Initiated Measure 22 Backers caught lying about a study they’re using to back their claims.

Pat Powers

It sounds like the group “Citizens for Integrity,” who are out promoting Initiated Measure 22 need to learn what the word means, as the author of a study on public corruption notes that they’re misconstruing and lying about the results of his study:

The backers of an ethics reform ballot measure are misrepresenting a number from a 2014 report on government corruption, according to one of its authors.

South Dakotans for Integrity has repeatedly cited the Indiana University report to suggest public corruption annually costs the state about $1,300 per resident.

John Mikesell, a professor who worked on the report, said the number does not specifically apply to South Dakota, which was an outlier in the study.

and…

Richard Carlbom, campaign manager of South Dakotans for Integrity, said South Dakota still faces higher costs per person related to corruption, citing rankings by the Center for Public Integrity and the U.S. Justice Department.

and..

Carlbom last week said the group backing Initiated Measure 22 spent “thousands of dollars” in promoting a video that uses the $1,300 cost of corruption figure. When asked exactly how much the campaign spent on the video he said he couldn’t say because he didn’t want opponents to have that information.

Read it all here.

From the sounds of the article, as they promote the measure which contains provisions for the public financing of political campaigns (which remains largely unmentioned) and try to explain away the naked misuse of the study they’re being criticized for – the Citizens for Integrity are full of something – but it isn’t integrity.

2 thoughts on “Initiated Measure 22 Backers caught lying about a study they’re using to back their claims.”

  1. So the group that wants openness in reporting says “When asked exactly how much the campaign spent on the video he said he couldn’t say because he didn’t want opponents to have that information.”

    You can’t make this stuff up if you tried…….

    Another measure for the NO column, no on 22 will be my vote.

  2. Hypocrisy!

    Then again, IM 22 has never been about integrity or ethics reforms. It has always been about publicly funded elections and silencing free speech by violating people’s privacy by putting their political donations, names, and addresses on the internet and exposing them to threats of intimidation, harassment, and even violence as has happened in other states.

Comments are closed.