Category: Uncategorized

A reader pointed this out to me this AM. And he made a good point.

So Rick Weiland sponsors a ballot measure that renders it criminally illegal for a state legislator to be married to a lobbyist that earns over $100 in salary from their employer?

If he feels so strongly about it, when he was back working for Tom Daschle, where was his outrage over his boss committing the same type of conduct by being married to lobbyist Linda Daschle who earned a significant salary by lobbying?

Taking a break from our continuing coverage of the problems with Initiated Measure 22, the House Caucus is scheduled to be held this weekend (if the snow doesn’t keep them away).

Here’s how I’m hearing things are shaping up at the moment for the caucus races. This could change on a dime, so don’t hold me to it.

• Speaker of the House – Mark Mickelson
• Speaker Pro Temp – Don Haggar, Mike Stevens, Mary Duvall
• Majority Leader – David Lust, Lee Qualm.
• Assistant Majority Leader – Kent Peterson, Tom Brunner
• Whips – Mathew Wollmann, Larry Rhoden, Arch Beal & others

Your thoughts?

As I’m lying in bed, not displeased I get a few extra minutes of downtime from today’s snow day in Brookings, I just had a sickening thought. The whacked-out provisions written by out-of-staters in Initiated Measure 22 may affect me directly. Why?

As part of a loose affiliation of parents who have lobbied for insurance coverage for children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), we formed a PAC as the easiest type of collective organization to have a lobbyist speak for us collectively.

You can go to the Secretary of State’s website, and we’re all there. A PAC that has no funds, with our only expense an in-kind donation from the parent who volunteers her time as a lobbyist for her lobbyist registration fees.

But now, IM22 has put a doubly whammy on us for being a PAC, but more importantly for utilizing a lobbyist to speak for our parent group. Because like everyone else, we’re going to be “Section 31’d”:

So, it clearly infringes upon our parent-lobbyist’s right to donate to political campaigns, as well as her husband’s. But if I’m part of the parent group, which raises and spends no money collectively, there’s a question as to whether that applies to me as well. And if it does, I know I’ve donated more than $100 in cash or services to candidates over an election.

And if it’s a collective, aggregated thing for an “employer of a lobbyist,” there’s a question of whether it may have just made our entire group of parents of kids with ASD a pack of outlaws. 

Those are the questions little groups like ours have to face as a result of this poorly written and tangled up mess that Initiated Measure 22 is. At the least, we may have to cease using a lobbyist. 

It won’t affect the big insurers we have to argue against; they’ll still have lobbyists there. But IM22 will remove our ability. The big guys win, and the small parent groups suffer. Courtesy of Slick Rick Weiland and Don Frankenfeld. 

Thanks guys. Thanks for nothing.

That’s great. Keep it all coming!

Try not to throw up when you read Rick Weiland’s victory lap, as he quotes Machiavelli in his self-congratulatory manner for manipulating voters.

It might be hard to settle your innards. Especially in full knowledge that they promoted a measure they’d been warned was unconstitutional.

 Dear [name]

Change is hard…very hard.

In fact, Nicolo Machiavelli had it right when he wrote:

“It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out nor more doubtful of success nor more dangerous to handle than to initiate a new order of things; for the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order; this lukewarmness arising partly from the incredulity of mankind who does not truly believe in anything new until they actually have experience of it.”

So, when it happens, we must celebrate it!!!!!!!!

And it just happened in South Dakota, thanks to you, [name]. We at TakeItBack.Org — along with our national strategic partner, Represent.us (and over 180,000 South Dakotans) — just passed the South Dakota Anti-Corruption Act (Initiated Measure 22), which included the most progressive public campaign financing law in the country!

Here’s what Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, Hedrick Smith, said on his Reclaim the American Dream website: “The surprising victory was an uphill battle, David versus Goliath. A new citizens group called TakeitBack.Org pitted grass roots volunteers against a business-conservative coalition led by Americans for Prosperity, the richly financed political organ of Kansas billionaires Charles and David Koch, as well as taking on the most powerful Republican leaders in South Dakota.”

If you want to read Hedrick’s entire article, which is both excellent and inspiring, click here: http://reclaimtheamericandream.org/2016/11/how-reformers-beat-koch-in-south-dakota/

But the fight, even in South Dakota, isn’t over. Not even close.

In fact, only a day after the election, Ben Lee, the South Dakota head of the Koch brothers’ Americans for Prosperity, ominously said that “We will look for ways to overturn this measure and protect taxpayers from this costly new law.  Never mind that a majority of South Dakotans had just voted it into law — Americans for Prosperity paternalistically pledged to “protect” South Dakotans from ourselves!

Here’s what we expect:

South Dakota Republicans now control only 89 seats in the South Dakota Legislature (Democrats hold just 16, a net loss of 4 as a result of the election), and word is on the street that the plan is to try to gut IM-22, per the Koch brothers’ local minion’s pledge.

But, fortunately for us, it’s not that simple — because we now have the high ground.

If they succeed in gutting IM-22 — and we are going to stop them — then we will lead a referendum petition drive to freeze their law from taking effect, leaving our initiative in place until the voters can, once again, express their wishes.  We helped to pass a increase in the minimum wage with a cost of living adjustment in 2014 which the SD legislature tried to repeal for young adults.  We referred the law and won overwhelming last week (71%) — so we can do it again with your help.

And once South Dakota voters experience how empowering IM-22 is — every registered voter is going to get two $50 state “Democracy Credit” vouchers in the mail, which they can then donate to the state candidate of their choice.  We think they are going to like it!

And if it comes to another vote, we predict they’re going to reject the Koch brothers’ falsehoods and half-truths once again, just as they did a week ago.

But nothing is inevitable — as we found out in the presidential election. After all, the Kochs have a bottomless pit of money — passage of IM-22 shocked the hell out them and they’re definitely not used to losing.

So if you’re upset about what is happening nationally — just as we are — then help us fight back in South Dakota now, and in other states to follow, later.

We’ll leave you with two quotes, both from TakeItBack.Org co-founder, Rick Weiland. In answer to Hedrick Smith’s comment that “you’ve stirred up a hornet’s nest, Weiland said: “You’ve got to stir the pot and whack the hornet’s nest. That’s how you can make change when the political establishment and the status quo is refusing to do so.”

And finally, in answer to Smith’s question, “Is there a ripple effect?” Weiland answered: “Absolutely. I believe that this victory sends a message to the rest of the country that they don’t have to put up with the business-as-usual crowd. They can take matters into their own hands. We have a real opportunity to take what we’ve done here and show it to other states — putting these ideas on your ballot in 2018, 2020 and ’22.”

Please help us protect IM-22 from the predatory Koch brothers. Help us continue to stirring the pot and whacking that ‘business as usual’ hornets nest.

Sincerely,

 

 

I had forgotten about the LRC review, but in a story at the Argus this evening by Johnathan Ellis, apparently the out-of-state authors of IM22 ignored multiple warnings of problems with their measure by the LRC and Attorney General. Problems that even the people who campaigned for it are left shrugging their shoulders with weak excuses and egg on their faces:

Jason Hancock, the director of the Legislative Research Council, wrote a letter to the proponents on July 29, 2015 outlining a number of concerns about what was then just a proposed ballot measure. Included in Hancock’s letter was a concern that the language appropriating money for the Democracy Credit program violated the state constitution.

and..

Despite the warning, the language was not changed. The measure got enough signatures to qualify for the ballot and narrowly passed last week, surprising proponents and opponents alike, despite a warning from Attorney General Marty Jackley on his explanation that, “If approved, the measure may be challenged in court on constitutional grounds.”

and…

Don Frankenfeld, a former lawmaker who was one of the sponsors, said he anticipated a court challenge regarding IM 22 and its interaction with the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, which allowed businesses to spend money in political campaigns. But the constitutionality of appropriating money for the Democracy Credit program was a different issue, and Frankenfeld said he needed to confer with legal experts who drafted the bill about why they thought it passed constitutional muster.

Regardless, Frankenfeld thought the sponsors heeded the Legislative Research Council’s concerns.

“It’s obviously an opinion that would have been taken seriously by us,” he said.

and..

“I would have thought that, having been warned by the non-partisan Legislative Research Council, that IM 22 was unconstitutional, its proponents would have corrected those problems before putting it on the ballot,” Venhuizen said.

This story is important – Go read the entire story here.

In fact, let me diagram how IM22’s backers intentionally deceived voters, by knowingly including language they had been warned was unconstitutional before they collected a single signature:

Despite the constitutional defects, the drafters chose to include the unconstitutional provision in the final version of IM22 that was filed with the Secretary of State.

A little deception, a million dollars of advertising. That’s apparently what it takes to pass a measure on the ballot according to Rick Weiland and his cohorts.

I’m hearing the lawsuits are going to come quick on this. And with good reason.

Here’s a couple of stories that are coming in from legislators departing the process, and those who are newly elected.

Here’s the story from a legislator who decided not to run for re-election:

The current 105 legislators are in violation and the ones getting sworn in when session starts will obviously be too. Of course there is a lot of overlap. For me personally, my wife works for the local hospital so when she gets her paycheck next week I would be in violation of the new law. Am I suppose resign even though I most likely won’t vote on anything? This is crazy!

A legislator who didn’t even run in 2016 – and he’s going to be in violation of IM22 because his wife works?

My newly elected State Representative Tim Reed, who is also outgoing as the local mayor. He’s also affected – but in a different way:

So here is another one for IM22. I’m a board member and newly elected representative. My last SDML board meeting is early December. The League normally has a dinner and pays for travel expenses.

To be safe I’ll have to pay for the meal and travel expenses.

So, the Mayor – who is taking part in a function related to his job as mayor – is going to have to foot the bill for expenses that any one else would cover in the normal course of business. Except for IM22. If he lets them pay them, he’s guilty of a criminal act.

This act passed upon us by out of state nitwits, with the cooperation of Slick Rick Weiland, needs to go. Whether it’s at a special session, or at a regular session, it’s a serious mess.

A reader tells me that they’re hearing that the student pharmacists who travel to Pierre every year are wondering how to quantify the gift from their health screening. And unfortunately, it’s easier to cancel than do that.

Initiated Measure 22’s damage continues to roll on.