Defeat 22 Coalition Welcomes SD Cattlemen’s Association and other organizations

IM 22 logo

Defeat 22 Coalition Welcomes SD Cattlemen’s Association and other organizations
Three new South Dakota organizations join coalition opposing taxpayer funded elections

Sioux Falls, S.D. – The Defeat 22 coalition today welcomed aboard the South Dakota Cattlemen’s Association, the South Dakota Republican Party, and the Yankton County Republicans. The organizations bring the total coalition opposing taxpayer funding of elections to over 20.

“We welcome our newest partners in the fight to stop taxpayer funding of elections,” explained  Ben Lee, Spokesman  for Defeat 22. “Our coalition represents thousands of hard-working business owners, ranchers, contractors, and citizens who know that tax dollars should pay for roads, bridges, and schools – not robocalls, television ads, and junk mail. We look forward to continuing to educate South Dakotans about Measure 22 and urging them to defeat it this November.”

Jodie Anderson, Executive Director of the South Dakota Cattlemen’s Association saId: “In addition to the pitfalls of taxpayer funded elections, SDCA opposes Measure 22 due to concerns that our members’ privacy would be endangered simply because we advocated for our policy goals or mentioned a candidate in passing. We believe this would diminish civic engagement  and open  our members to harassment and intimidation.”

Ryan Budmayr, Executive Director of South Dakota Republican Party said: “IM22 is yet another example of outside, big money interests trying to change the way we do things in South    Dakota.”

Jason Ravnsborg, Chair of the Yankton County Republicans, said: “For a measure that claims to limit the influence of money in politics, Measure 22 sure does a poor job of it. Measure 22 would have taxpayers contribute up to $12 million each election cycle to political campaigns. We have better priorities for our states limited funds than forcing taxpayers  to support political campaigns.”

Defeat 22 is a coalition of over 20 South Dakota businesses, charities, political leaders and organizations who agree that tax dollars shouldn’t fund political campaigns. They have released multiple radio ads and multiple mailers to supplement a grassroots door knocking effort. The coalition plans to continue heavy grassroots advocacy and paid media through November.  All  details  about the coalition-led effort  can be seen at www.defeat22.com

27 thoughts on “Defeat 22 Coalition Welcomes SD Cattlemen’s Association and other organizations

  1. Tyler Schumacher

    What television ad is going to be paid by someone who cannot accept a donation over $250? How much of that possible $12 million would realistically be set aside? Less than half? I wish there wouldn’t be so many things grouped together on one measure. I understand not wanting to have our taxes fund campaigns, but the rest of 22 is an easy yes.

    1. Anonymous

      But it is all or nothing…blame the proponents….they wrote it…..a number of these ballot measures are written poorly….I saw Bob Mercer wrote an article that there may need to be a special session to handle all the election law changes if T or V pass….ie yet more cost…..

      Plus the legislature could dump 22 or parts of it if it passes anyway…NO on everything but R

      1. Tyler Schumacher

        Assuming the same per diem for the commission members and the legislative committee, T would be cheaper in the long run. I think T is an easy win. V is another one that has a lot of good things mixed with something that is understandably fought against. But V would indeed likely add some costs. I personally am fine with that though as I find it ridiculous how frequently SD voters don’t actually get to vote due to everything being decided in the primaries. What do you dislike about IM 21?

        1. Anonymous

          T is poorly written the devil is in the details….All the Democrats have been doing is shouting Republicans are corrupt….well the FACTS are otherwise….the 2011 map was approved by the Democrat Justice Department, the ACLU did not sue and now 5 years later…we have a problem…..Seriously?!

          How about this one…..T says NO MORE THAN 3 Democrats…Is Zero no more than…YEP sure is……So GOP Bd of elections votes party line of 4-3 and then lets have 3 Republicans, 3 Libertarians, 3 GOP leaning Independents and draw the lines….Plus we have to do it in 2017 (with 2010 census data) and then again in 2021. Talk about confusing the voters….an the added cost of session I have heard is an extra 75-100K…..this is just another Amendment to our state Constitution that is not needed…Democrats need to find candidates to run no matter where the lines are anyway and that is where they are really failing.

          21–why would I want to vote to put business out of business and then add to the crime rate? If people can’t get the money they need studies show they will turn to crime….No one is forcing anyone to go there…and is a $1000 loan for a couple worth it at 36% when a lot of these people take bankruptcy? I don’t really care about 21…but there are enough bad ones like T and V…and S that effect our constitution that I am most concerned about

          1. Anonymous

            PS–I take exception to your assumption…the T board is not allowed to have anyone elected for 3 years prior TO or AFTER. I think it will cost more as lay people will have to get more staff to do it…Anyone want to take part in dealing with the DOJ requirements or population data? More staff=more cost.

            Same problem on 22….really the President of USD and SDSU get to pick the members? who thought of that crazy idea and how much are there staffs going to cost?

            1. Tyler Schumacher

              I am not sure I understand your point, but it states that any staff the commission needs would be provided by the legislature, so I assume that would be the same staff who would help the current committee. The whole point of the commission is to deal with the requirements and data, so any applicant should be willing to take part in it. Maybe I’m missing something.

              I had not noticed that it stated the university presidents would select the members. That is…interesting.

              1. Anonymous

                Again you assume…it doesn’t say that….the whole point of the commission is to gerrymander the districts for Democrats…..they can’t win at the ballot box themselves so they want to change all the election rules on T, V and 22 to help them win…it is all out of state money and being pushed by Democrat Rick Weiland…..he is mad and pushing V I believe as Pressler got in and took 17% of the vote in the general…V would eliminate Independents in statewide races unless they had a ton of money or name ID already….So Independents suffer under V from ever holding office.

                Listen closely to proponents of T they say it guarantees 3 GOP, 3 Dems and 3 Ind…it does NOT… it says NO MORE THAN….and the proponents keep calling everyone in Pierre corrupt….really…talk about overreach…I would think you would be offended by that living in Pierre yourself

                The university Presidents is on 22…they are in the selection process of 2 of the 5 seats…..

                And why just 2 …what about Northern and Mines and the Tech schools?

                1. Tyler Schumacher

                  “The Legislature, under the direction of the commission, shall provide the technical staff
                  and clerical services that the commission needs to prepare its districting plans.” It doesn’t require the same staff, but the same services would be required (for a smaller number of people), so I doubt the cost for staff would have a high variance.

                  I feel like, in practice, the independent commission would have a better chance of success than the current process. But I will agree that it is not without flaws, and could end with poor results.

                  1. Anonymous

                    And how much will that cost? Under the direction of the commission sounds like they have an open checkbook….What if the legislature who you have just said can’t handle it says…tough we appropriate one staff member…

                    You can’t punch the legislature int he mouth saying they can’t handle the job and then think it will come out well…

            2. Anonymous

              If IM 22 passes, at least three of the five members of the so-called ethics commission will be liberals. That was the intention of having the presidents of USD and SDSU appoint two of its members. If we have a Democrat governor, then four of the five members will be liberals. That is part of the same game that Slick Rick is playing with the redistricting commission that will be established if Amendment T is passed. It would have three Democrats, three Republicans, and three Independents despite the fact that there are far more Republicans in the state and the state legislature.

          2. Tyler Schumacher

            Stace Nelson states that it occurred: http://dakotafreepress.com/2016/09/25/bolin-no-ossifer-there-is-no-gerrymandering-here/#comment-58146.

            He claims that he was targeted as well, so if you don’t want to believe him, fine. Forget the past. It helps prevent gerrymandering in the future.

            I understand your concern over not guaranteeing Democrat representatives on the commission. Is it any different than how the current committee is decided? I don’t see a good way to resolve this. You can’t guarantee spots to certain parties. It probably shouldn’t include the provision that the top two parties each have 10 applicants, as that sort of thing could potentially prove problematic in the future if the landscape of parties ever changes. But since that provision exists, they probably could have extended a similar one to the final roster.

            Regarding 21…if people can’t get the money they need, they aren’t going to be able to pay back a loan at 500% interest either. I don’t buy the thought that these businesses are helping anybody. If people are too risky to lend money to at 36%, they shouldn’t be lent money. 36% is the restriction for lending to members of the military. It seems reasonable to me, but I can understand not wanting to limit people’s choices.

            1. Anonymous

              If it was such a big problem in 2011…why didn’t someone sue in the last 5 years? the ACLU is not a paper tiger…it has resources and did not sue….Why did the Department of Justice approve the map…Obama’s justice Department I can’t imagine would not sue if Republicans were not following the law….

              Plus T also goes into effect immediately for 2018 and 2020 elections and then we switch…and it is based on 2010 population data….they should have waited until 2021.

              I have not seen where Stace has come out on the ballot measures…I can’t imagine he’d be for V though….or 22 and spending all the money on candidates. 22 and V are funded by out of state organizations with dark money…no thanks!

              –The current committee had Democrats on it. it was a bipartisan committee.

              21–I don’t like restricting choice on 21 or V or anything else…IDEAS win the day.. We have elected many statewide Democrats bc of their personalities even though GOP has more registered voters…Same as i said with redistricting

              1. Tyler Schumacher

                Stace is not for V. He wants “single representative districts and permanent geographical senate districts”.

                Seemingly, the committee followed the law. But within the bounds of the law, there was gerrymandering.

                My question on the current committee was about how it was formed. Is there anything preventing the committee from being only Republicans?

                1. Anonymous

                  I believe that every committee has some from both parties…they were elected to those positions….and there were republicans and Democrats on the committee that drew the current lines.

                  NOT the case on T and 22..unelected unaccountable boards…I read a story out of AZ the member refused to follow the board’s procedures but there was no way to force them to…there is no recall or impeachment provisions in these measures either….So they want to do it their way what in these bills stops them? lots of lawsuits and costs…no thanks

                    1. Anonymous

                      But most all of them are accountable in some fashion…The governor can appoint many people but then he has the authority to fire them….not here…who are they accountable to…NO ONE.

                      Follow the money…..you don’t think the proponents don’t already have their people picked a plan of how they will gerrymander the districts?

                      They keep yelling their is a problem without being able to show one…same with all lobbyists can give gifts to legislators…where are the examples of the corrupt lobbyists and legislators? and if they know about them why don’;t they go on record…nope just smears….

                    2. Tyler Schumacher

                      You don’t need examples of corruption to want to reduce the possibility of corruption.

                      Lack of accountability is indeed one of the flaws.

            2. Anonymous

              Stace said this—I think the IM allows the redistricting bias to be dispersed into an unelected commission that is not accountable to the voters.

              That does not make me think he supports T…he did not like the process but he seems to be saying this is not the way to fix it

    2. Anonymous

      They should get one county dem party to sign up. Actually this would have been good questions for the house and senate debates.

    1. Anonymous

      from what i have seen and been able to gather……The Democrat party has NOT taken a position on it. I went to their state page and it only talks about referred laws. I looked on a few sites for county Dems and nothing.

      The State GOP, Minnehaha and Yankton GOP have joined the coalition against it and I know Roetman and Ravnsborg are fighting a number of these ballot measures hard.

      This one just costs too much…

      NO on 22!

      1. Anonymous

        Everyone should be against 22.. Larry Rhoden is the spokesman also for Defeat 22….nice to see some of these guys working together on both sides of the state to defeat some of this BS.

  2. Anonymous

    I see 22 might be unconstitional the AG state’s….why vote in a lawsuit?

    Looks like T bans running for federal office 3 years after being on the board..wouldn’t that be unconstitutional also? How do we restrict federal constitution without buying a lawsuit?

  3. Nancy Drew

    When 22 fails, the Maitre d’ will be available to work full-time at his greasy spoon.
    As for the disk-jockey, let’s hope a syndicated program takes over his failing time-slot.