13 thoughts on “Dakota Posts hits at recently approved ballot measure Amendment W”

  1. Too wordy, and more arrows pointing at stuff to explain what it’s supposed to be.

    Hire an artist.

    “constituition”

    1. Complain, complain, complain. We get that you don’t think the cartoonist is talented, but enough already. Move on to some other gripe you have.

  4. Well, it does create a fourth branch of government. It’s a kind of judge, jury, and executioner all together. Maybe radically change the constitution would have been better.

    1. Have you read the measure? Can you tell me how a board, whose every action can be subject to judicial review and whose members can be removed at any point by the Gov+Senate, is a fourth branch of government? Goodness gracious

  6. The key point in the cartoon is what I’ve been saying all along… The Massachusetts group behind IM22 and now W, make their livings by agitating people enough to get them to donate… Just like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton…They could care less about the laws in SD, they just want the $$$$ Obviously, they’ve found enough weak-minded donors in South Dakota to keep coming back.

      1. Yeah, if Weiland is for something that generally means that conservatives and common sense are against it. But what can you do, Weiland is a Socialist who thinks he’s bright.

  7. Sure, those “greasy lobbyists” give money to politicians but this isn’t going to work because they’ll just funnel money to 501(c)4 organizations which can give to political candidates so long as their primary business is issue advocacy.

    Represent.us is a 501(c)4 organization, by the way.

  8. Anon1 made a great point, but the fundraising by Represent.US has not been limited to South Dakota. The organization used IM22 as a way of raising money across the nation, and it would not surprise me if it raised more money using the campaign as a way to appeal to people than it spent on the actual campaign. It will do the same with Amendment W.

    This is reason enough to vote no on Amendment W, but there are many more important constitutional and free-speech reasons to vote no on it.

Comments are closed.