Update 12:02 CST: Upon further review and advice from an eager reader, I realize that HB 1069 repeals every provision of Initiated Measure 22: campaign finance reform, lobbying reform, Democracy Credits, and ethics commission—the whole thing, with no language offering replacement reforms. I edit my text below to reflect this fact.
Edited Post: Republican legislators apparently don’t think Secretary of State Shantel Krebs’s Senate Bill 54 is the right tool to scratch their itch to repeal Initiated Measure 22, the Anti-Corruption Act. 76 Republicans (and not one Democrat, thank you) are sponsoring House Bill 1069, which repeals IM 22 in its entirety
HB 1069 strikes all of the IM 22 provisions that SB 54 strikes, plus…
- HB 1069 strikes the $100 cap on gifts from lobbyists (because, you know, legislators and their relatives ought to be able to take unlimited “gifts” from lobbyists).
- HB 1069 reduces the revolving-door restriction on legislators working as lobbyists from two years back to one year (because hey, we don’t pay legislators much, so they need to be able to jump back in and cash in on their knowledge early).
- HB 1069 removes non-elected appointees, agency chiefs, and highest-paid staffers from the revolving door restriction (because, you know, friends).
- HB 1069 gets rid of new lobbyist reporting requirements (because who wants more paperwork and transparency?).
- In one fell swoop (Section 2), HB 1069 strikes the Democracy Credits intended to provide voluntary public campaign financing and the ethics commission created to manage those Credits.
- And in today’s amusing drafting error, HB 1069 strikes IM 22’s felony penalty for bribing or intimidating legislators and creates a new class of penalty, Class 5 Misdemeanor. (Hmm, South Dakota Codified Law only provides for Class 1 and lesser Class 2, so I’m guessing Class 5 is the new legal term for 40 lashes with a wet noodle.)
Beyond the total elimination of IM22, HB 1069 differs from SB 54 in three key ways:
- HB 1069 does not bother to create the campaign finance ethics commission that Secretary Krebs proposes in SB 54. Apparently Republicans don’t want to monkey around creating any new restrictions or accountability; they just want the new limits on campaign finance and lobbyists dead, dead, dead.
- HB 1069 has an emergency clause, meaning it would repeal all of IM 22 immediately (what? didn’t you guys just tell us yesterday we need time before we enact legislation?) and citizens could not suspend that repeal and refer it to a vote.
- HB 1069 was posted just yesterday, but it has already been scheduled for a joint hearing of the House and Senate State Affairs committees on Monday afternoon, 3 p.m. or 15 minutes after House and Senate get done horsing around. SB 54 was filed ten days ago and has yet to be scheduled for first committee hearing.
Boy, I tell you, the vigor with which Republicans are prosecuting IM 22 shows that we voters must really have gotten under Republicans’ skin by passing a law to fight corruption.
Must’ve Missed the Meeting: Prime sponsors Representative Larry Rhoden and Senator Brock Greenfield didn’t get everyone to caucus on HB 1069. Missing from the sponsor list are Representatives Lynne DiSanto, Julie Frye-Mueller, Tim Goodwin, Thomas Holmes, Taffy Howard, Jean Hunhoff, John Lake, David Lust, Tim Reed, and Mike Stevens and Senators Stace Nelson and Lance Russell.
I think they protest too much!
One Senator is arguing that IM 22’s limit on gifts from lobbyists would require him/her to surrender earned state retirement or suffer imprisonment completely ignoring the ethics commission and the fact that one’s retirement is not a gift. Are there no limits to the hyperbole opponents will sink to?
Corruption is so ingrained in South Dakota that the elite view any reforms as attacks on their way of life. They are so scared about having to live and wield power honestly that they can’t fathom how to do that. It’s just sad that the swamp has gotten so deep in South Dakota. Of course, when the people start draining the swamp the gators will fight back viciously. Don’t give up.
Good one, Don … scared to conduct business fairly. Even with a 75% advantage. That’s textbook paranoia.
Good one, Mark. It’s like they feel useless if they don’t speak. But, with no new ideas they just make stuff up.
The IM #22 is bad. It is bad. And unconstitutional. Those who pay millions in Massachusetts to foist this garbage upon South Dakotans should be banned.
Grudz–but Marsy’s law seems to be drawing no firestorm now does it! The GOP selectivity of scorn for voters’ intelligence amazes me. Threaten their perception of importance/power and they fall all over themselves that they know so much more than the voters….
Could it be that some of the Legislators are afraid Krebs is going to run for Congress and they don’t want to help her accomplish anything. The fast tracking of HB 1069 is just another effort to reduce the power of ordinary people, such an assault on Democracy. They love the power, as it allows dictatorial actions. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely!!!!!
That’s an interesting political read, Darrell, some rumbling anti-Krebs sentiment… in favor of Dusty Johnson? Or is just that the legislators don’t want any ethics commission reviewing their campaign finance reports? Or is it that, like Tim Goodwin, they’re just too lazy to have checkd what Secretary Krebs already submitted?
Jake, the GOP will make no fuss about the crime victims bill of rights because Marty Jackley’s campaign manager Jason Glodt used the Amendment S campaign to gather voter info for the 2018 campaign.
Yup. Money from Massachusetts-not good. Money from Wichita Kansas-good. They need to kill this measure and quick for fear it will get loose in the wild. Democracy at its finest.
I’m very new to following anything having to do with local politics — how is it that an initiated measure even gets on the ballot if it’s potentially unconstitutional? And why is there no outrage that these legislators are doing this….are South Dakotans that apathetic?
Good question, Tom. There’s no way to really prove that a ballot measure is unconstitutional; no one has standing to sue until it becomes law, so before the vote, it’s up to proponents and opponents to make their case on constitutionality.
Plus, “potentially” unconstitutional is a pretty thin standard. Anything could be found unconstitutional by the wrong judge facing the wrong lawyers. And heck, I pointed out case law that showed Referred Law 19 was unconstitutional, and our legislators still passed it.
I don’t think South Dakotans are apathetic about the IM 22 repeal… but the real proof of that will be whether they are willing to call Pierre to protest HB 1069… and whether they are willing to remember these shenanigans, connect the dots, and vote out the Republicans pushing this repeal and disrespecting the people’s will. Care to lay odds, anyone?