Dems lining up at the public trough to keep taxpayer funded political campaigns

Never let it be said that State Dems passed up an opportunity to take taxpayer money, according to KCCR Radio:

Republican Governor Dennis Daugaard urged the State Legislature in Pierre Tuesday not to fund a major part of Initiated Measure 22 approved by the voters. Democrat Leaders say that is “a little bit dangerous.”

The leaders of the small contingent of Democrats in Pierre insist there is enough money to fund public financing of election campaigns, the so-called Democracy Credits, without hurting other budget areas.

State House Democratic Leader Spence Hawley of Brookings says they need to hash out the measure. State Senate Democratic leader Billie Sutton of Burke suggested Daugaard is going against the will of the people.

Read it here.

23 Replies to “Dems lining up at the public trough to keep taxpayer funded political campaigns”

  1. Anonymous

    The reaction of the Democrats who oppose a repeal of IM 22 shows that their biggest priorities are not, as they claim, education and health and human services because those things will not receive the $6 million a year that would be spent on publicly funded campaigns. Their biggest priority is getting themselves elected.

    1. Anonymous

      Yes, because Democrats were totally against expanding medicaid and increasing teacher pay. I know it’s probably hard for you to think about more than one thing at a time, but the rest of us manage it somehow.

      1. Springer

        The point is that if there is just X amount of money to be spent, what is your priority this year? The rest of us, and our state, have to live within our means and spend only the money we have. Except for many Dems who think there is a never-ending well of taxpayer money, and if the govt doesn’t have enough, just dip again into that well. Surprise, we are saying enough. You make the choice – education etc or public funded campaigns. I am a Republican, but even I can see the obvious answer to this one.

        1. Anonymous

          No, the point was that Democrats have somehow abandoned healthcare and education in favor of public campaign financing. That’s malarkey and you know it. I pointed out the long-standing Democratic push for education and expanding medicaid and you respond with the strawman of wanting “free money”. But I guess you need to move the goalposts if you want to feel you’ve won.

          1. Springer

            No, the point is that there is only so much money in a budget. You have to prioritize your wants and/or needs. You can’t always have everything you want with a finite amount of money; even a little child learns this lesson. But it seems that the Dems always think there is more money available if they could just raise taxes on someone. The answer is not spending more, the answer is choosing what you really want to spend the available monies on.

            1. Anonymous

              Go back and read what I initially was responding to. Go ahead. I’ll wait.

              Done? Good. See, I was replying to the assertion that Dems’ priorities had somehow shifted from health and education to campaign finance reform. I argued that was not true and gave very brief examples demonstrating the contrary. You missed that point and the original point an dattempted to steer the discussion away from uncomfortable facts and towards the threadbare falsehood that somehow “free stuff” is what Dems are about.

              No, Granny. That was decidedly NOT the point. Guzzle another can of Ensure and see if you can keep up a little better.

      2. Anonymous

        Dems are for free everything, we know that, but they just don’t have the mental horsepower to also figure out to pay for the goodies without taxing the crap out of people. Bernie Sanders would be proud, and if Bernie is proud of you, you must be a “gimme-all-I-can-get” liberal.

        I know you can’t understand the concept of personal responsibility and self-reliance, but give it a whirl sometime.

        1. Anonymous

          Yeahno. Tax the rich. Quit buying stupid aircraft and crappy carriers for them. Educate the masses. Keep them healthy. Last time I checked, healthy educated folk tend to work and vote more. Democrats are no more likely to want “hand-outs” than you moronic red-state welfare queens here in SD. Remind me what part of our state budget comes from the feds? Yeah. It’s all just free money.

          1. Springer

            Wow, Hillary would be proud of your choice of language here in referring to those who do not agree with you!!

            1. Anonymous

              Your faux moral outrage is cute. Now, would you care to refute the fact that SD receives more federal money than we pay in? And yet you have the gall to call out Dems on tax-and-spend? I guess in your little cloistered world we just shut up and thank our bootstraps that other states’ taxpayers don’t count.

  2. anon

    They went from a super-minority to a microscopic-minority. What else can you expect them to do but scream? This session I expect even louder wailing, hyperbole and gnashing of teeth from the “Disappearing Democrats.”

  3. Anonymous

    Daugaard is in dangerous ground to assume that the people were hoodwinked. I am in 100% agreement that the law has problems and they need to be corrected. If the money is not their for publicly funded campaigns I believe the people will agree and probably not support it being implemented. Obviously tough decisions must be made.

    As far as I’m concerned the ethics commission and the lobbyist disclosure and reform are two pieces of the bill that voters clearly wanted for our state. The lobbyist reform in IM 22 doesn’t make sense but it’s easily addressed without throwing it out.

    If the legislature guts the ethics commission and the lobbying reforms rather than improving them – that is a complete disregard for the will of the people. And I would oppose it.

  4. Anonymous

    Revise the ethics commission and lobbying reforms and say that there isn’t enough money for publicly funded campaigns.

    I saw Peggy Gibson on PBS yesterday talking about the need for an ethics commission. She clearly didn’t understand that IM 22 only applied to campaign finance as far as ethics. NOT all of state government. Like it probably should have.

    I mean why didn’t they just say their should be an ethics commission and make it for all of state government? It would have passed 75%-25%.

  5. Jaa Dee

    Daugaard–“that’s not what they thought they were getting, so we need to come back and we need to fix it,”— How ***** insulting can “these people” get? How can “these people” sound anymore like banana republic tyrants? How can “these people” be any more clear
    about their disdain for democracy and the “will of the people”? How can “these people” be anymore obvious of their support for political corruption and money on the side ?

    “These people” were not appointed by Americans for Prosperity (koch) and other special interest groups even if they do pay better than the citizens of S.D.

    Why won’t “these people” disclose who (what) is paying for their law suit? Because that would be a shining example of why the citizens of S.D. passed IM22…”These people” are so greedy and corrupt they will publicly humiliate themselves by acting like tyrants and insulting the citizens of S.D. that didn’t unquestioningly buy the lies paid for the lobbyests and special interest groups and have bought the allegiance of the elected crooks…

  6. Springer

    Jaa Dee, you are losing it. If the voters had known exactly what this entailed and what it did not, it would never has passed. And it is evidently unconstitutional on its face as it addresses many different issues, not just one like the law allows. Take a breath and relax a ltitle.

    1. Anonymous

      Good God. That’s a bold statement. I don’t suppose you have any data or facts to back it up? Or would you rather just believe that voters are stupid?

      1. Springer

        Most voters do not read these ballot measures; they rely instead on a few soundbites on TV, or this time an explanation from the AG that did not sufficiently explain it. The voters who voted for it think that this would keep anything like EB5 or GearUp from happening again, which isn’t true. They think that all the legislators are bought by the lobbyists in SD, or they foolishly believe the statement made by some that SD is one of the most corrupt states in the nation, again not true. But those that believe these things also believe that this bill is God’s gift to solve it — wrong. Do I think that voters are necessarily stupid? No for the most part. But I do believe that most don’t research any of these measures, rely on others to do it for them, and base their vote on those opinions. In other words, they and I are gullible. And the out-of-staters that keep sponsoring these things agree.

        1. Anonymous

          LOL – all I see are a bunch of whiny corrupt politicians grousing about an anti-corruption law. Funny ol’ world, innit?

          1. Steve Sibson

            Only IM22 is not anti-corruption. The source of the corruption is all about the money. Reducing the size and scope of the government in Pierre will reduce corruption. IM22 does the opposite by creating another government committee and adding taxpayer funded campaign financing. That means just more money for the politicians and special interests to fight over.

  7. Troy Jones

    Steve, I agree with your point except you are under-selling it. The money they will be fighting for was taken from people by force of law. The other money is at least freely given.