IM22 supporters drop new ballot measure with 50k Signatures with Secretary of State

The same people who brought you the unconstitutional Initiated Measure 22 from 2016 have dropped a new ballot measure at the Secretary of State in preparation for the 2018 Ballot, claiming 50,000 signatures:

“South Dakotans clearly demanded change last November with IM 22, but the will of the people was ignored; now the people are one step closer to having the final say,” Mitch Richter, a co-sponsor of the amendment, said in a statement. “This amendment is a response to what the Legislature has done and failed to do.”


Don Haggar, state director of South Dakota’s chapter of Americans for Prosperity, the conservative advocacy group backed by billionaire brothers David and Charles Koch, said he’s concerned because the commission would be a “fourth branch of government” with no check and balance. He also said the state constitution shouldn’t contain political rhetoric or appropriations.

Americans for Prosperity, which fought against the 2016 ballot measure, opposes the new amendment, but hasn’t decided how much of a role it will play in an opposition campaign.

The new amendment would also lower campaign donation limits. For example, it would decrease the contribution limit for a state representative from $1,000 a year from individuals to $500 per election cycle.

Read it here.

Campaign finance limits in the constitution? This sounds like yet another big steaming mess of a measure that even if it somehow manages to pass will end up in court.

22 Replies to “IM22 supporters drop new ballot measure with 50k Signatures with Secretary of State”

  1. Anonymous

    Hey what about the will of the people in rejecting T & V…but the same liberals are bringing those back after the people rejected those measures….

    NO on EVERYTHING! they are all bad measures.

  2. Michael Wyland

    I must admit that the Represent South Dakota/ folks bother me. Not so much because they are financed with out-of-state money, but because their out-of-state money comes from 501(c)(3) public charities. Using tax-deductible charitable gifts to finance political campaigns is supposed to be against federal law, but enforcement is lacking.

    For more, see my August 2016 NPQ article titled “Prairie Playground for Special Interests to Test Campaign Finance Initiative” –

      1. Michael Wyland

        Technically, it’s an IRS issue. The IRS can investigate and, if appropriate, revoke the tax-exempt status of the group or groups involved. The IRS also has the option to require the group or groups to repay any funds transferred in violation of IRS regulations and even pay an excise tax in addition to the transferred funds.

        NOTE: I’m not a lawyer and nothing here should be interpreted as legal advice.

      1. Michael Wyland

        Good question. The presumption is “yes,” but, as the article states, at the time I wrote it AFP-SD hadn’t yet filed any campaign finance reports with the state. I have no reason to believe they didn’t do so later. However, when I looked at Represent South Dakota’s filings on the SOS website yesterday, all I saw were 2017 filings. I don’t know if the 2016 filings are still available online.

    1. Jaa Dee

      it stops elected officials from overturning voter-approved laws without going back to the voters for permission.

      creates an independent citizen’s ethics commission,

      bans gifts — including food, beverages and alcohol — from lobbyists to elected officials.

      Socialism, huh?

      1. Miranda Gohn

        Jaa Dee,

        Actually I could of been for this but given the current Marijuana ballot measures which promise the sky with no negatives if even one of them passes there will be problems and I suspect many South Dakota citizens, various agencies and other entities will be contacting their legislators in regards to negative issues but you know what? Our legislators will not be able to do anything to take corrective action!

  3. Troy Jones

    Just remember Jaa Dee is the spokesman for the modern day Jacobins. There is no lie he won’t tell or Head he won’t chop off if you disagree with him. My comments are literal. Not figurative. Not rhetorical.

  4. Jake

    He keep lying about it not being unconstitutional judge Barnett found it to be unconstitutional game set match it’s unconstitutional… Jaa dee, can you explain to me how judge Barnett’s ruling saying it was unconstitutional is not valid?

    1. Anonymous

      Barnett did not find it to be unconstitutional in it’s entirety and provided the injunction as a means for it to go to a higher court.for a decision. His exact words were “This is just a stop on the bus route. This is going to a much higher power and a much higher pay grade than me.” He also stated that portions could be saved if the injunction was amended before a decision….but we all know Republican leaders didn’t want to save any of it which is why they removed the law before a judge could deem part or all of it unconstitutional. Any more questions Jake?

  5. Tara Volesky

    The corruption of SD will only be solved with a new Governor and administration that isn’t part of the swamp. The cronyism, nepotism and favoritism has got to stop. It’s destroying this great state.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.