Author: @SoDakCampaigns

(Somehow, I’m very doubtful that this is going to make the ballot with 45 days to go. – PP)

Attorney General Explanation Released for Initiated Measure to Revise State Campaign Finance and Lobbying Laws

PIERRE, S.D.- South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley announced today an Attorney General Explanation for an initiated measure has been filed with the Secretary of State. This statement will appear on petitions that will be circulated by the sponsor of the measure. If the sponsor obtains a sufficient number of signatures (13,871) on the petitions by November 9, 2015, as certified by the Secretary of State, the measure will be placed on the ballot for the November 2016 general election.

1. An initiated measure to revise State campaign finance and lobbying laws, create a publicly funded campaign finance program, create an ethics commission, and appropriate funds

Under South Dakota law, the Attorney General is responsible for preparing explanations for proposed initiated measures, referred laws, and South Dakota Constitutional Amendments. Specifically, the explanation includes a title, an objective, clear and simple summary of the purpose and effect of the proposed measure and a description of the legal consequences. The Attorney General Explanation is not a statement either for or against the proposed measure.

To view the Attorney General Explanation for the measure, as well as the final form of the measure submitted to this office…. (View below, because I’m bringing it to you – PP)

Campaign Finance & Lobbying Init Measure

To date the Attorney General has released Attorney General Explanations for the following:

1. An initiated measure to set a maximum finance charge for certain licensed money lenders
2. An initiated amendment to the South Dakota Constitution to allow referral of state and municipal laws affecting public peace, health, safety and the support of government and also to limit the ability to amend or repeal initiated laws
3. An initiated measure to legalize marijuana for medical use
4. An initiated measure to decriminalize the possession of one ounce or less of marijuana and marijuana paraphernalia
5. An initiated measure to criminalize the transfer of alcoholic beverages
6. An initiated measure to criminalize the transfer of tobacco and tobacco paraphernalia
7. An initiated amendment to the South Dakota Constitution to provide for state legislative redistricting by a commission
8. An initiated amendment to the South Dakota Constitution to expand rights for crime victims
9. An initiated amendment to the South Dakota Constitution limiting the ability to set statutory interest rates for loans
10. An initiated amendment to the South Dakota Constitution establishing nonpartisan elections
11. An initiated amendment to the South Dakota Constitution establishing nonpartisan elections and requiring secret ballot elections for certain legislative officers
12. An initiated measure to give certain organizations the right to charge fees
13. An initiated measure to revise State campaign finance and lobbying laws, create a publicly funded campaign finance program, create an ethics commission, and appropriate funds

Interesting comments in the Argus Leader Article on Steve Hildebrand this past weekend.

Aside from the face it was a nearly slobbering love letter from the Argus to one of President Obama’s former campaign chiefs, if you got past Stu Whitney, and read what Hildebrand had to say about Democratic Mayor Mike Huether, it’s very clear that there’s always been a “Glorious 10 year plan”  and it culminates with Huether running for Governor:

Hildebrand was credited with sharpening the campaign message and delivering a strong turnout on election night as Huether became the first political newcomer in 25 years to win the job, defeating city councilor Kermit Staggers with 57 percent of the vote.

and…

“If Mike were to change his ability to let citizens participate, to let longtime friends participate, to let neighborhood organizations participate, he might gather a lot of support, but he has been very much an individual leader who doesn’t really involve anyone else in his decision-making,” said Hildebrand. “He’ll have a hard time getting support from anybody if that’s the kind of person he continues to be.”

As for Huether’s contention that being mayor of Sioux Falls is his “dream job,” his former campaign manager disputes that characterization and says they had conversations about him running for governor before the mayoral push.

“Mike has wanted to be governor of South Dakota since he was a kid,” says Hildebrand. “It was never about being the mayor of Sioux Falls, it was always about being governor. He came back from San Antonio (where he worked for Citibank) with a big fat file that said, Huether for Governor.”

Read it here.

So, coming back from out of state, Huether was said to have a “big fat file that said, Huether for Governor.”   Wow.  Although, I’m not shocked at his utter hubris.

Even though he’s the state’s highest elected Democrat, does anyone think Huether could get past a Republican in the general election?  Of for that matter, could he survive a primary against a Democrat with more statewide appeal?

Bob Mercer was writing on-line today advocating for more government in the face of people wanting to change government:

Requiring circulators to register at a county auditor’s office or the secretary of state office before they start gathering signatures would be a safeguard.

The circulator could be asked for photo identification and proof of current residential address, and for the specific ballot measure or candidate, then sign a statement pledging to follow the petition laws.

In turn, the circulator would receive official certification.

and…

The recent crimes committed by candidates Bosworth and Walker, and the ongoing controversies during this signature-gathering season for ballot measures, point to the need for steps to better preserve the integrity of our democratic system.

Read it here.

I’m not so sure I agree. The recent crimes committed by Bosworth and Walker were successfully investigated and prosecuted by Attorney General Marty Jackley.  So, what’s the argument supporting the need for more bureaucracy in the face of it? Just so we can go “Yay! We did something!”

Do we really need a licensure board for petitioners?  Or, is what we really need a shift of responsibility?

When I was in the SOS office, concerns over problems in the election process came up then as well, as they had with Chris Nelson before us, Joyce Hazeltine before him, etc. The primary problem is the the Secretary of State’s office is not designed legally to be anything except a very administrative filing agency for the documents of government.

The only review authority it has over elections matter is very, very limited, and purely administrative in terms of determining the validity of signatures, and the timeliness of when things are filed.

Any concerns or questions go directly to the Attorney General. The problem is, white collar petition scofflaws rank pretty low when put up against rapists & murderers. But because of their extremely political nature, and potential impact of upcoming elections, they can’t be ignored.  EXCEPT, according to case law, when they’re the subject of an upcoming election. Then, they can only be addressed only after the election.

Not an enviable position for our state’s chief law enforcement officer.   So. why not shift responsibility slightly?

Why not give the Secretary of State more authority to reject – or better yet, refer petitions upon suspicion of impropriety?  And as opposed to the Board of Elections being a mostly useless appendage dealing with administrative matters and suggesting legislation, why not give them a quasi-judicial function?  Let them sit in judgement on whether to reject or accept petitions and candidate controversies, and leave the bad, bad stuff to the AG?

Or is there a better way? What do you think?

I was working on post ideas, and noted that something I hadn’t done as of yet was to post Paula Hawks’ financial disclosure forms as a candidate in her race for Congress. They’re public information, and readily available on-line, so I went to the Clerk of the US House website to look it up.

But…. it wasn’t there. That left me checking the rules as to exactly when candidates are required to file:

Congressional Candidates

Individuals are required to file a Financial Disclosure Statement once they “qualify” as a candidate by raising or spending more than $5,000 in a campaign for election to the House of Representatives. Both the office-seeker’s own funds and contributions from third parties count towards the threshold. An individual who never raises or spends more than $5,000 has no financial disclosure obligations with the House, even if that person’s name appears on an election ballot. All individuals who do meet this definition must file each year that they continue to be candidates. The deadline for filing the Financial Disclosure Statement depends on whether you qualify as a candidate in an election or non-election year.

If you qualify as a candidate during an election (generally an even-numbered) year, then you must file a Financial Disclosure Statement within 30 days of becoming a candidate or May 15 of that year, whichever is later. There are two exceptions to this general rule: First, a qualifying candidate must file no later than 30 days before any election (including primaries) in which the individual is participating. Thus, if you become a candidate on January 5 in an election year and the primary is on April 22, the report is due by March 23 (no later than 30 days before the election). Second, if a candidate crosses the $5,000 threshold within the 30-day period prior to an election, the candidate must file the Financial Disclosure Statement immediately after he or she raises or spends more than $5,000. Candidates in a special election also follow this filing rule.

If you qualify during a non-election (generally an odd-numbered) year, then you must file a Financial Disclosure Statement within 30 days of becoming a candidate or May 15 of that year, whichever is later.  You are then required to file a subsequent Statement on May 15 of the following year if you are still a candidate on that date. If you lose a primary election before May 15, then you are not required to file the Statement.

Read that all here.

Wait. What? It isn’t there?

Let me get this straight. Hawks has 30 days from the point she hits $5000 raised or spent to file these Financial Disclosure Statements? And it is yet to be filed?

So, she was prepping her race from way back in July. And she’s been running since the first part of August.

And here we are a month and a half to two months away from the time she started moving in the direction of being the candidate.

And she hasn’t had to file this document yet?  Which means she’s either flouting the law, or her campaign has yet to raise or spend $5000 in pursuit of the campaign against our current Congresswoman Kristi Noem.

Doesn’t she have staff, and a website, and travel, and all that stuff? Or is her campaign so anemic, underfunded, and just plain dismal at this point that she hasn’t hit that benchmark yet?   What was she doing in the first 30 days of agreeing to be the sacrificial lamb?  Was it similar to the stages of grief, and she was in denial that she got stuck with the hot potato?

As an allegedly credible candidate, it’s tremendously telling that she wasn’t been able to gather $5000 in the first 15 -20 days of her campaign launch.

It’s telling us that Paula Hawks not a real candidate yet. Or maybe ever.

I was taking a closer look at the video featuring Annette Bosworth trashing her lawyer Joel Arends (again), when something in the background of the video caught my eye….

I thought “What on earth does she have written on her wall?”  And then I blew up a screen cap, and read it.  And all I could think was “Oh my. It looks like a wall of grievances.”

First off, I don’t know many professionals who write on their walls with brightly colored magic markers. It tends to annoy the landlord, and does little for getting your damage deposit back when you finally have your office shut down.

Although, if you recall the Bosworth room of profanity, I suppose one could argue it makes for a good impromptu backdrop for a TV interview.  But then you look at the content:

(unintelligible. Name?) POLITICAL
Reason: Letter to my Sons.

US SENATE

Abandon & Forgotten

Don Quiote (sic)
&
Sancho

Joel
Arends

501 c3
Land Raffles

Petitions
Rev Steve Hickey files complaint

Insurance
*Medicaid Fraud

Request
*

*
Ruling by
Medical Board
Revoke medical license

Is it just me, or would you agree that this room is NOT Annette Bosworth’s happy place?

You know, I’m not a doctor. And, neither is Annette Bosworth anymore.  But, there’s this thought in the back of my head that it might be a good idea for her to go talk to somebody.

It might be healthier than hanging out underneath her self-imposed wall of shame.

From the Argus Leader/Associated Press, it looks like the other petition scofflaw got probation as well:

Former South Dakota U.S. Senate candidate Clayton Walker has avoided jail time for election law violations, instead being sentenced Tuesday to two years of probation.

State Judge John Brown also ordered Walker to complete 200 hours of community service and told him to get a mental health evaluation within 30 days.

Walker declined comment after the sentencing, but previously said he believes the charges against him were politically motivated.

and….

Authorities indicted Walker in June 2014 for submitting nominating petitions that included names of dead people, fictitious people and Hollywood celebrities, and for falsely swearing that he witnessed signatures on his petitions. Authorities later accused him of making repeated phone calls to several state offices, harassing and threatening employees.

Read it all here.

It’s interesting that the post I did on what could shake out for 2018 rocketed up to be one of the more popular posts of the last 30 days. And it bears out what one of my correspondents was noting this evening.

The question was “Everyone still talking 2018 out there?”  And I truthfully had to respond – “Yep. 2016 is over already.”  And that seems to be the general mood.  The 2016 election is just a minor speed bump towards the next big election.  Some people are folding up the chairs, and have started putting them away when it comes to state elections.

Democrats have practically run out of time to find (a) a credible candidate, and (b) someone who could raise anything close to what Senator Thune has in the bank already.  In everyone’s minds, for all practical purposes. It’s done.

In Congress, they’re putting state income tax loving, pro-planned parenthood, only won her last election by 9 votes, Paula Hawks up against Congresswoman Kristi Noem who is literally at the height of her game, still riding the crest of her huge win on the farm bill, and now serves on the ways and means committee.  In everyone’s minds, for all practical purposes. check that race off the list too. It’s also done.

What does that leave Dems?  Chris Nelson for PUC. (What was I saying about this election being done?), and the state legislature where Republicans have a built in expectation we’re going to lose a couple, because the numbers are already impossibly and un-naturally high.  The bigger shock is that the electorate keeps giving us Republicans those kind of numbers.

It’s not like Democrats disagree. They spend their time on ballot measures instead of candidates. They know they’ve already lost those races. Maybe they can pass a law or two by circumventing the legislative process.  (Yay, self-back slapping by the activists, while they wonder why their registration numbers keep cratering, and question why no one wants to be a Democrat.)

So no wonder everyone keep talking about 2018. People are looking for some speculation. Some gamesmanship, and wrangling. Some good, old-fashioned politicking. We enjoy that. It’s a pastime of many in the state. So, when we talk about it, it piques people’s interest because it represents the unknown – the future that keeps evolving and changing with every little twist and turn.

But not 2016. Shoot – The 2016 election is already over in people’s eyes.   Thune, Noem, Nelson, and a Republican Supermajority. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to call that one.  Everyone agrees, and they’re already moving on to the big show in ’18.