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.
I’ve beaten this thing to death. The different appalling consequences of this bill are just too easy. After awhile even hitting homeruns from pitches thrown down the middle of the plate gets boring. So I will say one more thing:
Can we just stop and pause in gratitude that this man didn’t get elected to be a US Senator?
Always knew you were a criminal.
Outlaw sounds cooler.
Can confirm. Outlaw sounds cooler.
The only thing cooler might be “Space outlaw.”
That is so retro. you should go with it.
I don’t like the law, but I think there are examples being used that don’t fit. For example, in the post, there’s got to be a gift over $100. The problem isn’t having a lobbyist, being an employee, or having a client – it is making gifts.
That issue, as written in the bill, has enough challenges and bad weight to drown it in the sea of logic and reality – I wouldn’t go overboard with extra stuff
Here’s why…
https://sdsos.gov/elections-voting/assets/2016_IM_CampFinLobbyingLaws.pdf
The definition of “Gift” is overly broad.
You are right, I stand corrected
Just another example of the Democrats claiming to be for the little guy when actually their policies adversely affect the little guy even more than the big guy.
So PP,
Does this IM consider political contributions as gifts?
Depends who the contributions come from. The problem is that how broad is still up in the air.
Anything “of value made directly or indirectly to any person.” It’s a mess that’s going to face a slew of lawsuits. Which will probably start being filed as early as next week.
As absurd as IM22 is, it’s certainly not dumb.
The consequences of it are exactly what Rick Weiland intended.
Any attempt to overturn or reform this legislation will allow him to accuse Republicans in the legislature as “corrupt politicians attempting to overthrow the will of the people.”
That’s what he does, and how he makes his living.
“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.”
Its an example of the Cloward-Priven strategy. Overload the system until it breaks down.
So my take is that the legislature should unabashedly repeal the democracy credit portion of this thing. That part is completely ridiculous and I think most voters had no idea that public financing was part of it.
As for gift limits and political contribution limits, these are not new. Many states and Congress have them. There does need to be some clarifying language by the new commission via rules or by the Legislature so groups know how to account for dinners and receptions. But beyond that, gift limits are not unusual – maybe the limit should be a little higher, but it is not an outright ban. This may impact those few legislators who go to the same lobbyists for dinner and drinks week after week. But the reality is that most legislators have never received gifts in excess of $100 from any group or individual.
The ethics committee is set up to have subpoena power. If ag doesn’t prosecute they can seek civil fines up to 10k. The board is judge and jury.
Cowboy,
I’m an volunteer board member and volunteer officer of a charity social services board which has access to a lobbyist. As the law is written, if I inadvertently go to Ryan Maher’s restaurant and pay for the meal for my wife, my cousin, her husband, and myself and the bill is over $100, Ryan Maher has just accepted compensation (listed in the bill) over $100 and has committed a misdemeanor and my organization has made an illegal gift. (Since I’m doing this as an individual and not on board business, this MIGHT not apply but a strict reading of the bill it might be so).
Further, when our group has its “beer and wine” fundraiser, we can’t ask Arch Beal’s business for even deeply discounted beer because that is clearly compensation (even if he gives it to us for cost). Or we can pay full price from his competitor.
That’s probably for the best. Budweiser gives me the runs.
Could we amend and fix the problem areas while still following the will of the public vote? I’m not a fan of 22 and voted against it. I’m very surprised it passed. But I don’t think it is good to simply repeal it or change it beyond recognition after the majority of voters said yes to 22.
Lee,
Since any gift applies that goes to the Legislator “directly or indirectly,” should I throw away my regular letters asking for donations to Augie lest I inadvertently make a certain Augie professor guilty of a misdemeanor?
OK, that is likely a stretch but I’d like someone to give me a legal opinion on that because I do not want to cause him to go to jail.
I suspect he can do that all by his bad old self.
Who is going to get all the victim notices ready for IM 22 victims now required by Marcy’s law?
Marcy’s law does define victim’s broadly….
If we can’t afford it, we can now go get a cheaper loan at a payday loan center at least!