Rick Weiland and Don Frankenfeld get some TV time for their Government Accountability and Anti-Corruption initiative petition, currently circulating at a street corner near you. Hailey Higgins mentions the across-the-aisle and apparent widespread popular support for the measure, South Dakota’s failing grade on corruption, and the need for transparency and checks and balances.
KELO-TV, alas, headlines the story “Anti-Corruption Act Too Costly?” but doesn’t discuss cost until 12 paragraphs down, 60% of the way into the story:
A major aspect of the act would give each registered voter $100 worth of credits to back the candidate of their choice.
“Giving everyday folks an opportunity to contribute like this dilutes the impact of big money in our political system and it’s a great investment,” Weiland said.
The money given to voters for campaign donations will come from the state’s general fund – and will be capped at $12 million.
Last year, there was $1.4 billion in the general fund with the majority of that money going towards education and healthcare. Critics of the ballot measure say they don’t want that money going towards political campaigns [Hailey Higgins, “Anti-Corruption Act Too Costly?” KELO-TV, 2015.10.16].
Twelve million dollars out of a 1.4-billion-dollar general fund—that’s less than 1%, not exactly a threshold that makes me go screaming Too Costly!
Comparing the Democracy Credit Fund (that’s the language used in the initiative) to the general fund is slightly misleading. Read the language Higgins summarizes from Section 42:
…The sources of revenue to be deposited in the democracy credit fund shall include, without limitation: unspent democracy credit contributions received by any participating candidate who does not remain a candidate until the election for which the funds were distributed, or such funds that remain unspent by a participating candidate following the date of the election for which the funds were distributed; voluntary donations made directly to the democracy credit fund; other funds appropriated by the state; any interest generated by the democracy credit fund; and any other sources of revenue determined as necessary by the state.
The total amount of revenue in the democracy credit fund may not exceed at any time twelve million dollars. Any amount exceeding this limit that would otherwise be deposited in the democracy credit fund shall instead be deposited in the state general fund [South Dakota Government Accountability and Anti-Corruption Act, Section 42, downloaded 2015.10.17].
We’re not talking about $12 million in new annual expenditure. The fund might be drained in an election year, if 120,000 South Dakotans decide to make full $100 Democracy Credit donations to statewide and legislative candidates (which widespread engagement in the political process would be wonderful for the process), but odds are we won’t see that level of use in election years. The Democracy Credit Fund lies dormant in non-election years, meaning annual expenditures would average out to $6 million.
Plus, it’s not all taxpayer dollars. As Section 42 specifies, public funding may be augmented or offset by donations and fund interest. Find some wealthy patrons who believe in this plan (and it’s not like T. Denny Sanford or George Soros could buy influence by making such a contribution, since voters still decide which candidates get the money), and we could see the cost to taxpayers become negligible.
But the amount being spent isn’t the real point of contention. Look closely at the argument offered by Senator Deb Peters, one of the two critics KELO cites:
“We would rather put our money back to our priorities, our kids, our elderly, our Native Americans, we really should put it back where our priorities are. Taking care of people and making sure our kids are taken care of and then figure out where to spend it. Right now, the political arena is not where we should be spending our money,” Peters said [Higgins, 2015.10.16].
(Well, at least Weiland and Frankenfeld have found a way to get the SDGOP leadership to give a darn about education and Indians.)
Senator Peters is not saying “$12 million is too much for public campaign funding, but how about $6 million?” She is saying she doesn’t want the state spending any money to level the playing the field in the political arena… which is the argument one would expect from the team that occupies the high ground on the uneven playing field.
Perhaps I quibble over journalistic headlining and semantics. But Higgins then lets slip unchallenged this whopper from Senator Peters:
Peters argues South Dakota doesn’t have the corruption scandals seen in other states [Higgins, 2015.10.16].
Excuse me? Richard Benda? Scott Westerhuis? We’ve had two corruption scandals within two years that gained public attention when a key player cut off from the graft trough killed himself with a shotgun. We have the corruption seen in other states; the difference is that in other states, corruption scandals send people to prison.
Let’s be clear: Senator Peters and other opponents of the Government Accountability and Anti-Corruption Act are foxes who’d rather not give up their guardposts at the henhouse. Their fiscal concerns about meager bi-annual outlays are cover for their intention to cling to power and patronage by any means possible.
Sign Rick and Don’s petition, and let’s have this conversation in the 2016 election.
“We would rather put our money back to our priorities, our kids, our elderly, our Native Americans, we really should put it back where our priorities are. Our priorities are neglecting our kids,our elderly our Natives and fluffing up the koch bros bank accounts.
There I fixed it. Another wingnut lost in the Bewilderness of reality.
We could fund it by taxing one of the few services not currently taxed: KELO advertising.
The idea is an improvement over the system that poops out dullards in Pierre who are owned by their campaign benefactors. And giving Deb Peters a stage to indicate there’s no corruption in Roundsville is begging for hypocrisy.
Having said that, this might be the one bright idea on the ballot that goes further than the public is willing to stretch. There are some very meaningful proposals out there now along with two bogus proposals designed to confuse voters. Do we really expect voters to keep up with the conga line of ballot issues instead of voting no to everything?
Progress many times is incremental. Because of empty chairs like the Greenfields, the Novstrups and Deb (how does this lackey stay in office so long???) Peters, nothing gets done in Pierre. They solve no problems, which only get worse. They protect the shiny butts of Pierre power clique and do the bidding of their overlords (anybody willing to give them lots of money). Change is needed. Drastically. Urgently. I just don’t want to leave voters behind with a 34-page idea that took two great guys a lot of time to iron out.
My advice is win the battles on loan sharks and hyper partisan politics in Pierre and then go back to voters with public financing of campaigns.
Tax on advertising? Heck of an idea (although then I’ll have to start submitting sales tax reports to Pierre on my sponsor revenue ;-) ).
96, I have the GAAC petition with me. 70 sections. I’m not sure I can explain the whole thing to a signer in under a minute.
Senator Peters kept talking about “the children…. the children” in her KELO interview and how they are more important than a $ 12 million fund to fund political campaigns. Well, that is all fine and dandy, except her party isn’t to big on helping “the children” when it comes to teacher pay for our state’s teachers so we can keep and attract “the best and the brightest” to help “the children” with their futures…
Since when, I ask? Has the GOP made “the children” a priority? They have not with teacher pay. They have not with an expansion of Obamacare for working class families, and they definitely have not when they try to reduce the minimum wage of some of our older children who could use those funds to fund their future and conceivably their future higher education… Only a coward hides behind the children!…
The intentions backing the Government Accountability and Anti-Corruption initiative petition are honorable — may secure enough votes to support implementation if promoted focusing on the corruption that surrounded the 2013 EB5 scandal and 2015 Mid Central scandal.
How about circulating an initiative petition requiring the South Dakota November 2018 election night results to be canvassed statewide requiring validation of each county auditor’s election night results to validated by conducting a manual count of the ballots before each county canvassing board is allowed to certify the official election results?
Would placing all ballots face up on top of the table with a manual count of all ballots conducted prevent ballot scanner test ballots and election rigging software from being used under cloaked digital secrecy to alter ballot scanner data base vote counts and rig the outcomes of local and statewide elections?
See any election rigging concerns with regards to the integrity of South Dakota’s election process and the validity of election results when the votes are being counted using a “Just Trust Us System” lacking a strong system on internal controls and segregation of duties in county auditor offices statewide where 70% of all county auditors in South Dakota are GOP registered voters?
Are the ballot boxes being rigged? Are the vote counts recorded in ballot scanner hard drive data bases being rigged? One way to find out during the canvassing process, would be to require each county auditor to manually count all of the ballots cast in the South Dakota November 2018 election prior to each county canvassing board being allowed to certify the official election results.
What follows are not a conservative, moderate or liberal partisan issues. What follows are simply right and wrong questions. Have never cast a ballot voting for all of one party’s promoted ballot measures and candidates. Have voted for GOP, DEM and IND candidates based on each candidate’s campaign platform and promises and perception of each candidate’s core values of integrity, honor, candor and courage. So, how has the SD Machine maintained and retained its power, control and influence over the past 40-years?
Are voter intimidation and/or hoodwinking tactics being used to discourage and suppress voter turnout? Are absentee ballots being cast on behalf of former residents who have moved to another state? Are absentee ballots being used by registered messengers to solicit votes from senior citizens who are residents in nursing homes and assisted living facilities — during primary and local elections, but not during general elections when doing so is prohibited by statute? Are state and/or local officials influencing canvassing board decisions covering up election rigging acts? Are the votes printed onto test ballots used to validate the accuracy of each county’s ballot scanner prior to each election being used to rig election outcomes? Are county auditors statewide being allowed to submit the data that is being printed onto test ballots? Are voters being duped by “Just Trust Us” we are all honest South Dakotans?
Over the past four decades of one-party power and control over all three branches of South Dakota governance, have influential far-reaching tentacles become entangled around all aspects of state, county, city and public school district standard operating practices and procedures throughout the state?
So why should we naively trust that the current South Dakota Machine is conducting elections and counting the votes with ballot scanners in an honorable manner when retaining total control over governance throughout this state and the ability to continue to line crony pockets rests with winning elections and securing voter support of desired ballot measures?
Badger, Out!
Mr. Guymon, you pontificate on to the point that nobody, certainly not me, reads your random bull about the man stuffing your face in a turd of Gordantic proportions, despite some God or another God with freaking horns being on your side.
So, aside from your massive dump I didn’t read, can you answer the question: Are you a digger?
Deb Peters has no right to use the excuse that we should fund education first. She has been chair of the appropriations committee and put education to the end of the session so the teachers would not have time to argue on this. She has subverted increasing funding to education. I happen to think that we should fund education first but she can not use that as a reason to not fund something else.
“Senator Peters kept talking about “the children…. the children” ”
Beware anybody using “The Children” as an excuse for some egregious policy or project. It is the standard excuse when there are no rational or data-driven reasons for a policy or project. The phrase also usually comes from portable professionals who take off after they have squandered taxpayer dollars on some miss-begotten deviously enabled fiasco.