Jackley Continues to Argue Mickelson Anti-Corruption Laws Don’t Go Far Enough

Remember how last spring Attorney General Marty Jackley said the Legislature wasn’t going far enough to fight corruption? He’s at it again, calling for tougher penalties for new conflict-of-interest laws:

One of his criticisms of the 2015 conflict of interest legislation that covers state government employees was the penalty. He said it should be a felony. It currently is a misdemeanor.

That change is one of three points Jackley addressed in his letter to legislators.

He wants the words “direct” and “knowing” added to the law regarding conflicts of interest for persons overseeing state contracts and monies.

“It should be very specific,” he told legislators Tuesday.

Jackley also wants to require that discovery of theft, fraud and direct conflicts of interest be reported to his office. The law currently allows that information to be reported to the state auditor general, who is employed by the Legislature, or the attorney general.

His third point is violations involving “more serious conduct” or “significant amounts of money” should be punishable as felonies eligible for prison sentences rather than misdemeanors or with presumptive probation [Bob Mercer, “Jackley Asks for Felony Penalties on Conflict of Interest Violations,” Pierre Capital Journal, 2016.10.19].

Jackley’s statement is more political positioning against one of his potential rivals in the 2018 gubernatorial campaign, Rep. G. Mark Mickelson (R-13/Sioux Falls), who has sponsored the tepid, exemption-hobbled conflict-of-interest laws that the Legislature has passed in response to the EB-5 and GEAR UP scandals. It will be fun to watch the Republicans who have facilitated the corruption of one-party rule squabble about which of them is better equipped to fight corruption. I’d suggest to voters (in 2018 and right now!) that they can skip that debate and simply elect Democrats who aren’t responsible for the corruption the Republicans now need to say they are fighting.


10 Responses to Jackley Continues to Argue Mickelson Anti-Corruption Laws Don’t Go Far Enough

  1. mike from iowa

    The law should provide for the death penalty for corrupt wingnuts and be made retro-active to include Janklow and Round’s administrations.

  2. Jackley is a little late to the game on this one. He sat out the discussion when Mickelson’s bill was going through the process, if I recall. He should have added his 2 cents at that time.

  3. Todd Kolden

    2018 is motivating his charge.

  4. Mike, I remain opposed to the death penalty, even for corrupt Republicans.

    Ror, Todd, I agree Jackley appears to be playing political catch-up… not that one has to run hard to catch up with what little the GOP Legislature has done.

  5. mike from iowa

    Slightly OT-here is a blueprint for Jackley to defend South Dakota’s anti-abortion, draconian statutes in front of the Scotus. Worked so well for Kansas Solicitor General-

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/kansas-retracts-dred-scott-citation-supporting-anti-abortion-law

    Seriously, where does the wingnut party recruit these goofballs from?

  6. It is interesting that Messrs. Jackley and Mickelson don’t seem to comment here much, when many bloggings discuss their futures. Why do you think that is?

  7. Hard to say, Grudz. Perhaps they find your wry satire offputting.

  8. mike from iowa

    Like nearly every wingnut,they won’t risk being asked hard questions and don’t want rabble demanding answers to hard questions.

    Like all Libs you question our integrity.
    As if you had any integrity.

  9. @mike from iowa

    You have raised one possible explanation. I would like to suggest another potential factor: Sometimes the contributors here on DFP express hostility to opposing points of view, personally attacking those who hold them through pejorative slurs such as “wingnut.” This discourages reasonable discourse.

  10. mike from iowa

    http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2014/11/political-insults/

    When and How Did the Right Succeed in Making ‘Liberal’ a Pejorative Term?

    Thoughts:

    Remember back in ’88 when the noble and gifted (yet seemingly politically hapless) Michael Dukakis was being savaged by the late Lee Atwater and the boys? OK, I was pretty young then, but nonetheless it came as shock to me when I saw how the Bush Sr. campaign was attacking Dukakis by calling him a… a… a… LIBERAL!! More shocking was how it seemed to work! Er, lets look this
    term of venomous contempt up in the dictionary:

    “Liberal: …5 : BROAD-MINDED; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms…”

    Damn!! No one better ever DARE CALL ME ONE THOSE!!!

    Liberalism: c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties.” (Merriam-Webster)

    Good GOD!!! Who will save America from the grave menace of such diseased-minded miscreants!!

    How the hell did we let them get away with this?