As the 2016 draws down to a close, I’ve been writing more and more about the Ballot Measures, as people are busy going back and forth on how to vote on them; whether to vote a blanket NO as I’ve seen both Republicans and Democrats advocate on social media.

I’ve pondered what to write on Initiated Measure 21, one of the measures restricting access to short-term loans in South Dakota. As you’ll see in the advertisement to the left from “Give Us Credit South Dakota,”  they make a couple of good points in their propaganda to vote the measure down.

• Initiated Measure 21 allows more government intrusion into your personal financial decisions.
• It will end access to short-term loans in South Dakota.
• And it’s going to cause a lot of jobs to disappear in that industry.

We’re facing yet another challenge to our freedom where a group of zealots are proposing legislation to take away rights, and put more weight behind the heavy hand of government. It’s a horrific nanny state measure that some claim is protective. But it’s not. It’s OVER protective, removing people’s ability to make their own determination of what’s best for them.

I wondered what else to say about it when I realized I provided the best argument against supporting the measure back in February. So, here’s my column back from February 16 of this year:

—

George McGovern on short-term lending: Freedom means responsibility

As the advocates for more and more government control continue to press their case on many issues, including in the instance of payday lending which we’ll be seeing on the ballot this fall, I came across what one South Dakotan had to say on the topic, former United States Senator and liberal icon George McGovern.

In an extensive column on the topic which appeared in the Wall Street Journal, even this conservative Republican has to give George McGovern credit. Because unlike his liberal successors who seem hell bent into casting our society into socialism, he finds value in the system he fought in World War II to defend. To be free, and to choose our own destiny; even if others might not agree with that freedom:

Nearly 16 years ago in these very pages, I wrote that “‘one-size-fits all’ rules for business ignore the reality of the market place.” Today I’m watching some broad rules evolve on individual decisions that are even worse.

Under the guise of protecting us from ourselves, the right and the left are becoming ever more aggressive in regulating behavior. Much paternalist scrutiny has recently centered on personal economics, including calls to regulate subprime mortgages. …

… The real question for policy makers is how to protect those worthy borrowers who are struggling, without throwing out a system that works fine for the majority of its users (all of whom have freely chosen to use it). If the tub is more baby than bathwater, we should think twice about dumping everything out.

and..

Economic paternalism takes its newest form with the campaign against short-term small loans, commonly known as “payday lending.” …

…With payday lending, people in need of immediate money can borrow against their future paychecks, allowing emergency purchases or bill payments they could not otherwise make. The service comes at the cost of a significant fee — usually $15 for every $100 borrowed for two weeks. But the cost seems reasonable when all your other options, such as bounced checks or skipped credit-card payments, are obviously more expensive and play havoc with your credit rating.

Anguished at the fact that payday lending isn’t perfect, some people would outlaw the service entirely, or cap fees at such low levels that no lender will provide the service. Anyone who’s familiar with the law of unintended consequences should be able to guess what happens next.

and..

.Since leaving office I’ve written about public policy from a new perspective: outside looking in. I’ve come to realize that protecting freedom of choice in our everyday lives is essential to maintaining a healthy civil society.

Why do we think we are helping adult consumers by taking away their options? We don’t take away cars because we don’t like some people speeding. We allow state lotteries despite knowing some people are betting their grocery money. Everyone is exposed to economic risks of some kind. But we don’t operate mindlessly in trying to smooth out every theoretical wrinkle in life.

The nature of freedom of choice is that some people will misuse their responsibility and hurt themselves in the process. We should do our best to educate them, but without diminishing choice for everyone else.

Read it all here (Subscription required)

“The nature of freedom of choice is that some people will misuse their responsibility and hurt themselves in the process. We should do our best to educate them, but without diminishing choice for everyone else.”  That might be the best point in the entire article.   Because that’s the problem. Our society is at a cross roads because that’s exactly what too many people are trying to do.

As opposed to giving people the freedom and responsibility to manage their own affairs, we are faced with a perpetually growing government charged with treating the population as they would an infant, as we surrender more and more of our freedoms.  And it’s the same thing that payday lending opponents are doing with legislative and ballot measures. It’s a smothering and overwhelming altruism.

Is it a healthy society whose every action and decision is evaluated and controlled because someone decided it was for our own good?  As a conservative Republican I don’t think so. Neither did liberal Democrat George McGovern.

Because, despite our vast differences, I believe we both shared the same vision of America as the land of freedom – not the land of socialism and government control.

I can only hope my children and grandchildren will be able to experience a free country as I was able to experience in my lifetime. But, I have my doubts. Because as we continue to travel down a path of fewer and fewer freedoms, I think there will come a point when we will question whether we can call ourselves a free society at all.

Apparently this image is making the rounds on social media among South Dakotans who are tired of all the ballot issues…

My good friend State Rep. (and incoming Senator) Lance Russell is on TV this week in favor of Amendment S, Marsy’s Law:

Over the course of the last year, Slick Rick Weiland and Don Frankenfeld have been trying to convince us that South Dakota is among the most corrupt states in the nation, and among their demanded reforms, they tell us that we desperately need to fund politician’s campaigns with tax dollars to solve this conundrum. 

However, a 2014 study from one of Don’s alma maters, Harvard, proves that all of their campaign’s claims of a hopelessly corrupt South Dakota are nothing more than bullsh*t. (Which you can find in certain areas of my alma mater, SDSU, aiding in smelling it from a distance.)

There are other problems with measuring corruption by using conviction data, too. Over the three decades between 1980 and 2010, for example, South Dakota appears to be the most corrupt state—two and a half times more corrupt than New Jersey—as judged by federal convictions. This is quite surprising since the Dakotas were among the leading states in the movement against corruption in government that started in the late 19th century and continued through the 1930s. Prairie states such as the Dakotas, Minnesota, and Wisconsin are historically the least corrupt in the U.S. In fact, the only perceptions-based index measuring state level corruption in the U.S. ranked South Dakota as the least corrupt state in 1999. Any index based on convictions standardized for population is likely to be more variable in states with small populations, like the Dakotas, because a handful of cases will affect rates much more there than in, say, New York or Texas.

Read it here.

The evidence is clear that their whole campaign around the issue of corruption is utterly and completely manufactured garbage to try to prop up the unpopular idea of robbing the state treasury of taxpayer funds to put them towards political campaigns.

On Tuesday, there is only one logical response to their campaign’s outright lies. 

Vote NO on Initiated Measure 22.

You know you’re dealing with out-of-staters in this instance. Because people from South Dakota would probably know who “John Daschle”…  I mean “Tim Daschle”..

I mean they’d know who the guy on the right is.

According to public radio today, A group of Western South Dakota legislators have signed a pledge to not raise taxes. 

Although, at the same time, Governor Dennis Daugaard points out that there is no tax increase planned for the next session.

Lance Russel signs a pledge against tax increases next to the Ronald Reagan statue in Downtown Rapid City Thursday afternoon. Seven legislative candidates aligned with the group South Dakota Citizens for Liberty signed the pledge to abstain from increasing taxes during Governor Dennis Daugaard’s administration.  

And..

Russel says the governor’s office has raised taxes substantially in the last two years. But a spokesperson with the governor’s office says the numbers Russel is using are unfounded. Tony Venhuizen says none of the candidates at the event have spoken with the governor’s office about a budget shortfall.

“The governor’s history clearly shows that when he was confronted with a deficit his first year in office he balanced the budget—not through a tax increase but through cuts—and each year thereafter proposed and passed a balanced budget,” Venhuizen says. “The only time new taxes were considered was when it was to add new spending in a particular area, not to balance the existing budget. The council of economic advisors has said we should expect slow growth over the next year. So, that will be what the governor considers as he prepares his budget for next year.”

Read the entire story here.

From KSFY comes another story of the out-of-state money from liberal donors flowing in to rewrite South Dakota’s Constitution and election laws.

With polls showing a tight race, and time running out to reach undecided voters, the Republican Party is stepping up efforts to oppose Amendment V.

The GOP is contributing 70,000 dollars to the ‘Vote No on V’ effort.

And…

Ads are being paid for by huge campaign donations that Republicans say are coming mostly from out-of-state donors.

“It is truly being pushed by out-of-state groups trying to change the way that we do things here in South Dakota,” Republican Party executive director Ryan Budmayr stated.

The New York based group Open Primaries has donated more than $800,000 to the effort.

Read it all here, and make sure you tell all your friends to vote against this awful measure.

My friend Todd Epp had an observation yesterday on the KELO Radio website about Jay WIlliams that I can’t argue with one bit:

Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Jay Williams is a tomato can.

He’s far from an actual tomato can (he’s a successful business person, a former Naval aviator, and a Vietnam War veteran) but he will do as well as a tomato can in next week’s election against incumbent Republican U.S. Sen. John Thune.

That’s because anyone the Democrats put up for statewide office in the post-Tom Daschle/Tim Johnson era is going to do as well as the proverbial tomato can.

and..

Until the state Democratic Party figures out that it can’t continue to see Republican and Independent voter registrations surge while Democratic registrations stagnate; that until it can’t continue to be ruled by rural interests; that it can’t ignore the new “cube farm” economy; that it can’t ignore Minnehaha and Lincoln Counties; and until it stops the revolving door of party leaders, Democratic tomato cans will be all we’ll see on election days to come.

Read it all here.

(I think Troy Jones calls that the dead dog bounce, or something like that.)

Remember the 1.3 million raised from out-of-state sources that the Yes on Amendment V people are reporting? They’re quick to retort “Yeah, but Thune raises money from out-of-state.”

So, morally, who is in the right?

Friend of the blog Michael Wyland has an essay that was published today at “The Nonprofit Quarterly,” which delves into the issue, and notes that the out-of-staters have a poorer position as they try to use South Dakota as their electoral guinea pig: 

If out-of-state money is OK for a state’s candidates for the U.S. House and Senate, why shouldn’t it be OK for statewide ballot initiatives? Why shouldn’t the sauce for the goose also be sauce for the gander?

The answer is relatively simple, yet often overlooked. Senate and Congressional candidates have the opportunity to influence legislation, regulation, and oversight everywhere in the country. For example, John Thune, the current chair of the Senate Commerce Committee, is from my home state of South Dakota. As a Senate committee chair, he wields significant influence and power over commerce across the United States. His decisions have the potential to affect all industries, all professions, and much of the national economy. However, even a newly elected legislator sent to Washington votes on all bills, sits on multiple committees, and has liaison with all federal agencies. They have access to other powerful people, including their own colleagues, with the potential to exert influence and even control.

The national scope of their offices is not only an opportunity to affect all states (not just their own); it is an expectation and a duty that comes with their office. They represent not only their home state’s (or home district’s) interests; they are expected to act in the best interest of the nation as a whole.

and…

Out-of-state money donated for political campaigns, especially U.S. House and Senate campaigns, is far more reasonable in candidate elections than it is when applied to statewide ballot initiatives. The key reason is the scope of the campaign’s capacity and geography for proximate, direct effect. Therefore, it is appropriate to challenge an initiative’s expression of a state’s voters’ collective will and desires when those campaigns are financed primarily from outside its borders.

Read the entire article here at the Nonprofit Quarterly.

Michael noted to me in sending me the article that “This was a point I first made in a comment on DWC, fleshed out into a feature article.”  

Glad to see that as a monkey banging on my keyboard, I can help spark such intelligent commentary!