A thought came to mind after reading how South Dakota Democrat Leaders were claiming that South Dakota needs to fully implement the Unconstitutional Initiated Measure, IM22:
State Senate Democratic leader Billie Sutton suggested Daugaard is going against the will of the people.
“It was the vote of the people that passed it by a majority and, so, I don’t think it’s fair to just pick pieces that you like or dislike,” said Sutton. Sutton and Hawley said if there are problems with the measure, then the legislature can try to work through them, but Daugaard’s approach is wrong.
Since Democrat Leaders are in full support of retaining Initiated Measure 22, and IM22 was promoted on claims that Lobbyists are buying legislators….
Does that mean Democrats are going to cancel the annual Democrat Party Lobbyist fundraiser during session, where the Dem Party raises thousands of dollars annually from the very people they call corrupt?
At the very least, when they get the invitation, it should give pause to the lobbyist corps before they think of putting pen to checkbook.
The D’s also had a pheasant hunt, raised money from lobbyists, $1000 bucks a head, late this fall. Guess they will cancel that for next year after finding Jesus with the help of Ricky Weiland.
When is the annual Democrat Party Lobbyist fundraiser ?
They (like the GOP) hold one during session in Pierre.
I look forward to seeing the resignation of the Democratic Senate Leader Mr. Sutton under IM 22, as his wife has clients who have a lobbyist in Pierre, i.e. Dakota Rural Action.
http://www.farmforum.net/news/livestock/lawyers-fight-about-whether-manure-is-health-threat/article_59a016c4-aa22-5a68-b639-6d75fe961431.html
It’s even worse for Rep. Hawley who, as an insurance agent, gets paid commissions from insurance companies that employ lobbyists. According to the proponents of IM 22, Hawley should immediately either resign his seat or refuse any further income from those insurers.
http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/state-has-compelling-interest-to-halt-apparent-corruption-via-im/article_184fbd4a-845a-5943-bdcc-b6edf3dcbeb9.html
PIERRE | The Anti-Corruption Act approved by South Dakota voters last month is constitutional and doesn’t hamper the existing employment arrangements of legislators or their family members, according to the state Attorney General’s Office.