Group files lawsuit against out of state money ban

Pat Powers

A gathering of organizations has filed a lawsuit against the state to try to overturn the provisions of a ban on out-of-state funds for ballot issues before it goes into effect on July 1, according to the Argus Leader:

The lawsuit was filed by South Dakota’s Newspaper Association, Retailers Association, Broadcasters Association, Chamber Ballot Action Committee, Americans for Prosperity and former South Dakota resident Thomas Barnett Jr., who has been involved in previous ballot question campaigns.

IM 24 would prohibit groups such as AFP from donating to South Dakota ballot measures and groups such as the newspaper, retailers and broadcasters associations would face civil penalties if they accept financial contributions from groups such as AFP, according to the lawsuit.

Read it all here.

45 thoughts on “Group files lawsuit against out of state money ban”

  1. It’s kind of funny that the Argus didn’t bother to mention who their lawyer is..

    1. Right! As Attorney General, Marty Jackley wrote the ballot question summary on this issue. He said that it was “…likely to be challenged on constitutional grounds.” I guess he was right.

    1. It will likely end in a whimper pretty quickly. This law is blatantly unconstitutional and any half-decent lawyer or judge knows that.

  5. Americans (Koch Brothers) For Prosperity aka Astroturf for Prosperity here in South Dakota being an out of state organization would finally be banned?

    1. From ballot question committees, not from existence. Mostly because this measure was written so poorly.

      So the help they provided defeating Amendment W and the tobacco tax last year wouldn’t be available in the future.

    2. The Argus reported this incorrectly. It does not affect AFP-SD as it has been an in-state organization since 2014.

      1. AFP expanded to open a branch office in South Dakota.

        Americans For Prosperity
        1310 N. Courthouse Rd.
        Suite 700
        Arlington, VA 22201

        Just another DC Swamp critter special interest (Koch Bros) group meddling in South Dakota affairs.

  6. 1. If political spending is speech, I am not sure how this would pass constitutional muster.
    2. Feels weird to watch the uneasy balancing attempts people try to make when they look at individuals who leave the state with suspicion but welcome their money as long as it is about issues they like.

  8. Let’s take this to the logical conclusion.

    If a State can’t ban or put restrictions on the First Amendment, it most certainly can’t ban or put restrictions on the Second Amendment.

    1. It’s a fact that California and New York City activists try to sway S.D. politics. Politically, I oppose these intrusions. Los Angelenos — who don’t know the difference between Sioux Falls and Sioux City — are unlikely to know better how to uplift regional businesses, improve rural schools, support agriculture, and keep South Dakota safe. These progressives’ goal: turn SD blue. Otherwise, they don’t care what happens to the stale, pale, bourgeois Christian “deplorables” living in “fly over country.” I’m confident informed SD voters can and will find better ways to overcome local challenges.

      That said, I expect Mr. Jackley, a superb lawyer, will prevail in this case. Americans, regardless of residency, enjoy the constitutional right to come here and speak. Free speech includes political activism. We can erect certain safeguards. We should demand greater transparency, helping voters see who funds what. Unless a sponsor maintains a physical office (not a P.O. Box) here and employs at least one full-time staffer, we might require its advertisements and publications to include an explicit disclaimer such as: “paid for with out-of-state money.” We might legislate that only SD-based citizens & orgs use the phrase: “Paid for by Proud South Dakotans” on local TV (& make it illegal for out-of-state activists to falsely claim the honor). Citizens and groups have a constitutional right to speak, but they have no right to deceive voters and/or conceal their identities. Ok, ok, here endith the caffeine-fueled rant.

      1. Except AFP is a conservative group. I think making political donations more transparent would be a bad thing for SD GOP.

      3. “(S)tale, pale, bourgeois Christian “deplorables” living in “fly over country.”

        I resemble that remark!

  10. You forgot to include The Hamburgler of Brown County. 56-44, the electorate has spoken. The Astroroots and grifters have self identified against the interests of South Dakota’s political and ideological sovereignty.

    1. Kelly: so you are with people like Pelosi, Booker, Clinton, and AOC who view the Constitution as a nuisance?

      1. No. I’ve long advocated for the state legislature to do their job and clean up the loose initiative process. The tea leaves are vibrant, courage is needed.

        1. They could do that without keeping this blatantly unconstitutional law on the books. Just because you don’t like the groups it is designed to keep out doesn’t make it constitutional.

  11. I just find it amusing that Jackley’s first high-profile case is against the state!

    1. And he is going to make our states attorney look like a moron. I guess most already realized that so no harm done.

    2. It’s a slam dunk case for Marty. The state should stay out of such non-sense cases.

      1. The state is legally obligated to defend it as it was passed by the voters…that is why we need to screen these ballot measures better.

  12. I’m assuming the fundamental first question thrown out there in court will be whether or not anyone or organization not harboring in South Dakota and buying political advertising in South Dakota fall under the “Commerce Clause”. If so the case is open and shut finding Jackley and Company victorious.

    1. Charlie,

      If I buy a handgun over the phone from Chicago, IL and go there to take possession, should I have a problem?

  13. Just wanted to provide a factual correction – one of the comments suggested both sides of the Amendment W fight used out of state money.

    Yes on W was entirely out of state except some $500. The W is Wrong Campaign was almost exclusively funded with in state money . . . 95% plus of a total $230,000.

    We didn’t use out of state but will fight for the right for everyone to use some in the future.

  15. What is the point except to try and get attorney fees when someone else has already sued?

    1. I would venture that there is no confidence in the legal representation involved in the first lawsuit. After all, wasn’t that attorney the one that helped write proposed Amendment W?

Comments are closed.