Represent SD Launching Petition to Write Much of IM 22 Plus Ballot-Measure Protection into Constitution

Another petition is street-ready! Doug Kronaizl announces on Represent South Dakota’s Facebook page that Secretary of State Shantel Krebs has approved his group’s South Dakota Anti-Corruption Amendment for circulation. This measure writes key campaign finance, lobbying, and ethics reforms from the voter-approved, Legislatively repealed Initiated Measure 22, plus measures to protect ballot measures from Legislative meddling, into the state constitution. The Anti-Corruption Amendment does not include IM22’s “Democracy Credits,” the public campaign financing plan. Read the full text of the measure online here.

Represent SD offers this video pitch for their petition:

Represent SD will have petitions to sign and training for circulators at kick-off events this weekend: Sioux Falls, Rapid City, and Madison Saturday; Brookings, Huron, and Spearfish Sunday, and Vermillion Monday.

Bob Mercer notes that while Kronaizl is spokesman for the amendment push, the co-chairmen of this ballot question committee are former Republican legislator Mitch Richter and former Democratic legislator Darrell Solberg.


19 Responses to Represent SD Launching Petition to Write Much of IM 22 Plus Ballot-Measure Protection into Constitution

  1. Will the new initiative campaign be financed the same way the previous one was? Not only was it overwhelmingly out-of-state money, but the represent.us 501(c)(4) budget was funded with almost 100% of the represent.us 501(c)(3) budget. This means that charitable funds were being used to support a statewide ballot initiative election. See: Prairie Playground for Special Interests to Test Campaign Finance Initiative – https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2016/08/18/prairie-playground-for-special-interests-to-test-campaign-finance-initiative/

  2. owen reitzel

    will you hold Republicans to the same standard Michael? How much has Thune, Rounds and Noem received from outside South Dakota?

  3. This is about the insidious IM #22 Zombie, not our elected representatives in Washington, Mr. reitzel. You know how they get rid of Zombies on the TV? It’s usually pretty gruesome. I expect Slick Rick will channel some big, dark, out-of-state money into this Zombie but they will try to keep his name out of it because it is poisonous to the ears of most South Dakotans.

    Another unconstitutional, sloppily written mess, I am sure.

  4. Grudz, you’re going to need to play a new record. You can’t call a constitutional amendment unconstitutional. Judge Barnett found IM22 unconstitutional almost entirely on the basis of provisions in the South Dakota Constitution. Amend the South Dakota Constitution, and those violations disappear. The only grounds for overturning IM22 that may have rested on the U.S. Constitution were the restrictions on legislators’ and kin’s acceptance of gifts, including “compensation”, from lobbyists, which Barnett said impaired contracts. “Gift” does not include “compensation” in this amendment, so that concern is gone.

    Grudz, if you get past your wordplay and surety and read the amendment and find unconstitutional provisions, do let us know.

  5. Don Coyote

    @cah: “You can’t call a constitutional amendment unconstitutional.”

    And yet the attorney general’s explanation explicitly states “It will likely be challenged on constitutional grounds.”

  6. I’m sure there may be legal challenges but it will be harder to prove. The legislature will have to refrain from intervening and leave it to the courts to rule on if it comes to that. BTW, that’s me in the pink hat helping to carry the banner during a protest at the Capitol when we were fighting to save IM22. I risked frostbite to fight for what I believe in!

  7. Wow, the trolls are on this one aren’t they.
    The fact is that if the ruling party had done and seen to it that things were done on the up and up none of this would have ever came up.

    Personally, I’m disappointed that the public funding bit was dropped. It’s cost was spelled out very clearly in IM 22 and the majority of the voters didn’t think that sacrificing a ten spot for public elections was a big deal. The state of South Dakota could have started something that might have gone far. In my opinion the number one problem with government today is the influence of big money and this would have been a good start towards reducing the influence.

  8. I, too, wish the public funding of politicians was in the Zombie IM #22 also. I double dog dare Slick Rick to float that on all on its own and see how it is smited heartily by the voters.

  9. Remember that it’s also possible for a state’s constitution to contain provisions that are in conflict with the federal constitution. In such cases where a conflict exists, under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the federal constitution overrules the state constitution’s conflicting provisions.

  10. Oh, Coyote, Marty says that to all the girls. ;-)

    As I said to Grudz, I am open to the possibility that the amendment offers grounds for constitutional challenge. I agree with Michael that we can’t violate the U.S Constitution with the S.D. Constitution. But you and Grudz will have to identify grounds mostly different from those lodged against IM 22 last fall, since the IM22 injunction rested almost entirely on state constitutional provisions.

  11. Owen:

    You raise a fair question. Two answers:

    1) I will absolutely “call out” any candidate or group using 501(c)(3) charitable gifts to finance a political campaign, regardless of political party, ideology, or type of election (candidate, initiative/referendum, or constitutional amendment).

    2) I believe the uses of out-of-state campaign funds are different for some elections than they are for others. See:

    Are There Two Sides of Out-of-State Money in Politics? About those Embattled Ballot Questions
    https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2016/11/04/two-sides-state-money-politics-embattled-ballot-questions/

  12. Isn’t 501(c)3 status the same thing we hang over churches to keep the Gordon Howie theocrats from using their pulpits to endorse candidates? I can see Wyland’s point: 501(c)3 status comes with a price tag, and we should make sure all players follow the rules.

  13. Read the feeding back from your friends at the partisan LRC, Mr. H. Besides all the sloppiness they point out, they point out this mess conflicts with other parts of the SD Constitution and the US Constitution and wave around a court case.

    Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy mess. This is why we should ban measures initiated by voters, who are inherently stupid, entirely. Especially if the submitter is a personal injury shyster from Rapid City who likes to sport porn star mustaches.

  14. Cory:

    The “Johnson Amendment”, enacted as part of tax reform in 1954, prohibits all 501(c)(3) nonprofits from participating directly in candidate elections.

    Religious congregations are included in the prohibition because they are presumed to be tax exempt under 501(c)(3). Other organizations are required to apply for and be recognized by the IRS as tax exempt under 501(c)(3).

    For more, see:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_Amendment

  15. Roger Cornelius

    What is a porn star moustache?

  16. Not sure, Roger. Grudz must watch more porn than we do.

  17. mike from iowa

    We’ll give thanks if you shave your porn star mustache
    Georgea Kovanis , On Style Published 7:47 a.m. ET Nov. 24, 2014 | Updated 7:47 a.m. ET Nov. 24, 2014
    Gucci Celebrates Flora Knight Collection in Hong Kong – Arrivals

    Who on Earth thought it would be a good idea to encourage men to grow mustaches and beards during the biggest eating season of the year?

    Seriously, here we are on the verge of mashed potatoes and gravy and cranberry sauce and all the other Thanksgiving treats and trimmings. And we’ve got men all over the country growing crumb catchers, flavor savers and soup strainers.

    I googled porn star moustache and this popped up. Who else but Grudz, using a pen name, would write about gravy taters in such a sneaky way?

  18. mike from iowa

    Wingnuts, such as Jackley challenge (and lose) anything they don’t like on constitutional grounds.

  19. Personally, Grudz, I think we ought to get rid of the partisan house and senate and run the state totally by the vote of the people. I don’t think the people would waste there time on transgender bathrooms and arming the legislature. And how does one think that the elected legislature of whom only three or four have any legal training or expertise should have the right to decide that IM 22 was unconstitutional. If the voters in this state would get there head out of where ever they have it nearly all of them would be gone from Pierre.