From the Argus Leader:
A pair of state Transportation Commission members resigned this week following the enactment of Initiated Measure 22.
Tim Dougherty, a Sioux Falls lawyer and the commission’s chair, and Kathy Zander, executive director of the South Dakota Agri-Business Association, stepped down from their positions on the board because provisions in the new law bar elected and appointed officials from accepting more than $100 in contributions from lobbyists annually.
and…
“IM22 is very badly drafted and it could have all sorts of bizarre unintended consequences,” Venhuizen said.
This is just the start…
Oh my the sky is falling because lobbyists can’t lavish legislators with all those contributions and cocktail wiener receptions! How will the Legislature function? How will that cartel of lobbyists make a living if they can’t bill organizations for their time at those stupid functions? Will the Legislature’s Social Calendar come Session fit on a 3×5 notecard with room to spare?
It’s disgusting that with all the things that really should be addressed there is all this bitching and moaning about IM22. Come on, man! Didn’t all you Trump voters want change? Get over yourselves.
We’ll get through this.
Can we just imagine what would be going on if their “glorious leader” had lost the prez. election? Yep. Whining hissi-fits like rotten little brats that can’t always get their way…..
Noddy, Nearly all of the legislative events organized by various organizations are open to the public. They are designed for average citizens to have the chance to speak with and ask questions of their legislators. Here are only two examples: the event organized by the chiropractors association was open to all of the organization’s chiropractors and the chamber events are open to all chamber members. Your anger is overwhelming your common sense. Access to our officials is one of the pillars of our republic.
You truly are a fool. IM22 is nothing more than money making scheme for Weiland. It will be interesting to see how much he rakes off the total pot. Deceit and outright lies backed by a million bucks or so foisted this idiotic law on South Dakota. The whole mess needs to be repealed by the legislature.
Why don’t you support any thing you stated as fact——–with facts? Do you people not embarrass yourselves?
Way to be civil there, dude. Yes, calling someone a fool is always helpful.
Wow, dealing with the will of the voters is really hard for you.
Will of the voters????!!!!! I am willing to bet that the majority of those who voted for it because they thought it was only “anti-corruption” would take back their vote if the whole truth would have been known. People are dupes or sheep many times, and this just proves it. Get Rid Of It!!!
Sir, you claimed before the election you were totally informed about 22 but when asked to substantiate your claims about what was in it you and your buddies disappeared from the thread….I think I posted at least 3 times the AG’s outline of 22 and you and yours still had no idea what the point of 22 was…. “We the people” passed 22 and “you people” actually say “get rid of it”? Seems you are as uninformed about the democratic process and the country you live in as you were on 22…
First of all, I am not a sir! Because of EB5 and the Westerhuis things, somehow SD is all of a sudden so corrupt that we need this piece of unconstitutional crap mistakenly passed barely by the voters? You make it sound like SD is the most corrupt place in the nation and that you are the savior with IM 22. Well, it is not, and you are not.
Springer is an elderly lady. She’s stuck in a time warp and is confused. Very confused.
How many of those voters actually read and understood all 30 plus pages of IM22? Those who did would rightly be considered willing voters, the rest would be uninformed voters.
Why do you support lobbyists and special interest groups paying bribes to elected officials….?
Where did I do that?
Tell me of one bribery instance? If cold chicken and beer at the ramkota with the brookings chamber of commerce is a bribe, well then you have a point.
The constitution says a law has to have a single subject- pretty sure Weiland and Frankenfeld didn’t do that so they could run this scam in the voters.
Can the whole thing then be tossed out as unconstitutional?
Pretty sure the SD Constitution says a BILL has to have 1 subject, Mr. Schoenbeck. I think there is a difference, and, yep, many a Governor has used that to veto bills.
Worst election ever! IM 22 is a freedom of speech disaster, with U.S. Supreme Court written all over it. Citizens United, must have missed that one while smoking pot at Wieland land. Marsy’s Law….that too is another pile of something warm. Let’s be clear, up until this election, only California and Illinois had this constitutional clap-trap. Good thinking! Way I see it is this…stop pointing fingers….fix the problem. I am not going to dislike Wieland any more….and I am not gonna love my GOP any less, just fix the problem and stop the granstanding.
“Under current law, South Dakota is the only state in America where lobbyists can give unlimited gifts to politicians. IM-22 ends unlimited lobbyist gifts.
A recent study found corruption in government costs every South Dakotan about $1,300 per year. IM-22 eliminates this “corruption tax”:
IM-22 increases penalties for violations of campaign finance and lobbying laws.
IM-22 requires more transparency, so we know who’s buying influence in politics.
IM-22 toughens ethics law enforcement to investigate lobbyists and state officials for violations”———————– Why do you people support corrupt government?.
Ms. Jaa, a recent study shows IM22 is crap. Refute that study please for I have read it and it is true.
You are quoting from the same study that Darrell Solberg had to admit did not apply to South Dakota when the author of the study said himself it did not apply to SD.
Nice try…but false information
Actually in the article—“stepped down from their positions on the board because provisions in the new law bar elected and appointed officials from accepting more than $100 in contributions from lobbyists annually.”— That is as clear as it can get as to why 22 was needed…..they should be gone and you people think officials should be able to get unlimited bribes…..How about one of you corruption lovers explain how these 2 leaving is a bad thing…….They are corrupt crooks just like others that should be gone with the passage of 22..
AGAIN–..How about one of you corruption lovers explain how these 2 leaving is a bad thing…-
I am not disputing that making the system of legalized corruption is a bad thing. I supported IM10 in 2008, which was attacked by the NEA in partnership with the SD Chamber of Commerce for being a gag law for restricting lobbying. Both political parties were against it.
Question: If conservatives want to reverse the sales tax increase, what impact would IM22 have on lobbying efforts to prevent that reversal? Would the left’s education special interest be restricted from participating? Certainly teachers make make than $100 per year.
Jaa Dee,
You are wholly ignoring the facts of this situation. Dougherty and Zander are lobbyists by trade but also private citizens who volunteer to serve on a citizen board. Their personal pay isn’t a bribe to affect their volunteer personal service (get expenses to come to meetings) to the Transportation Commission, which is Commissions a commission which demands extraordinary work because of their input in on road and highways and large, complicated budget.
Your direct accusation my support of Daugherty and Zander is supporting corruption is flat out ignorant. But I’ll answer your question directly and without qualification:
Dougherty and Zander are two people of high integrity and highly competent. Loss of their service is a detriment to good governance.
P.S. Tim Dougherty is son of former Lt. Governor Bill Dougherty who was a family friend of the Kennedy’s and is married to Federal Judge Karen Schrier. I don’t know a Democrat or Republican who doesn’t think highly of Tim.
Jaa Dee you communicate with the skill of a child. Back up you assertion about elected officials receiving bribes.
Why are professional lobbyists serving on a State board like the Transportation Commission? Really, a Governor can’t find people to serve on boards and commissions who aren’t lobbyists?
Sorry Tony V., but if your boss/daddy-in-law didn’t have a scandal and cover-up ridden tenure (or at least the appearance of such), the voters would never have swallowed this. (I’m a Republican who voted NO).
I love this Establishment bed-wetting! Keep the updates coming PP and Troy! This is hilarious!! The Sky is falling, the sky is falling!!
Why is Dougherty even on the Transportation Board to begin with? Doesn’t he lobby for the BNSF?
This bill was a mirror image of Obamacare, so as to speak. ,,, make it lengthy so few would study it and just listen to commercials which slanted the intent. How many voters who marked “yes” actually knew they were giving 12 million dollars of tax payer money to fund political campaigns? Therefore in order to fight “corruption”, money is to be removed from the state fund to fund politics….right. Wouldn’t it have been better for lobbyists to give a free ham sandwich, some potato salad, and a pen to the legislators instead? My God.
Wow, look how well tying IM21 to President Obama worked out. Good one.
There is an awful lot of distraction from the matter at hand.
Two very capable people (Democrat Dougherty and Republican Zander) who I both know and greatly respect for their integrity and their brain power have resigned from an important Commission because of this bill.
If anyone thinks good governance is served by honest and smart people resigning from citizen posts, please tell me how? And, I’m absolutely sure the people didn’t know this would be an unintended consequence of IM22. I hope the Governor keeps these seats open until IM22 is dealt with because these are just the type of people we need serving us on our citizen Boards and Commissions.
Why don’t they just stay on the board and shed their conflict of interest? Isn’t the people’s work more important and just than any parochial business interest?
Mr. Powers, one of the reason I enjoy reading DWC is because of the extremes of your contributors, from the articulate, thoughtful, critical thinker Mr. Jones to the very opposite in Ms. or Mister Dee. Both bright people and wack-jobs spice up your blog.
Over a battle of messaging and money the GOP was outdone. More South Dakotans succumb to the lies than did not. Now we have this mess on our hands to deal with.
I have no doubt the legislature will roll this back. I also have complete faith the public will support legislative changes once it is made aware of all the lies and the consequences of the lies like budgetary cuts, restrictions in constituent groups communicating legislators, fewer people running for public office or serving on volunteer boards, and others.
Make no mistake, this ballot initiative was a brazen full frontal assault on South Dakota Republicans. I fault the GOP for overconfidence and an ineffective game plan.
Yep, one of the bummers of a statewide race is that legislative gerrymandering can’t help you in a tighter race……;-)
I thought Trumplicans were all about change and voting out the elitists. There is a terrible amount of bashing voters here. That said, I’m certain the Republican-dominated lobbyist corps and this even more Republican than ever Legislature will waste no time getting down to the important matter of overturning what their constituents just passed.
NH, you got that one right. Our Republican legislature somehow sees themselves as a form of the House of Lords, where they can delay or prevent the legislation of the commoners….
IM22 will be wonderful for businesses in South Dakota. Not having to spend money on lobbyists will really improve their bottom line. Not to mention increased efficiencies from not having to waste time meeting with their lobbyists or court legislators. Sometimes it *is* better to burn the candle from both ends.
Has anyone even mentioned what this will do to the families of state employees? So, an accountant or a secretary for the state has a high school senior – that senior cannot accept a college scholarship from any organization that employs a lobbyist. Seriously? That means all scholarships from for profit groups or any group that employ lobbyists – i.e. Sanford, Avera, Citi, BankWest, USD, SDSU, ACLU, likely can’t give scholarships to children of state employees – even if they are college juniors and worked their bums off for it – nope – no scholarship cause dad is a state engineer or mom is a state secretary. Scholarships are gifts.
What a phenomenally stupid law. The incompetence of the writers is astounding. No one reads 30 pages of legalese before they vote … I had to dig to find the actual language on this… it should be VERY readily available on the Secretary of State’s website – not just the BS explanation.
From Vocabulary .com…” Lobbyists get paid to win favor from politicians. For example, oil companies send lobbyists to Washington to try to make life easier for oil companies. Sometimes they do it by making a great case for their cause, but often it involves fancy dinners and golf outings. If that sounds kind of shady, it is. But remember that women’s rights groups and cancer research foundations have lobbyists, too — it’s just one way to get your voice heard on the Hill.”
Women’s rights groups have fallen off the edge of reality. I will simply not argue that point, since I am a woman and I have seen those “women’s groups” bring a special kind of schizophrenia to our culture. They became corrupted to purpose and pushed radical anti-life agendas. Period. done with that one.
Cancer research has been going on for decades and decades and decades. If the FDA/gov’t would allow us to employ some of the more innovative approaches to cancer and not surrender to the pressure of Big Pharma to maintain their trillion dollar medication programs, we would have achieved cures by now…but the AMA and Big Pharma make WAY TOO MUCH MONEY off the gov’t funding of research grants.
THERE! Now,, if the lobbyists weren’t wining and dining legislators and contributing to their endless re-election campaigns, something GOOD might be done for our fiscal health. The limiting of lobbyist money in politics is absolutely required to even-out the playing field. If the legislators want to know what their constituents are thinking, maybe they outta get out of their ivory towers and come down to earth where the real people live. Some of us have had ENOUGH of the elitist attitudes!
Fed-up,
Maybe you are a liberal but vocabulary.com is infamous for putting a negative spin on anything which isn’t liberal.
Progressive: Progressive people are interested in change and progress. You’re a progressive thinker if you like to think up new ways of doing things and you’re open to change. You have a progressive attitude towards gender if you dress girls in blue and boys in pink to challenge stereotypes. Progressive also refers to a type of verb tense, and to taxes that increase as your income increases. This word applies to lots of things that slowly increase or keep making progress.
Conservative: If you are conservative, you aren’t necessarily a card-carrying member of the Republican party (though you might be); it means you resist change.