With lots of ballot measures coming up in the 2016 election (not to mention a possible local referendum on bonds for a new public library here in Aberdeen!), Bob Mercer reminds us of Attorney General Roger Tellinghuisen’s 1988 opinion on expending public funds to advocate and educate on ballot measures.
The short form, of course, is that publicly funded ballot-measure advocacy is bad (and explicitly illegal in South Dakota since 2007), but public funded education is good.
But I’m interested in this paragraph on the basic goal of ballot measures and all voting:
A fundamental goal of the democratic electoral process is to attain the free and pure expression of the voters. Basic democratic principles mandate that the government must, if possible, avoid any activity or feature which might adulterate that free and pure choice. Gould v. Grubb, 536 P.2d 1337, 348 (Cal. 1975). The government should not ” ‘take sides’ in election contest or bestow an unfair advantage on one of several competing factions. A principal danger feared by our country’s founders lay in the possibility that the holders of governmental authority would use official power improperly to perpetuate themselves, or their allies, in office …; the selective use of public funds in election campaigns, of course, raises the specter of just such an improper distortion of the democratic electoral process.” Stanson, supra at 9 [Roger Tellinghuisen, official opinion, 1988.06.29].
Tellinghuisen offers two key phrases worth considering in the context of a couple of pending ballot issues:
Free and pure expression of the voters—the fake 18%-rate-cap petition appears to be an effort to stifle that free and pure expression of popular will. Lead payday-lender faker Lisa Furlong is circulating a petition under the false claim that it caps payday lending rates at 18% when the written-contract loophole means the measure would have no such practical impact on any payday loan currently offered in South Dakota. Her people are circulating a deceptive flyer meant to trick people out of signing the real 36%-rate-cap petition. Does the state have an obligation (beyond possibly charging distributors of that false information with a Class 2 misdemeanor under SDCL 12-13-16) to educate the public as to the real nature of the two rate cap proposals—i.e., that the 36% proposal is a real rate cap while the 18% proposal is a fake?
A principal danger feared by our country’s founders lay in the possibility that the holders of governmental authority would use official power improperly to perpetuate themselves, or their allies, in office—hmmm… that sounds like exactly what happens with gerrymandering and exactly what the Farmers Union proposal for an independent redistricting commission would prevent. Gerrymandering isn’t just a cute little quirk of legislative procedure; it is part of the principal danger that the founders feared (even though the guy for whom we named gerrymandering was one of the Founders—oops!).
Tellinghuisen’s advice is well taken. Government entities should not spend tax dollars campaigning for or against ballot measures. But I am happy to expend my energy upholding the principles that inform that governmental restraint. The payday lenders are trying to protect their own economic power by thwarting the free and pure expression of South Dakota voters. The Legislature is trying to perpetuate its own power by protecting its gerrymander privilege. We should thwart both powers and protect the rights of voters by signing and passing the real 36% rate cap and the redistricting reform ballot measures.
hay wait the dude told me the 36% petition was a scam last week so I signed the 18%
A principal danger feared by our country’s founders lay in the possibility that the holders of governmental authority would use official power improperly to perpetuate themselves, or their allies, in office- Sounds like a shot across the bow of wingnut creepy,creeping cronyism,too.
Kris-you have been scammed which was the intent of the fauxknee 18% rate cap.
cory, care should be taken in not extending AG’s language out of context to the either the 36% issue or the redistricting issue. Also, the law is ever changing so an ’88 opinion is just that, similar to the previous concern that state websites carry incomplete and non-updated versions of law that shouldn’t be relied on. Seth Tupper may have raised that.
The “official shepardized” versions of the law are the only ones reliably accurate. That is essentially all lawyers do-dredge up from expensive sources, a the version of the law that is “on-point”. didn’t realize lawyers had so much in common w/ ballerinas, didja?
Kris, you’re almost funny. Keep trying. Meanwhile, read my very clear explanation of why the fake 18% rate cap is a scam:
https://dakotafreepress.com/2015/07/13/payday-lender-lobby-proposes-constitutional-amendment-to-thwart-interest-rate-cap/
Leslie, feel free to show me a copy of AG Tellinghuisen’s opinion the books that differs from the text available online, and feel free to explain how the principles expressed do not apply as I have explained above.
can i bill yah hourly?
You can send a bill, but I’ll regard the charges as one opinion. ;-)
Huh? Funny? Was at Costco in Sioux Falls with my pops and 3 dudes raced towards us in da parking lot. they scared us at first and then told us about the 18% payday cap and said 36% was too much and a scam.
O.K., Kris, read the link I gave you , and you’ll understand the error of your ways. 36% is the genuine South Dakota petition seeking to cap interest rates and stop loan sharks. 18% is the loan sharks’ countermeasure trying to stop any real rate cap from taking place. The 18% applies only to oral agreements, not any loan involving a written agreement.
does jackley have to formally explain the 18% petition? what does it say? is the constl. amendment part a huge red flag that the explanation should shout down if it is liable to produce a scam in the process, create confusion, contrary to public interest? i know we don’t like to protect people in this state from getting shot in nearly any public place, nor do we protect the fair excercise of our right to vote, nor do we care much for fringe religions, nor protecting the environment from exploitation, so no surprise that allowing big finance a foothold in the state to PETITION a law that prevents the regulation of loans up to 1500 % (as we have seen in other states) forever, is apparently a yawn for daugaard and jackley. NOT IN MY STATE might be the better approach to stop the continual slide into the cesspool SD is destined for.
Leslie, AG Jackley issued this official explanation in August:
That explanation leads with the right line. Now AG Jackley should send out DCI agents to check circulators for South Dakota residency.
thx cory. where did the 3rd and 4th sentences come from? other law, or lisa?
That blockquote is all from Jackley with regards to the fake 18% petition. Every word of that explanation should be on a piece of paper that every fake 18% circulator is required by law to provide to every signer.