NY Billionaires outspending South Dakotans 12-1 on Amendment V.

Pat Powers

From the Mitchell Daily Republic, the Out-of-Staters are throwing more cash into another South Dakota’s Ballot Measure; this time Amendment V:

Vote Yes on Amendment V received a total cash income of $1,140,684.71, according to the disclosure statement, and No on Amendment V received $100,623.

and…

Two of Vote Yes on V’s four largest individual committee contributors come from out-of-state, including $117,916.71 from Boston resident Vincent Ryan and $12,500 from Manhattan Beach, California resident William Bloomfield. Vote Yes on V also reported a direct contribution of $820,448 from New York-based Open Primaries and $55,487.86 from the same organization from in-kind contributions — which are goods or services provided at no charge.

and…

“Amendment V is an anti-transparent, out-of-state plan that is wrong for South Dakota,” Mortenson wrote Friday. “The Yes on V campaign hides the source of its money just like Amendment V would hide party labels from voters.”

Read it here.

12 thoughts on “NY Billionaires outspending South Dakotans 12-1 on Amendment V.”

  1. Good to see even the liberal papers are picking up on the money story…how can anyone like all the out of state money…NO on V!

    1. Will Jackley hold these guys accountable?

      No he will wait until they pass it with illegal money and then slapem on the wrist.

  2. The article also shows readers Republicans against it…Democrats for it….

    Headline is also misleading since the vast majority of the 1.6M is out of state and for the proponents

  3. If people think V will remove partisanship from politics, they are mistaken. If V passes, you will see a partisanship increase significantly as parties involve themselves directly in they primary and pick candidates as early as March.

  4. An initiative or referendum may be proposed for a municipal election by obtaining the signatures on a petition containing at least five percent of the REGISTERED VOTERS of the City. A petition proponent must first register with the City Clerk’s Office and must ensure that it be in proper form (City Ordinance § 38.004). The registration form may be obtained from the City Clerk’s Office or can be found under Resources on this page. Filing the Registration form ensures that the measure is in proper format and also provides contact information necessary for any notifications concerning the petition process.

    Initiated Measure: This is a petition to add to, amend, or repeal existing state statutes. Initiative petitions must be filed in the office of the Secretary of State one year before general election year (SDCL 2-1-1.2). The petition must have signatures of registered voters equal to five percent (13,871) of the TOTAL VOTE FOR GOVERNOR in the last gubernatorial election. No signatures may be obtained more than 24 months preceding the election date designated on the petition.

  7. And our local paper, which claims to be bipartisan, ran the exact same story two consecutive days in the paper, mostly promoting the Dems “trifecta of reform” including Initiated Measure 22, Amendment V, and redistricting. This article was about one-fourth of a page of the paper, but the paper states it doesn’t know how the “mistake” was made. Come on now, an article that takes up one-fourth of a page in a local paper and is run twice on consecutive days isn’t something that is not noticed when putting a paper together. Guess we know where they stand on these issues.

    1. Which paper is that? I’ll add them to my don’t read list along with RCJ, Mitchell and Watertown after this cycle of supporting V…vote with your pocketbooks and stop subscribing to them

      No on V

    2. Apparently the “reporters” at the Argus liar can’t write, so they have to have half of the front page of the Sunday edition taken up by a picture of a payday lender’s building with a pedestrian walking in front of it. Is the building that much of the story or do the folks at the “paper” just need filler? I’d say the latter. I’d say fire the lot of them and start fresh and include at least a few competent journalists.

    3. it always causes a twinge of pain to see rcj on a ‘do not read’ list. it was a great paper.

Comments are closed.