To ban, or not to ban. Out of state money is the question.

Pat Powers

From the Argus Leader:

If 2016 was the year out-of-state dollars poured into the state to influence votes on ballot initiatives and constitutional amendments, 2018 should be the year South Dakota decides to put a stop to that practice, Rep. Mark Mickelson said Monday night.

After pushing an unsuccessful set of proposals in the Statehouse that would have set limits or required disclosure about who donates to certain dark money groups, the Sioux Falls Republican says he’ll bring a proposal to block out-of-state funds from the ballot measure process entirely.

and…

The non-partisan Legislative Research Council in its assessment of the bill raised red flags about whether the proposal would be constitutional. The Supreme Court has previously ruled against limits on donations to ballot measure campaigns, saying the gifts constitute political speech.

Ben Lee, state director of Americans for Prosperity, said aiming to outlaw businesses or groups is the wrong approach when many entities span across geographic borders. The former director of the campaign to defeat Initiated Measure 22 said the measure could profoundly limit individuals’ free political speech.

“Our state had some goofy things happen in 2016, but silencing citizens’ voices as a response is a step in the wrong direction,” Lee said.

Read it all here.

When it comes to ballot measures and out of state money –  “To ban, or not to ban?”  That’s a darned good question.

For every Rick Weiland funneling in money from out of state for goofy unconstitutional measures, there’s an AFP marshaling forces to fight them. For every “yet another” pot legalization measure taking in national money to try to legalize what is now illegal, there’s a Verizon Cellular phone company with offices all over the state who is legitimately fighting a cell phone tax.

I think Mark Mickelson is a person with good intentions. So is Ben Lee.  What’s the answer?  Is there an answer that’s a happy medium?  I don’t have that answer. And there may not be one. And whatever may be proposed needs to have a hard look at the unintended consequences.

Personally, I hold out the example of the State of South Dakota’s pseudoephedrine law. Used to be if you were a sinus sufferer (as I am during the cold & allergy season) you could buy it over the counter.  Because bad people can make meth with it, and lawmakers thought something needed to be done about it, you can still buy it over the counter, but now you have to produce a government ID and be entered into a registry.

A government registry for buying cold and allergy medication.  Did that solve the meth problem? Oh my, no. It’s as bad as it ever was.

What these laws providing restrictions and reporting requirements did in the process was to make us less free by subjecting us to a government registry.

If we believe we live in a free country, then we need to practice what we preach. The freedom to support causes and candidates of our choosing should not be infringed upon.

If a proposal makes us less free, then the cure might be worse than the disease.

17 thoughts on “To ban, or not to ban. Out of state money is the question.”

  1. Yes Mickelson is wrong here and the majority of the Republicans in this state are out of touch, almost to the point of delusion.

  2. As the Speaker Pro Tem pointed out on twitter, the Speaker’s proposal likely violates the First Amendment.

    Add this to his other new proposal to raise taxes and I think we should all be glad we were spared a potential Mick governorship…

  3. Cognative dissonance? Or dishonesty? So many politicians like Rep. Mickelson claim to be conservatives but legislate like full on liberals.

  6. I think asking the question provokes the important discussion. Should the voters consider the source of funds when discerning their view on a ballot issue or is the identity of the backer irrelevant?

    1. Troy: The Federalist Papers were published anonymously. So, I am not sure the source of information is relevant and, in fact, can distract from the message content.

  7. Limiting our rights of free speech, free association, and privacy are not the solutions to any problem.

  8. Gadfly,

    You bring up a great point and one in general I agree with. But, I’m not sure everything is black and white which is why I asked the question.

    The Federalist Papers were an intellectual speech whereby anyone who was reading them were discerning the merits of the matter individually and in whole. The words mattered more than who said them.

    Ballot promoters and detractors use a different form of speech whereby they “interpret” the merits of the matter according to one’s agenda (which isn’t disclosed) and too often distract, obfuscate, and openly deceive their real objective. Thus, the who is saying them becomes relevant, in my opinion.

    The ballot process is further complicated because of the reliance on the AG summary which is limited to a certain number of words. Does anyone think the AG’s explanation of IM22 was sufficiently descriptive (and thus effectively unintentionally misleading)? I certainly don’t.

    I’m not sure I have the answer. I’m not sure there is an answer under the Constitution. And, maybe the inability to fix it means were have to rely on what John Adams said was democracy would only survive so long as the governed were good citizens able to control their own worst impulses. That said, my lack of having the answer is cause for me to be glad someone is searching for answers because the Ballot Fiascos of 2016 were not good for democracy or good governance.

  9. How about they do the hard work and raise the signature thresholds and/or geographic requirements !

    1. Yes! Yes! Apparently it is easier to get initiatives on the ballot than most other states. Fix this and the problem will take care of itself for the most part.

Comments are closed.