Gubernatorial hopefuls argue over conflict of interest laws

Bob Mercer is noting this morning that two different parties are arguing over who is responsible for strengthening the state’s laws on precluding conflicts of interest for those having contracts with the State of South Dakota.

And it’s rendered more interesting, as the two parties are slated to be facing each other in the race for Governor in two years:

Marty JackleyA deterrent stronger than a Class 1 misdemeanor is needed in state conflict-of-interest cases, Attorney General Marty Jackley said.


Jackley said a stronger deterrent is needed. He said he would be open to “triggering factors” and “aggravated circumstances” that call for higher levels of punishment depending on the severity of the crime.

Jackley repeated his statement made at the news conference in Platte last week that “an adult conversation” is needed regarding the penalties.


“Resolution would just involve the attorney general letting policy-makers know what additional tools he thinks he needs,” Mickelson said.

He offered it could start by the attorney general contacting the governor’s legal counsel, Jim Seward; or Sen. Craig Tieszen, R-Rapid City, who is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee; or three of the lawyers on the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Timothy Johns, R-Lead, Rep. Mike Stevens, R-Yankton, or Mickelson, the chairman.

“I drafted both bills with a lot of helpers and never heard a word from him,” Mickelson said.

Read it all here.

Both Marty and Mark will be speaking at the Brookings County Lincoln Day Dinner at the SDSU Performing Arts Center here in Brookings coming up on April 1st. With the both of them having a difference of opinion on who needs to take the lead on penalties for the state’s laws on conflicts of interest – there could be some fireworks!

Mickelson is also appearing today on one of the Argus Leader’s on-line video programs this afternoon at 3pm, where we’ll probably hear more about it as well.

7 Replies to “Gubernatorial hopefuls argue over conflict of interest laws”

  1. Troy Jones

    There is a maxim I know I’m going to get wrong but this is the jist.

    “Enforcement of the law without favor is a bigger deterrent than the threat of severe punishment.”

    What is triggering this discussion began with a level of supervision/oversight that is shown to have been insufficient. At the end of the day, I doubt the threat greater punishment would have changed anything. What would have was sufficient oversight and then prompt enforcement of the law when wrong-doing was discovered.

    Sidenote: I don’t hold DOE solely responsible for the insufficient oversight. There appears that a general lack of supervision of federal programs has creeped into the system over a period of decades. We now know we need to return to more vigourous supervision.

  2. Anonymous

    SO where was Jackley all session long? He is playing politics of the worse kind here, very disappointing.

  3. Anonymous

    What kind of games is Jackley playing here? If this was a legitimate concern he should have weighed in during the legislative process. He certainly stuck his nose into everything else this session. Nothing but a cheap politician.

  4. anon

    Has anyone read the word soup that is hb1214? When someone tells me what it means and how it will be applied then I can have an opinion.