In case you missed it a few weeks back, our friends at Dakota Town Hall interviewed Brendan Thomas from the Internet for Growth organization about an area of regulation that seems to be on the hit list as we approach our next session. The problem is we have those legislators who think they can solve South Dakota’s property tax crisis by cherry picking sales tax exemptions here and there and they forget small government when faced with the scary internet box and get in the face of those who do their business on-line.
The problem is that overreaches of government and costs in both taxation and regulation end up getting passed down to businesses, which they pass down to consumers, which ultimately doesn’t amount to a hill of beans because minor exemptions are not going to do much of anything.
A troubling trend among some of our elected officials – and those who want to be elected officials – is over the question of what we want our future to look like. There are some who think we can have the same jobs we had in the 1950’s. And they’re happy to declare they like it how it was in the ‘good old days.’ Which they tap out on their cell phones which we did not have back then.
The parallel we can draw with the ‘good old days’ is that South Dakota can define America in one word: opportunity. Fueled by our hardworking spirit, we’re as much a home to rolling hills, golden plains and national parks as we are to modern cities like Sioux Falls and Rapid City. And we can create opportunities in our rural communities as we push the boundaries of what we have now by also being open to new possibilities in the digital age, such as data centers, digital offices and home based businesses that are connected to the world through the magic of the Internet. The key to our state’s survival is recognizing the needs of our small business owners.
From the mom-and-pop shopkeepers of Rapid City to the home-grown entrepreneurs of tribal country, the 216,705 South Dakota residents “working small” comprise a silent majority. It’s time to make sure their interests are heard, starting with protecting digital advertising – a crucial component to their success. And to stop unnecessary regulation where one size does not fit all.
In South Dakota, South Dakota small businesses have created 89.4% of the net job increases between 2023 and 2024, AND in 2023, South Dakota small businesses brought in $837 million from exported goods. And it’s not just people who advertise on websites like mine – take a look at social media. Social platforms empower small businesses across South Dakota to connect with consumers, serve as their own advertising agents, and implement real-time feedback on products and services. They’re the reason why small business employment grew more than 21% since the dawn of the iMac.
Digital advertising tools have reinvented what it means to be a small business, making it easier than ever before for small businesses to enter their sector and be competitive. Through social platforms, small businesses can reach their audience anytime, anywhere—from just down the block to around the globe, all while saving tens of thousands on advertising! Those savings fuel growth, allowing internet based businesses to reinvest in employees and grow workforces.
If we want our state’s economy to continue to flourish, small businesses need to speak up about the power of digital advertising and tell legislators to keep their hands off of burdensome regulation. If South Dakota’s representatives pass laws that restrict access to data that gives small businesses a competitive edge, big companies won’t suffer; our communities will. If they increase taxes on those who advertise on-line, it’s just another hurdle for South Dakota small business to enter the marketplace and to compete in that market.
When the next pieces of tech legislation are drafted, big businesses with deep pockets will pay lobbyists and lawyers to protect their interests. It’s our job to make sure that the needs of small businesses trying to enter the on-line universe aren’t forgotten. What do legislators need to be mindful of when looking at what legislation to bring next session?
- Small businesses advertising on the internet should be treated fairly and equally to brick and mortar businesses, and not be hit with more regulation or punitive costs (that will be passed down).
- Legislators should work toward thoughtful solutions that protect consumers from bad actors without eroding digital advertising capabilities for small businesses.
- Restrictions on digital platforms’ ability to collect information will hurt the small businesses that rely on those platforms—not the mainstream competitors with expansive marketing budgets.
As legislators try to rein in what they perceive and derisively call “big tech,” they need to make sure they aren’t hurting small business in the process.
I have no problem with a tax increase for digital advertising. It largely doesn’t inform the public, provides no actual productivity, and in some cases is simply a mechanism to grift money.
We definitely lost quality and community when businesses stopped caring as much about word of mouth reputation and investing backing into their own communities as a chief way to boost their profile instead of pumping a couple thousand into invasive targeted ads.
“The problem is that ultimately over-reaches of government and costs in both taxation and regulation ends up getting passed down to businesses, which they pass down to consumers”
This goes 100% against any belief of Trump or his followers. They think tariffs arent paid by consumers.
Taxing businesses on money they spend as a non-optional expense is never a good idea. It’s a further sign of how far removed from wisdom and tradition the current legislative anarchists are.
Advertising is very much an optional expense.
you have options on WHAT to buy, but you can’t just not market. so you’re glib but wrong.
extra and new taxes on business ALWAYS fall onto the customers. a magic tax that doesn’t impact the voting public does not exist.
Everyone wants a tax break.
Where is exactly is the “right to other peoples’ personal information” in the Constitution again?