Counterpoint on House Bill 1200. An opposing view.

Pat Powers

In response to Speaker Mickelson’s guest column on House Bill 1200, I’ve had several people point out the article in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal opposing the Campaign Finance Disclosure measure.

For your review:

The South Dakota House voted 42-25 last week to require sweeping disclosure of names and addresses of donors to political nonprofits. The bill requires any group that spends more than $25,000 in independent political expenditures in a year, or more than $25,000 on a ballot question, to disclose the names of its top 50 donors. This is the kind of chilling “transparency” legislation you might find in California or Vermont, not a statehouse with GOP supermajorities.

The bill is a response to a new Democratic strategy, unveiled in 2016, to use ballot measures to overcome the party’s failure to win other South Dakota elections. The Mount Rushmore State has a loose ballot-initiative process, and out-of-state progressive groups swamped South Dakota with liberal policy initiatives. These ranged from challenging the state’s right-to-work law to requiring nonpartisan elections. Most failed but donors from outside the state bought enough ads to pass an ugly campaign-finance restriction.

and..

Republicans say this is about exposing outsiders who are meddling in state elections, but both sides know the real goal is chilling political participation. Money for issue advocacy will dry up if donors fear becoming targets of political retribution, boycotts or bureaucratic assaults. (See Lois Lerner’s IRS.)

and..

What silences the political left will end up silencing everyone. That’s why a coalition including the National Rifle Association, Americans for Prosperity and the state Chamber of Commerce oppose the bill. Groups like these helped to defeat the progressive ballot initiatives, which is proof that more voices and better arguments are the way to win debates—not a limit on campaign donations.

Read it all here (Subscription required)

What do you think?

Is more extensive disclosure the answer? Or does the disclosure come with a chilling effect?

13 thoughts on “Counterpoint on House Bill 1200. An opposing view.”

  1. Free speech and anonymous speech are not the same thing. We were bombarded with out-of-state anonymous speech that resulted in an unconstitutional measure that threatened the basic functions of our state democracy. In response, the legislature is simply asking these groups to tell us who they are.

      1. Hard to put all material is a comment, and my comment has to do with free speech as it applies to financial disclosure in political campaigns, not an individual’s free speech rights. Your case is about a lady who distributed her own leaflets; you’re not using this case to suggest disclosure is unconstitutional, are you? If so, you’d be challenging just about every state, and the FEC. Yes, the Fed Papers were anonymous, and many feared British reprisals, which is why the Constitution is a document of enumerated powers, and the Bill of Rights a limitation on government action, not necessarily private citizens. If your concern is the chilling effect that comes from your neighbor’s sideways glance, that is not covered by the Constitution.

        1. My concern is not with my neighbor, it is with the ruling elites. They are the ones that use campaign finance disclosures to find who opposes their self-serving agenda, and then take action. My neighbors don’t have a clue on hard to look up campaign finance reports.

  2. Exactly! They can still spend all they want unlike liberal proposals which want to cap. We already have disclosures on other levels and for good reason. If some donates to a personal campaign over a certain amount, their name is on a list for all to see yet you can hide behind a PAC and donate millions. So wrong!!

  3. There is nothing nefarious asking organizations to disclose their contributors when they participate in the political process. Once they enter the fray their claims to privacy must yield to the public’s right to know who is trying to influence their vote.

    1. People do not give up their Constitutional rights of free speech, free association, and privacy simply by “enter[ing] the fray”.

        1. Exposure is a better word for it. One of the primary reasons that people, especially those on the Left, want the disclosure of donors is so that they can harass, intimidate, and silence people. In addition, laws like HB 1200 include specific clauses that limit speech within a period of time, in this instance 60 days, prior to elections. By thew way, disclosure is also a violation of privacy.

  4. I’m not sold that disclosure is necessary in these cases. We have campaign finance disclosure laws because we don’t want legislators to be corrupted by large secret donations and we don’t want the appearance of corruption. That problem doesn’t exist for ballot measures because there is no one to corrupt. Requiring disclosure does prevent some people from donating in support or opposition to ballot measures because they don’t want retaliation. It is a restriction on their freedom that I’m not convinced is warranted.

    Plus, knowing who is funding a ballot measure is unlikely to have much of an impact. We knew where the money behind Marsy’s Law came from, and we knew that IM 22 was funded by out of state groups. But the people didn’t care. They still voted for them.

  5. House members need to really consider what they are doing following some of the leadership in the House. Mickelson has ensured those who voted against HB1072 will get bad grades with the NRA, and now HB1200 is added to that mix.

    When these prople are getting primaries and their opponents are getting endorsed by the NRA as they get labeled with C’s? Don’t forget to thank Mark Mickelson for his Progressive views and for leading them into their defeats.

  6. Question:

    The Constitution protects free speech which is offensive. Does it protect free speech which is dishonest?

Comments are closed.