Category: Uncategorized

Initiated Measure -22—34 Pages and 17,000 Words; A Reach Too Far
by Ron Williamson, President of the Great Plains Public Policy Institute

South Dakota has long been a testing ground for political initiatives brought and funded by out-of-state interests and groups.  Initiated Measure 22 (IM-22) is one such measure and one of ten ballot issues.  It proposes to revise state campaign finance and lobbying laws, create an entirely new state bureaucracy, create a taxpayer funded public campaign finance program and appropriate state funds.

IM-22 would make some seventy (70) changes to state laws. It is thirty four (34) pages and seventeen thousand (17,000) words long.

Nonprofit organizations such as agriculture cooperatives and associations, advocacy and voter education groups, trade associations, 501(c)(3) organizations, labor unions and others are legally allowed under Federal Law to take positions on legislative matters that impact their missions as long as they do not financially or otherwise support candidates for office.  Because they are not engaging in candidate campaigns, they are allowed (under federal law) to protect the privacy of their donors and supporters.  IM-22 would overrule these federal and U.S. Constitution  protections.

IM-22 would force nonprofit groups that take a position on an issue to report that activity as election spending for or against a partisan candidate if their communications mention an elected official by name.

That means if an Ag organization sent an alert to its members about a proposal to raise taxes on agriculture products and asked members to call members of the legislature to voice their opinion, that activity would be reported as something that supported or opposed particular candidates.

IM-22 goes even farther by requiring groups that issue nonpartisan voter guides to report those guides as partisan campaign activity. For example, if the League of Women Voters, SD Farm Bureau, SD Retailers, or others mailed a nonpartisan voter guide to voters, the group would have to report whether or not the group supports or opposes each candidate they mention by name and how much the group spent on the voter guides. That money would be reported as campaign contributions to the candidates they support.

Not only would this require groups to report campaign spending they aren’t even doing, it would put nonprofit groups in legal jeopardy. Nonprofit groups are banned by federal and state law from engaging in partisan campaign activity. Because IM-22 requires groups to convert nonpartisan activity into partisan campaign activity, tax-deductible nonprofit groups would violate their tax-exempt status and that would put them in legal jeopardy with the IRS.

IM-22 would also require nonprofit groups to report their donors to the state government, who could then make the list public. In America we have the right to support causes we believe in without fear of harassment and intimidation and we have a right to keep our personal beliefs private.  IM-22 could allow anyone to look you up and know what causes and groups you support.

IM-22 would also result in inaccurate information being shared. For example, if a museum in South Dakota took a position on a piece of legislation that would send arts funding to local governments and it asked its members to call lawmakers to support the proposal, the museum would be required to report its financial supporters to the state government. Even if those donors didn’t support the piece of legislation. That isn’t shining a light on who is behind what issues, that’s creating false information.

South Dakota’s budget is sound, our state pensions are funded, and our schools continue to improve. The 34 pages and 17,000 words are a reach too far.

Initiated Measure-22 makes too many changes to laws that would hurt the community organizations doing good work for South Dakotans.

Ron Williamson
President
Great Plains Public Policy
Former Legislator

NOEM EARNS RECOGNITION FROM TOP BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS

Rep. Kristi Noem (R-SD) has been recognized as a leading voice for businesses across South Dakota, earning accolades and endorsements from key business organizations. 

Endorsed by the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB), the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) in her campaign for re-election, Rep. Noem has been a consistent vote for common sense pro-business legislation to reduce excessive government regulation and to help create new jobs. 

“As a former small business owner, I know how hard it can be when Washington gets in the way, so I’ve tried to protect businesses from a growing government,” said Rep. Kristi Noem. “In 2015, I earned a seat on the powerful Ways and Means Committee, where we’ve been extremely focused on reforming our tax code and building an Opportunity Economy. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy in South Dakota, and I am grateful for the support of so many business leaders from across our great state.” 

“Congresswoman Kristi Noem has been a consistent, strong voice for South Dakota small businesses,” said NFIB/South Dakota State Director Lindsey Riter-Rapp. “In her most recent term, she stood with small business owners on every critical vote. She has voted to relieve small businesses from the burdens of high taxes, excessive regulations, and Obamacare. We want to see her back in Congress next year.”  

Tom Donohue, President and CEO of the U.S. Chamber said about Rep. Noem in his endorsement, “We believe that your re-election to the U.S. House of Representatives will help produce sustained economic growth, help create jobs, and get our country back on track.”

“Rep. Noem has consistently fought to promote pro-housing policies that will spur job and economic growth, promote homeownership and provide rental housing opportunities,” said National Association of Home Builders Chairman Ed Brady. 

Kristi Noem has been endorsed for her support for business by: 

• U.S. Chamber of Commerce
• National Association of Home Builders (NAHB)
• National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB)

###

Remember back in September what Initiated Measure 22’s author Slick Rick Weiland had this to say about why we needed initiated Measure 22?

When our state consistently ranks in the top five of states most at risk of corruption; when scandals like EB-5 and Gear-Up destroy confidence in our elected leaders and government by squandering hundreds of millions of dollars; when sweetheart government contracts, suicides, murders, lawsuits and felony charges dominate our daily news and coffee talk, then it is time for reform.

Read that here.

Well, former Democrat legislator and IM 22 spokesman Darrell Solberg just debunked that Weiland theory:

Darrell Solberg, co-chairman of South Dakotans for Integrity, said Initiated Measure 22 is a bipartisan, government accountability and anti-corruption act.

It would increase transparency and oversight in state government while reducing corruption, he said.

and…

The law would not prevent incidents like EB-5, Gear Up, no-bid contracts or pay to play, but it would provide a deterrent, he said.

Read it here.

So, while Weiland claims we need Initiated Measure 22 to stop problems with the Eb-5 and Gear-up programs – when pressed, his measure’s own spokesman has to begrudgingly admit the measure does nothing to address it.

And doing nothing about problems – all it leaves is a program that takes millions of dollars of tax money away from schools and roads to fund political candidates.

A mailer in favor of Initiated Measure 23, which hopes to eliminate South Dakota’s Right to Work law by allowing unions to charge non-members for services they claim to render arrived in mailboxes this week.

But from an examination of the mailer which likely went out to thousands of homes across the state, indicates that the mailer in question lacks the political disclaimer that has long been a requirement in South Dakota State Law in some form for decades.

According to South Dakota State Law,

12-27-15.   Printed political communications to contain certain language–Exceptions–Violation as misdemeanor. Any printed material or communication made, purchased, paid for, or authorized by a candidate, political committee, or political party which expressly advocates for or against a candidate, public office holder, ballot question, or political party shall prominently display or clearly speak the statement: “Paid for by (Name of candidate, political committee, or political party).” This section does not apply to buttons, balloons, pins, pens, matchbooks, clothing, or similar small items upon which the inclusion of the statement would be impracticable. A violation of this section is a Class 1 misdemeanor.

Read that here.

Upon a close examination of the piece, there’s no evidence that this printed political communication contains anything resembling a political disclaimer, despite the clear requirements of South Dakota election law, making it illegal, and a class 1 misdemeanor under state law.

According to a white paper issued by the opposition, this measure was sponsored by a Union member, but backed by significant labor union resources:

The International Union of Operating Engineers Local 49 based in Minneapolis claims on its website that “one of our members” is responsible for sponsoring the petition. Local 49 represents over 13,000 heavy equipment operators who drive bulldozers, backhoes, cranes, and other big machines in Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota.

This union provided financial support for the “Committee for Fair Compensation” of $158,400 in 2015. It can be safely assumed that the money was used to gather signatures with the unspent balance ready for use during the campaign.

Read it all here.

As you’ll note, the ballot committee who is on the return address also seems to have strong ties to organized labor…

…noting the return e-mail address of “wtham@local49,org.”

I asked the Secretary of State what people should do when people receive illegal, undisclaimed mailers such as this, and her spokesman Jason Williams noted:

They should submit the complaint to the States Attorney for county races/ballot measures or to the Attorney General for statewide and legislative races and ballot questions.

Williams also cited SDCL 12-27-35.   Investigation and prosecution of violations by attorney general–Civil actions, and SDCL 12-27-40.   Investigation and prosecution of violations by state’s attorney–Civil actions.  

So, if you’ve received one of these illegal mailers for a statewide ballot measure, per the SOS, you should direct it to AG Marty Jackley. You can correspond with the AG by writing to:

Office of the Attorney General
500 East Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501 

It sounds like the group “Citizens for Integrity,” who are out promoting Initiated Measure 22 need to learn what the word means, as the author of a study on public corruption notes that they’re misconstruing and lying about the results of his study:

The backers of an ethics reform ballot measure are misrepresenting a number from a 2014 report on government corruption, according to one of its authors.

South Dakotans for Integrity has repeatedly cited the Indiana University report to suggest public corruption annually costs the state about $1,300 per resident.

John Mikesell, a professor who worked on the report, said the number does not specifically apply to South Dakota, which was an outlier in the study.

and…

Richard Carlbom, campaign manager of South Dakotans for Integrity, said South Dakota still faces higher costs per person related to corruption, citing rankings by the Center for Public Integrity and the U.S. Justice Department.

and..

Carlbom last week said the group backing Initiated Measure 22 spent “thousands of dollars” in promoting a video that uses the $1,300 cost of corruption figure. When asked exactly how much the campaign spent on the video he said he couldn’t say because he didn’t want opponents to have that information.

Read it all here.

From the sounds of the article, as they promote the measure which contains provisions for the public financing of political campaigns (which remains largely unmentioned) and try to explain away the naked misuse of the study they’re being criticized for – the Citizens for Integrity are full of something – but it isn’t integrity.

Presidential Candidates on 2016 General Election Ballot

PIERRE, S.D. – Attorney General Marty Jackley and Secretary of State Shantel Krebs jointly clarify the South Dakota general election ballot with regard to Presidential Candidates.

The South Dakota 2016 general election ballots were printed, finalized, and shipped to county auditors in September and absentee voting began on September 23, 2016. Thousands of absentee votes have already been cast.

In order for a Presidential candidate’s name to have been removed from South Dakota’s 2016 general election ballot, the candidate seeking to withdraw was required to notify the Secretary of State by the First Tuesday in August pursuant to SDCL 12-6-55. A replacement candidate, as determined by the withdrawing candidate’s political party, must have then been submitted to the Secretary of State by the second Tuesday in August pursuant to SDCL 12-8-6. To date, no presidential candidates who appear on South Dakota’s 2016 general election ballot have submitted a notice of withdrawal to the South Dakota Secretary of State’s Office.

South Dakota has three presidential electors. South Dakota law provides that presidential electors must “meet at the seat of government of this state and then and there perform the duties enjoined upon them by the Constitution and laws of the United States.” SDCL 12-24-4. Each state political party selects its presidential electors at a state party convention pursuant to SDCL 12-5-21. The Constitution Party of South Dakota selected presidential electors: Frank Howe, Joel Bergan, and Melvin Van Den Top. The South Dakota Democratic Party selected presidential electors: JR LaPlante, Susan Kelts, and Ann Tornberg. The Libertarian Party of South Dakota selected presidential electors: Jon Boon McNutt, Elaine Kub, and Richard Shelatz. The South Dakota Republican Party selected presidential electors: Dennis Daugaard, Matt Michels, and Marty Jackley.

-30-

Marsy’s Law just kicked out another postcard this past week – this time one that comes as a companion piece to their recently released television commercial, featuring Beadle County Prosecutor Michael Moore.

From the sounds of things going on in Aberdeen, it sounds like State Senate Candidate Cory Heidelberger is getting it with both barrels from the South Dakota GOP.

First, readers started pinging me about this ad, which appeared in the Aberdeen American News this morning…

And this afternoon, I started getting reports that the other shoe dropped in District 3 mailboxes.

The GOP taking a hit on Heidelberger? It shouldn’t come as a shock to those watching the race, considering Cory has been dinging Al Novstrup on his blog for months, with yet another post yesterday where Cory tries to air some self-superiority, and pokes at Novstrup again simply for the fact he can’t resist it.

The postcard relates back to his firing from the Madison School District, where as it’s often recounted, he got into a profane shouting match with a student in front of his Principal. (Probably not a good career enhancer.)  And SDWC Bonus – they also grabbed a 2013 SDWC post on a recent Cory proposal to hand out condoms at schools to teachers and students.

On the firing, one big argument against it is that it did happen a while ago, back in 2001. But, it’s hard to use that logic to refute it, when the people who would complain about it are gleefully using the Trump audio from 2005 to declare him unfit to serve in the office of President.  If it’s bad to say what Trump did in 2005, it is arguably also bad to yell profanities at a student in the middle of a high school in 2001.

And the campaign rolls on.

Marsy’s Law Launches Second TV Ad in South Dakota, “Equal Rights”
State’s Attorney Michael Moore Asks Voters for Yes on S

Today Marsy’s Law for South Dakota (Amendment S) launched its second television ad that will run statewide and will run in rotation with additional Marsy’s Law ads to be announced in the near future. The ad, called “Equal Rights,” features Beadle County State’s Attorney Michael Moore who asks voters to support Amendment S, also known as Marsy’s Law for South Dakota. Amendment S would provide South Dakota crime victims with the equal constitutional rights that are already afforded to the accused and convicted.

Michael Moore has been the Beadle County State’s Attorney for over twenty years and has a strong reputation for fighting for crime victims. Moore was selected as the South Dakota Prosecutor of the Year by the SD State’s Attorney Association in 2010. He was also awarded the Domestic Violence Prosecutor of the Year in 2012 by the South Dakota Domestic Violence Coordinating Committee in the United State’s Attorney Office. Moore was elected to serve as President of the National District Attorney’s Association in 2015.

“Giving crime victims equal rights- that is what Amendment S will do,” said State’s Attorney Michael Moore. “As a prosecutor, I’ve seen first-hand how crime victims and their families are too often forgotten about during the criminal justice process.”

“Amendment S provides victims with equal rights they deserve- the right to privacy, to be heard, to be notified and to be free of harassment” said Moore. “Stand up for South Dakota crime victims, vote yes on Amendment S.”

Marsy’s Law for South Dakota is a Crime Victims’ Bill of Rights that is named after Marsalee “Marsy” Ann Nicholas. Marsy was a beautiful, vibrant college student who was stalked and killed by her ex-boyfriend in 1983. Only a week after Marsy was murdered, her mother Marcella and her brother Nick walked into a grocery store after visiting her daughter’s grave and were confronted by the accused murderer. They had no idea that he had been released on bail.

For more information, visit www.equalrightsfordouthdakota.com

###