This last week then House Bill 1111 was argued in front of the House of Representatives to raise campaign finance limits, State Representative Jon Hansen argued against the measure claiming that it would throw open the doors for “corporate interests.”
Hansen worried that “big corporate interests” would be among the only beneficiaries of the increase and would turn legislative attention away from constituents.
“If we’re honest, I guarantee you that most of your ordinary, everyday constituents don’t even have $1,000,” Hansen said. “But you know who does? Corporate interests.”
As I noted from a quick look at the highest funded campaign in the last election cycle, that statement sounded like a lot of buffalo chips.
The hands down champion in legislative fundraising this last election was State Representative Tony Venhuizen. As a former Regent, son-in-law to former Governor Daugaard, Long-time campaign worker, Tony arguably has among the best fundraising success of all other people in the South Dakota Legislature, raising an absolutely staggering $126,301 in funds for his State Legislative campaign effort. How much of that came from corporate dollars?
$1450. Approximately 1.1%. Try not to gasp and be shocked over that corporate donation of $50.
After that article yesterday, Student Regent Brock Brown reached out, and noted that he had previously done full research on the amount of money that corporations donate to legislative candidates. And the resuts of his study mirrored what I’ve been saying: Corporations don’t donate to candidates in any significant amount.
My SDSU capstone project was on legislative candidate’s ability to fundraise. Based on my data, in the 2018 pre-general report 2.2% of funds donated to all legislative candidates were classified from entities.
$40,920.34 Entities
$1,852,268.72 Total Donations (incl. goods) https://t.co/TCC1IvnV0V— Brock Brown (@BBrownInBtown) February 3, 2023
Across all legislative campaigns, 2.2% of the amount donated to legislative candidates come from corporations. 2.2%? So much for “corporate interests.”
Unfortunately, Hansen’s argument was a strawman argument for the purpose of hoodwinking his colleagues and playing for the cameras.
But what else is new?
I’d prefer unlimited itemized contributions.
Just be transparent.