Out-of-State, Dark Money Attacking South Dakota Public Officials

Pierre, SD – January 11, 2017 – South Dakota Republican Party Executive Director Ryan Budmayr called on Represent.us to stop slandering respected public servants. 

“Represent.us lied to South Dakotans and put IM22 on the ballot knowing it was unconstitutional.  Rather than helping the legislature fix their flawed measure, this Massachusetts group is spending thousands more in out-of-state money to attack South Dakota’s public servants.” said Executive Director Budmayr.

Represent.us spent nearly one million dollars during the 2016 election to pass IM22.  The sponsors of the bill were told by the Legislative Research Council, a nonpartisan public body, that the bill was unconstitutional.  Rather than fixing the flaws, Represent.us carried out a misleading ad campaign about the contents of the bill, a 17,000 word, 64 section, measure.

In December of 2016, a South Dakota Judge enjoined IM 22, openly and intensely questioning its constitutionality.

“Many legislators make a commitment to our state at the cost of their professions, and time with families. These public servants do not deserve to be drug into the mud and lied about publicly by a dark money, out-of-state group”, Budmayr said. 

Represent.us is a dark money 501(c)(4) organization that is not required to report its donors. Of the nearly $1 million dollars spent in the 2016 election, 98% was donated from outside the state. Represent.us provided the vast majority of these out-of-state funds.

 ##

On Human Trafficking Awareness Day, Noem Helps Introduce New Provisions to Support Survivors

Washington, D.C. – Rep. Kristi Noem today joined Rep. Ann Wagner and more than a dozen colleagues in introducing the bipartisan Trafficking Survivors Relief Act.  If enacted, the legislation would establish a process in which trafficking survivors with non-violent federal offenses could petition a court to vacate the arrests and/or convictions that were a direct result of being trafficked. 

According to a recent survey by the National Survivor Network, around 80 percent of trafficking survivors surveyed had lost or not received employment because of their criminal convictions.  Around half had suffered from barriers to accessing housing. 

“Traffickers often use drugs and alcohol as a means of control, deepening a victim’s dependence on the trafficker,” said Noem.  “Many survivors escape to face a stack of legal paperwork for violations committed while under a trafficker’s control.  That makes it extremely difficult for a person to get their feet back under them and move forward.  I’m hopeful this legislation will help relieve survivors of the past, open doors for them, and offer a path forward where healing can begin.

Introduced on January 11, National Human Trafficking Awareness Day, the Trafficking Survivors Relief Act has been supported by the Alliance to End Slavery and Trafficking, the National Survivor Network, the District Attorneys Association, and others. 

###

One of the first measures being brought to fix the damage done by Initiated Measure 22 comes from the Secretary of State’s office, and it contains an interesting provision that might help address some of the problems we just experienced as a result of the multiple measures having been brought to the ballot in 2016:

SB54P by Pat Powers on Scribd

There are some things I agree with in the bill, and some things I don’t (Raising disclosure threshold to $1000 from $500? Why are we asking for less transparency?) but one thing to keep in mind is that this is just the starting point for one proposal, and there’s a long, long way to go before it’s done.

Most interesting are three sections contained in this measure.  First, Section 31 places an affirmative duty on the Attorney General that he “shall investigate and prosecute” violations of 12-27 (or to challenge them civilly) in several instances:

12-27-35. The attorney general shall investigate violations and prosecute any violation of the provisions of this chapter and prosecute any violation thereof relating to a legislative office, statewide office, statewide ballot question, or political committee. In lieu of bringing a criminal action, the attorney general may elect to file a civil action. In a civil action, in addition to other relief, the court may impose a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed ten thousand dollars for each violation. Any civil penalty recovered shall be paid to the state general fund. A civil action brought by the attorney general shall be commenced in Hughes County, in the county where the person resides, or in the county where the organization, political party, entity or political committee has its principal office.

This could mark a departure from things being able to go to the State’s Attorney, such as in the case of Chad Haber, Annette Bosworth’s’ husband, who was charged with similar crimes, but the local State’s Attorney handled it instead of the Attorney General.   I’d expect this could be amended, as up until now, prosecutions have not suffered because of there not being a specificity that it must be the AG.

And then there’s the part that really caught my eye, especially as it relates to the financing of ballot measures in South Dakota – Sections 35 & 36:

Section 35. That chapter 12-27 be amended by adding a NEW SECTION to read:
If the contributor is a person or entity, no ballot question committee may accept any contribution that in the aggregate exceeds ten thousand dollars during any calendar year. Notwithstanding any other law, no person or entity may contribute more than ten thousand dollars to any ballot question committee. A ballot question committee shall return within ten days to a contributor any contribution that exceeds the contribution limits provided under chapter 12-27. A violation of this section is a Class 1 misdemeanor.

Section 36. That chapter 12-27 be amended by adding a NEW SECTION to read:
Any contribution by a person or entity to a political action committee or political party is deemed restricted funds. Any contribution by a political action committee or political party to a ballot question committee shall be sourced with the sourcing provided to the ballot question committee at the time the contribution is made to the ballot question committee.

If a political action committee contributes any restricted funds to a ballot question committee, the restricted funds are counted toward the contribution limitation of the person or entity to that ballot question committee.

Any independent communication expenditure by a person or an entity is counted as part of the limitation on that person’s or entity’s contributions to any political committee.

A violation of this section is a Class 1 misdemeanor.

Entity is defined earlier in the measure as a new term:

 (9)    “Entity,” any corporation, limited liability company, nonprofit corporation, limited liability partnership, limited liability limited partnership, partnership, cooperative, trust except for a trust account representing or containing only a contributor’s personal funds, a business trust, association, club, labor union, or collective bargaining organization; any local, state, or national organization to which a labor organization pays membership or per capita fees, based upon its affiliation or membership; any trade or professional association that receives its funds from membership dues or service fees, whether organized inside or outside the state; any other entity of any kind, except a natural person, that is, has been, or could be recognized by the laws of this state; or any group of persons acting in concert that is not defined as a political committee or political party in this chapter. The term does not include any candidate, public office holder, or political committee;

And, if I’m reading this correctly – “If the contributor is a person or entity, no ballot question committee may accept any contribution that in the aggregate exceeds ten thousand dollars during any calendar year” – it appears that this measure may be an attempt to significantly limit the amount of money that can flow into Ballot Question committees.

So, If single sources are limited in the amount of money they can pump into ballot committees, that may restrict how many of these go on the ballot in the first place.  But then again, the flipside is that it will make it more challenging to contest them as well.

Watch this bill. It could get a lot more interesting before it’s over.

Third Mickelson Speaker of the House for South Dakota pic.twitter.com/PIsX0YROVb

— Cynthia Mickelson (@cyn_mix) January 10, 2017

I had Governor Daugaard’s State of the State address running in the background while I was working yesterday, and while it’s not coming in a year where there are big projects to accomplish, he had a lot of good things to report, and spoke about what he wants to accomplish in the next year.

What did we hear from the Democrats in response? A lot of awful. I caught Governor Daugaard’s Democrat opponent in the last race, Susan Wismer, bumbling and stammering through her hack response. Which was very illustrative as to why Governor Daugaard beat her by one of the largest margins in state history.

And we also had the State Democrat office who had a release prepped to go, which was equally as bad. But don’t take my word for it on how awful it was, here’s what Greg Belfrage on KELO-M had to say on the topic yesterday:

A written release from the South Dakota Democratic Party says, “Unlike today’s lackluster, complacent, and unfocused State of the State Address, Democrats will lead in this year’s Legislative Session by pursuing a pro-economic growth legislative agenda that is focused on making South Dakota work for all South Dakotans and making state government work for all people, not just the powerful and well-connected.”

Unfortunately, the release doesn’t articulate any “pro-economic growth” ideas. It’s simply a list of all the state’s failures and shortcomings.

You’ve got to wonder when state Democrats are finally going to catch a clue that their  “South Dakota sucks” message just doesn’t resonate with voters.

Read it here.

There’s a reason Democrats continue to shed legislators and registered voters. And they’re doing a good job illustrating why they’ve become irrelevant in South Dakota.

From the Argus Leader:

About a dozen supporters of a voter-approved ethics law rallied in Pierre Tuesday to oppose its repeal.

And…

“We passed IM 22, we told the legislators what we wanted and now they’re turning around and saying that they’re going to take it away or that we didn’t know what we were voting for,” Doug Kronaizl, spokesman for Represent South Dakota, told the law’s backers. “It was pretty clear when we went to the polls what we wanted.”

Read that here.

Is it just me, or do IM22 zealots keep missing an important point in all of this?

Initiated Measure 22 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL! NO AMOUNT OF WHINING ABOUT IT OR IGNORING THE FACT IS GOING TO CHANGE IT! You were warned about it ahead of time, and a judge just underlined that fact.

Good gosh.

I was asked to make an appearance on the Greg Belfrage show at KELO-AM this morning, and had assembled some notes about what we can expect to come up for session. As is typical, you never have enough time, but my notes are a good rundown of what we might expect in part.

This will be a quiet session in terms of big items. No big asks as we had for teacher pay and roads, so no one anticipating new taxes. Senator Deb Peters called it a “Slow down year” noting revenue is slowing, so spending will as well.

IM22 will dominate talk early in session. Legislators will have to decide between 2 approaches

1. Pulling it apart, removing the objectionable portions, such as the taxpayer funded political campaigns. And,
2. Do nothing, and let the courts kill the entire thing.

I suspect the legislature will put an ethics panel in place, as there is a need for addressing some of the more technical violations, such as not having disclaimers on items, and the type of things that got Annette Bosworth and her husband in trouble.

Bathroom Bill/Trangender Bill -There’s a push on it now in response to last year’ veto, and the promised ballot measure. Not sure who is taking the lead on this, but there’s a question of whether there’s the legislative will to fight that battle. I’ve already heard that some conservative leaders may limit the bill to showers only.

Constitutional Carry Bill – The legal carrying of a handgun, both openly and concealed, without the requirement of a permit is going to possibly one of the sleeper bills that people aren’t paying attention to now, but it’s coming, and stands more than a good chance at passing. I believe Lance Russell will be leading this.

Drug Testing for TANF recipients – It was tried last year, but went down in committee 9-4. It’s a big government solution requiring more employees and more in taxpayer dollars for a problem we don’t have. Liz May is one of the sponsors on this, but, it’s not one that limited government Republicans can support. If someone is arrested for drugs, that’s what the courts are for. We don’t need to set up government bureaucrats to substitute their judgement for a judge’s.

Transfer of nursing home beds – Because nursing bed licenses are limited, allowing the transfer of bed licenses between facilities to better meet needs on a geographic basis is a pretty good idea. And it’s a good free market solution.  Watch for Wayne Steinhauer to be the lead on this.

Intellectual diversity bill – Jim Bolin is bringing back 2006 bill requiring regents to report what’ being done on campuses to promote intellectual diversity. Narrowly defeated back then, but with the climate on campuses with groups protesting and shutting   down conservative speakers, it’s a good time to revisit how we keep discussion open  in South Dakota.

Petition reform – Discussion on petition reform is likely. Too easy for out of state groups to buy their way on the ballot, and as we saw with initiated measure 22, flood the airwaves with propaganda which doesn’t tell the whole story, misleading voters as to what they are getting.  Several, including Don Haggar have expressed a willingness to try to fix this mess, so we’ll see who takes up the cause in the legislature.

I’m hearing Meth is going to play a part in the State of the State today, so watch for something addressing the increasing meth crimes across South Dakota.

And there will be more. Keep watching the SDWC….

The liberal Massachusetts group who worked with Slick Rick Weiland and spent millions to promote a measure they were warned was unconstitutional – which was struck down by the courts for that reason – is continuing to throw cash around.

Now, they’ve put out a video attacking State Senators Blake Curd and Deb Peters because Peters and Curd were part of the group that asked a court to look at the measure:

This is a really odd attack, as Peters is in her last term of office in the State Senate, as she’s termed out after this go around.  And Curd isn’t up for election for another year or so, and after a few terms, Democrats have yet to field a credible candidate against him.

This comes across as little more than a petty swipe at them by the liberal group “Represent US,” as they attempt to salvage their million dollar investment in South Dakota which went South fast as soon as it was tested by the courts.

I had mentioned earlier that I’d heard rumors that the out-of-state backers of Initiated Measure 22 were looking hard for a lobbyist to represent them in Pierre after they spent a million dollars convincing South Dakotans that evil lobbyists spent their time buying off crooked legislators with bottles of Dom Perignon….

“But I think the idea of being able to take someone out for a private dinner, unrestrictive, in terms of being able to order the best thing on the menu–bring on the Dom Perignon, bring on the scotch, whatever–you know when you don’t have restrictions, things can happen,” Weiland said.

Read that here.

….and gave state residents the impression that state lobbyists generally practiced graft and corruption.

It appears that the out-of-staters have hired the first of their lobbying team in the form of former Sioux Falls Legislator Mitch Richter, who is also representing Rick Weiland’s group that sponsored the unconstitutional measure, “South Dakotans for Integrity.”

Richter will be appearing before legislative committees and has the duty to convince legislators that everyone in Pierre is corrupt, and lobbyists hand money off to crooked legislators who are on the take as the groups’ commercials portrayed.

While the list above notes Richter’s 2017 client list as of this writing, in past sessions he has also represented the ACLU of South Dakota, the anti-farming group Humane Society of the US, pro-choice group South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families, Union group South Dakota State Federation of Labor, and anti-gun group “Everytown for Gun Safety.”

Courtesy of South Dakota’s laws on initiated measure, first we had an announcement of someone’s intent to bring a measure allowing us to kill ourselves. Now comes a proposal to legalize pot for anyone who wants it, because the sponsors think South Dakota is “missing out.”

From the Rapid City Journal:

New Approach South Dakota will submit the proposal for an initiated measure to go to a statewide vote on the 2018 ballot. The group will submit the proposal to the attorney general’s office early next week, and it plans to begin gathering signatures after his explanation is released. A separate measure reviving the medical marijuana issue has also been submitted for the statewide ballot process.

The group says the tax revenues that could be generated if the measure passed would create millions for South Dakota’s education system and for general government spending.