Larry Rhoden on why Initiated Measure 22 is a dumb idea.

State House Candidate, and former candidate for US Senate Larry Rhoden has an opinion piece out in the Rapid City Journal today explaining to the voters why taking tax dollars for private campaigns is just a dumb idea:

RhodenThey say that you can learn as much by what people don’t say as by what they do say.

That certainly applies to the proponents of Initiated Measure 22, who have been very quiet about how the measure would force taxpayers to fund political campaigns.


While most people share their concerns with corruption and transparency, dumping taxpayer money into political campaigns is not the answer. In fact, if anything taxpayer money opens up new opportunities for corruption. That has been the case in multiple states that have ventured down this road.

In Arizona, a candidate spent over $100,000 in public funds on parties and restaurants. After being caught, he was ordered to pay back all the funds but only returned $15,000. In Maine, the Green Party ran a candidate merely to get access to public funds. In NYC, candidates gave public funds to a for-profit company to evade contribution limits.

Perhaps this is why proponents of Measure 22 don’t talk so much about the Democracy credit program — they know they don’t have good answers for it.

Read it here.

Wise words indeed.

16 Replies to “Larry Rhoden on why Initiated Measure 22 is a dumb idea.”

  1. Porter Lansing

    The Arizona candidate faces 46 years behind bars. Are you predicting someone in SoDak would do something as fraudulent as he did? The public matching funds program of New York is supported by a robust oversight and enforcement regime that helps ensure candidates qualify honestly, and manage their funds responsibly. Careful pre-election auditing of candidate disclosure protects against waste and fraud, saving taxpayers real money. The emotional bridge that a third party provides does more than simply lure voters to the polls; it can also help to turn one of the major parties out of power. Third parties performed this function in 1912, when Theodore Roosevelt’s Progressive Party helped the Democrats wrest the White House from 20 years of unchallenged Republican supremacy.

  2. We Don't Want To Live In Your Hell

    What part of we don’t want big state government, New York style BS in our state doesn’t Porter get? This state wasn’t built for or by people like you.

    1. Porter Lansing

      Porter doesn’t live in hell. Some of Porter’s money and property live in South Dakota, which gives him a say in political choices. I did some things to help build the state but sometimes one needs to be where their Doctors are. Who is “we” and how are “people like me” worse than you?

        1. Porter Lansing

          I’ll answer your question 100% accurately and truthfully if you agree to answer a question of mine. No, never mind. You’re trying to go off topic again.

  3. Fred Deutsch

    Larry is spot on. During my years of raising kids, running a business, serving on school board and most recently serving in the legislature, I’ve found many times it’s easy to see problems, but sometimes not so easy to come up with good solutions. Providing candidates a slush fund of public dollars will do nothing to improve transparency and corruption, and will only create new problems. If you like someone running for office and want to help, cut ’em a check, but forcing taxpayers to foot the bill is not a good idea.

  4. Michael Wyland

    Here’s my article on the IM 22 fight, published Thursday (8/18/16) by The Nonprofit Quarterly (NPQ):

    Prairie Playground for Special Interests to Test Campaign Finance Initiative

    The pro-IM 22 forces are indirectly financed by large charitable foundations, channeled through two Massachusetts nonprofits. The Americans for Prosperity (AFP)-spearheaded anti-IM 22 side is new, so their finance reports haven’t been filed yet. Neither side has much in the way of local dollars invested – at least not yet.

  5. Anonymous

    I’ve talked to many people around Pierre that have told me Larry is being actively encouraged to run for Congress if Kristi Noem chooses to run for Governor. Kristi and Larry are good friends so it wouldn’t surprise me one bit to see the west river guy give it one more shot at a statewide race. He would really be a quality candidate and a lot of people highly respect him since his departure from the US Senate race even more than before when he was majority leader. Plus he would dominate the westriver vote.

    1. Anonymous

      Larry will be Mickelson’s running mate. G-Mark will do just at Dad and Grand-pappy did and pick a west-river rancher type.

  6. Anonymous

    Larry is in the spotlight for a reason. It’s a good cause but also he’s one of the top two people in SD for Lt and Congress.

    Obviously he’d have to be a Mickelson or Noem pick. For Congress he would be able to win that on his own.

    1. Anonymous

      I have heard his name for those same offices….I have also heard a lot of other names for the Congress seat….

      Noem-Rhoden would be a tough combination for Gov/Lt Gov

      1. Anonymous

        I’d prefer to see Larry make a go of it for congress. I grew up west river and as much as I like dusty he just don’t cut it in wranglers and boots.

  7. RemDen

    Wouldn’t it be appropriate to publish more details about this initiative and not rely on the same old bs tactics Republican politicians have used to persuade voters they have all the answers and speak nothing but the truth ?
    I too can make a statement such as : This initiative will make your children eat pork and hate beef ; isn’t that something guaranteed to piss off west river ranchers ?
    It provides no details other than provoking a knee jerk response. Typical conservative tactic and works all the time here in SoDak.