Remember the 1.3 million raised from out-of-state sources that the Yes on Amendment V people are reporting? They’re quick to retort “Yeah, but Thune raises money from out-of-state.”
So, morally, who is in the right?
Friend of the blog Michael Wyland has an essay that was published today at “The Nonprofit Quarterly,” which delves into the issue, and notes that the out-of-staters have a poorer position as they try to use South Dakota as their electoral guinea pig:
If out-of-state money is OK for a state’s candidates for the U.S. House and Senate, why shouldn’t it be OK for statewide ballot initiatives? Why shouldn’t the sauce for the goose also be sauce for the gander?
The answer is relatively simple, yet often overlooked. Senate and Congressional candidates have the opportunity to influence legislation, regulation, and oversight everywhere in the country. For example, John Thune, the current chair of the Senate Commerce Committee, is from my home state of South Dakota. As a Senate committee chair, he wields significant influence and power over commerce across the United States. His decisions have the potential to affect all industries, all professions, and much of the national economy. However, even a newly elected legislator sent to Washington votes on all bills, sits on multiple committees, and has liaison with all federal agencies. They have access to other powerful people, including their own colleagues, with the potential to exert influence and even control.
The national scope of their offices is not only an opportunity to affect all states (not just their own); it is an expectation and a duty that comes with their office. They represent not only their home state’s (or home district’s) interests; they are expected to act in the best interest of the nation as a whole.
and…
Out-of-state money donated for political campaigns, especially U.S. House and Senate campaigns, is far more reasonable in candidate elections than it is when applied to statewide ballot initiatives. The key reason is the scope of the campaign’s capacity and geography for proximate, direct effect. Therefore, it is appropriate to challenge an initiative’s expression of a state’s voters’ collective will and desires when those campaigns are financed primarily from outside its borders.
Read the entire article here at the Nonprofit Quarterly.
Michael noted to me in sending me the article that “This was a point I first made in a comment on DWC, fleshed out into a feature article.”
Glad to see that as a monkey banging on my keyboard, I can help spark such intelligent commentary!
Like all the California money going to S.
S needs to be defeated also….along with 22 and 23 and V…all out of state money
The major funding opposing Initiative 21, and supporting Amendment U, is out of state money, as well.
Don’t you think that it makes more sense when the out of state money is coming from non profits that just try to promote democracy? A candidate, even if for national office still is supposed to represent South Dakota, when FOR PROFIT orgainzations and rich billionaires give money to a candidate they expect that candidate to return the favor in the form of a favorable vote or other perks. When someone from out of state supports a ballot measure they can never call that ballot measure up for a favor in the future.
Non profit…hahaha…these are all dark money liberal’s…Go back to nebraska!& learn something this time
Nice one. Glad you could see it, but did you read it? Try coming up with an intelligent response. You need to go back to school and learn how to write a rebuttal. Or maybe you were failed by one of our public school teacher we pay so well.