IM 22 passes…. and the GOP elected in a landslide.

Pat Powers

Expanding on the thoughts in the prior post about Initiated Measure 22, “a measure to revise state campaign finance and lobbying laws, create a publicly funded campaign finance program, create an ethics commission and appropriate funds…”

The premise of the measure was that allegedly Pierre is roiling in corruption. (Which we all know to be utter BS). Yet, at the same time, the majority Republicans were not just elected, but we had our numbers strengthened.

What’s the message we should take from that?

19 thoughts on “IM 22 passes…. and the GOP elected in a landslide.”

  2. If 22 had only been about using taxpayer dollars to fund politicians’ political aspirations it would have lost big-time. However, throwing in a lot of other stuff probably made a lot of people pause. Hopefully the legislature takes out the public funding of political campaigns.

      1. I think our Secretary of State was already ahead of the curve on this type of law with a board or commission of some type. Obviously the funding part is out there. Not sure voters really wanted it.

        From a Bob Mercer article:

        Krebs acknowledged to the group that she and her staff have been frustrated with the number of difficult complaints they received this year about campaign finances.

        “We don’t have any statutory authority to do anything,” she said.

        She said “the big question moving forward” is the possible creation of an independent review board that would receive complaints judged by her office to be legitimate and backed up by sworn statements.

        The candidate or committee facing the accusation would have the opportunity to repair the problem before the review board would meet, she said.

        Viken liked the idea but cautioned that the review board needed political balance. She said there might be a need for some sort of mechanism for handling complaints.

        “It doesn’t do any good to have these requirements if there’s no way to enforce them,” Viken said.

        …..

        Guys.. Please be courteous to the original author, use a snippet that makes your point, and a link to the source material. Fair use principles only give you the right to use a portion of the original work. Thank you for your consideration. – PP

  3. Thanks to all DWC readers who joined the likes of Governor Daugaard and former SD GOP Chair Joel Rosenthal in voting [snip]

    … utterly off topic. You know the rules. – the editor

  4. I believe there will be a lot of buyers remorse when the total cost in taxpayers dollars is known . The same applies to S .

    1. Besides the increase in costs to the taxpayer, the opponents to S were also saying that the notifications are already being done so the constitutional amendment is not needed. If it is already being done, how can it cost the taxpayer more? Can’t have it both ways.

    2. Once again states attorneys told Jackley they didn’t like something and he was a sideline participant. He should have opposed S. Just like Criminal Justice reform he was quiet on S.

      I’m not sure why all the States attorneys are so supportive.

    3. I didn’t buy, so I don’t have remorse for my vote. I just hope that Pierre guts this thing like a freshly caught walleye. I don’t want any taxes I pay to fund the likes of Hamburglar, Hawks, Williams, or even any Republican; if you can’t get people to give their own money freely, then maybe they don’t like what you are pushing.

  5. Many of the Democrat candidates were given thousands of individual sums of money by the SDEA organization. Now what will they do?

      1. Same with the people opposing V. They were just as bad but had an easier issue to kill. I wouldn’t hire either of these groups ever again to organize an effort.

  8. The Yes on 22 people outspent the Defeat 22 campaign by a three-to-one margin. That is a big obstacle to overcome.

Comments are closed.