Seeing through the lies of IM22 campaign. South Dakota actually among the least corrupt of states according to Harvard study.

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.

10 thoughts on “Seeing through the lies of IM22 campaign. South Dakota actually among the least corrupt of states according to Harvard study.”

  1. anyone vetting the claims of groups that rank SD tops in corruption invariably do so solely on the state’s refusal to take on the super bloated federal social system load and the related costs of it. essentially we’re most corrupt because we totally lack the boatload of federal anti-corruption agencies. that really is b.s.

  2. This is more proof that the people leading South Dakotans for Integrity have no integrity.

  3. — google—most corrupt states 2016– See where S.D. ranks on other sites…. If Harvard had reported the opposite the conservatives would be whining what a “leftie” org. it is..

    1. Nearly all of the results that such a Google search will produce will be in reference to the same study, and the methodology on that study was ridiculous. The study was not based on the number of actual corruption cases but rather on the premise that there must be corruption of which we are unaware because South Dakota lacks certain laws and agencies for which the so-called researchers advocate. In contrast, the Harvard study was based on actual corruption cases.

  4. I think this goulash of issues wrapped into 22 is instead to distract the voters. All of the out of state money can’t care about most of them, save one. The dark money disclosure is probably the driver, so they can get access to Donor lists. It’s the only thing that makes sense for why so much money for such a goofy cobbled together thing

    1. Lee—or it just furthers the shotgun approach…attack with a lot of money on T, V, 22 and 23 and hope at least one passes….


  5. I’m confused by your graph. What’s the difference between “legal corruption” and “illegal corruption”?

Comments are closed.