Press "Enter" to skip to content

Anti-Corruption Act Makes Ballot as IM 22!

We’re two steps toward the Rick Weiland trifecta!

Yesterday Secretary of State Shantel Krebs certified the Anti-Corruption Act initiative petition. Secretary Krebs calculates that 18,122 out of 24,532 submitted signatures were valid. That’s an error rate of 26.13% for the Anti-Corruption Act’s mostly paid circulators, better than the worse-than-one-in-three failure rate of the mercenary circulators of the Glodt Amendment and the fake 18% usury amendment but still nearly double the error rate of the high-quality work done by largely volunteer circulators of the real 36% rate cap.

The Anti-Corruption Act will appear on our 2016 statewide ballot as Initiated Measure 22. Why should we do 22? Let’s hear from two notable Republicans spearheading the campaign for IM 22 alongside Weiland:

“This initiative cracks down on the ability of big money interests to buy influence in government and rig the rules,” said Don Frankenfeld, co-chair of South Dakotans for Ethics Reform and a former South Dakota State Senator based in Rapid City. “This law would dramatically improve transparency and accountability.”

…The Government Accountability and Anti-Corruption Act would ensure disclosure of who’s spending money on politics and elections and how it’s influencing our representatives,” said Dave Volk, a former South Dakota State Treasurer based in Sioux Falls who supports the Act. “Democracy works better when voters are well-informed” [South Dakotans for Ethics Reform, press release, 2016.01.06].

IM 22 joins Amendment T, the proposal to create an independent redistricting commission to end gerrymandering in South Dakota, as the second of three big reform measures that Rick Weiland and his are hoping to put to a vote this year. The third measure is the proposed constitutional amendment to create open non-partisan primaries. If Weiland’s circulators produced the same error rate on the non-partisan primaries measure as on the Anti-Corruption Act, their petition will qualify for the ballot as Amendment V.

22, T, and V would work together to reform politics in South Dakota. 22 would do what Frankenfeld and Volk say, reduce the influence of big money in Pierre politics and give voters more information, not to mention a statewide ethics commission to go after corruption in campaign finance and state government. T would take politics out of drawing our legislative boundaries, thus making elections more fair and representation more democratic (if not more Demcoratic—keep your fingers crossed!). V, if it makes the ballot, will give more voters a chance to participate in electing their leaders. All of those steps are good for democracy and checking the corruption that has arisen from our too-long-standing one-party regime.

Having all three of these measures on the ballot will also give every legislative candidate an entire canned speech for their campaigns. Legislative candidates, you really don’t need to come up with policy initiatives of your own to discuss on your various campaign trials. If you spend the next ten months talking about nothing but IM 22, Amendment T, and Amendment V and how important those measures are for democracy and urging voters and your opponents to support them, you will have done the public a great service. Change up that speech with points on Referred Laws 19 and 20 (on which you should exhort your constituents to vote NO!) and the rate caps (36% Yes, 18% No! IM 21 Yes, Amendment U for Usury NO!), and you have all the campaign messaging you need.

Team Krebs continues to certify petitions like clockwork. My projections from her work rate on the first couple petitions have exactly matched the days she has certified the last three petitions. If my projections hold, Krebs should rule on the non-partisan primary petition by Monday, January 11; the fair-share union dues petition by Thursday, January 14; and the medical marijuana petition by Friday, January 15.

p.s.: You can read the full text of the Anti-Corruption Act/Initiated Measure 22 here.


  1. mike from iowa 2016-01-07

    If only it made wingnuts disappear.

  2. caheidelberger Post author | 2016-01-07

    I offer no magic disappearances, but the Anti-Corruption Act will make life harder for wingnuts involved in corruption!

  3. oldguy7850 2016-01-07

    Mike from Iowa –Why is a person who does nut agree with you called a wingnut? Are you saying everything you believe is right and those who don’t agree with you are wrong?

  4. mike from iowa 2016-01-07

    Would you prefer I called wingnuts meadow muffins? Let’s try that for awhile.

    If only it made meadow muffins disappear.

  5. larry kurtz 2016-01-07

    All Republicans are earth haters but wingnuts works.

  6. oldguy7850 2016-01-07

    and you wonder why the Democratic party keeps going down hill in South Dakota… I want to have a true two party system again but it will never happen when all you do is call people names

  7. larry kurtz 2016-01-07

    Anyone who wonders why the SDDP is going downhill is an idiot.

  8. caheidelberger Post author | 2016-01-07

    oldguy7850, I agree that larry’s name-calling doesn’t help the South Dakota Democratic Party. But remember: larry does not represent the SDDP.

    The far more important questions are (1) do you think the Anti-Corruption Act will be good for South Dakota and for restoring the two-(three-? multi-?)party system you and I agree we need, and (2) do you think the SDDP and Democratic candidates can use the Anti-Corruption Act as an effective campaign issue?

  9. oldguy7850 2016-01-07

    yes and yes

  10. caheidelberger Post author | 2016-01-07

    Well, there we go then, Oldguy! Don’t sweat Larry or Mike—they get hot, but they won’t be writing the campaign slogans for any ballot question committees or candidates. Insults in this comment section are not a reason to vote against good policy or against good candidates.

  11. Porter Lansing 2016-01-07

    Speaking of reasons to vote for good liberal policy and great liberal candidates … has anyone else noticed how much more attractive in so many ways the females are at the South Dakota Democratic Party than the women at that inferior party group? Just sayin’. Since the upcoming election cycle is mostly about women, we’ve got the upper hand for sure.

  12. mike from iowa 2016-01-07

    oldguy 7850- a wingnut is a former conservative who went off the extreme right deep and and is now a extremist teabagger type buffoon-ala iowa’s Steve King,Texas’ Louie Gohmert,Minn Michele (one L) Bachmann and a host of others.

    It has nothing to do with whether they agree with me. I don’t agree with them on anything as they are disagreeable poor excuses for human beings and phony kristians as well.

  13. Jenny 2016-01-07

    Goodness, how many initiatives are going to be voted on in SD?

  14. BIll DIthmer 2016-01-07

    Im just curious here but where does the two $50 campaign remittances come from? If you look at 2016 voter numbers that comes to over $51,000,000.

    The Blindman

  15. caheidelberger Post author | 2016-01-07

    Jenny, if every petition submitted is approved, we will have eight initiated measures along with two referred laws and one legislatively submitted amendment. There is still the possibility that this Legislature will do something requiring another referendum.

    [And no more Lynn conversations. She needs to get her own blog to have the conversations she wants to have. She is done hijacking conversations here.]

  16. caheidelberger Post author | 2016-01-07

    Good question, Bill D! The Democracy Credit Fund doesn’t actually get topped off to $100 for every registered voter in the state. The Act assumes that only a small fraction of voters will use the money. Section 68 appropriates $9 for every registered voter. If use is even lower than that appropriation would allow, Section 42 caps the total fund amount at $12 million. Section 60 caps the amounts that can be spent by all legislative candidates at $6M, Governor $4M, and other statewide offices $1.5M.

  17. leslie 2016-01-07

    Cory, is a bill proposed to modify i/r law in light of successful petitions?

  18. caheidelberger Post author | 2016-01-07

    30 House bills, 35 Senate bills, no such bill yet… but stay tuned!

  19. grudznick 2016-01-07

    Mr. H, don’t the law bills come in sort of in an order with task forces and departments of state writing them now and then the legislatures start writing them and putting them on the list and then pretty soon all the crazy amending of a bill about wearing pajamas turns into a bill about gutting hogs and spending billions. Those sneak jobs come later.

  20. leslie 2016-01-07

    I would say we have a winner in rick weiland and despite daugaard , rounds, rounds’ landlord adelstein, tidemann, and any blocking legislation sdgop comes up with In response, rick And The Dems Have A Bright Future In2016.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *