist gifts.”

        If you read the 30+ page measure, there is no mention of secret gifts, yet the proponents pounded on it.

  3. Melissa Magstadt

    The liberals in this state put crap like this through referendum because those that really study the bill and the impact of it, won’t vote for it. So they use he referendum process to push through these agendas on the unsuspecting citizens of the state. It’s shameful.

    1. Jaa Dee

      The “impact” is only on those being paid for for favors…. If not tell me the “impact”.

      “they use he referendum process to push through these agendas on the unsuspecting citizens of the state.”–“they”?—- The “citizens” passed IM22 in spite of the constant lies by you people and as we see you people are still lying and whining like spoiled brats… It was you people that lapped up the claims of the lobbyists for special interests that were used to paying for favors….Now, about those “impacts?

      1. Fred Deutsch

        Jaa Dee, talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. It’s clear you’ve not read the measure and have no idea what you’re talking about. I’m done.

    2. Anonymous

      Melissa, your post suggest that republicans can’t read. Republicans have the majority of registered voters in SD. So why did it pass?

  4. Lee Schoenbeck

    Jaa Dee- fight secrecy and corrupt political comments. Use your real name- public disclosure starts at home

  5. Melissa Magstadt

    Show me the proof of these secret gifts!! This bill would not have withstood the scrutiny of the legislative process so it was veiled as a “protecting the voter” type of bill through referendum.

    Come on! If it was so good of a bill, it could have made it through the legislative process. Which is a rigorous process to protect the citizens from bad legislation.

    1. Anonymous

      Is the process really to protect the citizens from bad legislation? The 2006 abortion ban was passed by the legislature and defeated by at large margin at the ballot box, just like the minimum wage IM on the ballot this year.

  6. Pingback: What Corruption Cleanup Looks Like: South Dakota Lobbyists Complain, Resign, Freak Out - The Bulletin