Press "Enter" to skip to content

SB 95: Legislature Considers Letting Candidates Buy Their Way onto the Ballot

The South Dakota Legislature is considering a petition reform that could completely eliminate the petitioning process for candidates with money.

Senate Bill 95, served up hot this morning, would allow candidates to buy their way onto the ballot. SB 95 leaves in place the current petition process, under which candidates must obtain signatures from registered voters equal to 1% of the votes cast for their party’s gubernatorial candidate in the last gubernatorial election (or 1% of the total gubernatorial vote for our oppressed Independent candidates). But if a candidate doesn’t want to burn up all that sweat and shoe leather, if actually going out and talking to voters and checking signatures is too darned hard for a candidate, Senate Bill 95 would let that candidate throw money at the problem. Candidates could simply send a “notice of candidacy” to the Secretary of State plus a filing fee equal to 1% of the salary for the office they are seeking, and presto! Money puts them on the ballot.

At current rates, candidate filing fees would be as follows:

The prime sponsorship of Senator Ernie Otten (R-6/Tea), no great thinker when it comes to petition matters, does little to inspire my confidence in the wisdom of Senate Bill 95. Gathering signatures has not appeared to pose an undue burden on candidates seeking to get on the South Dakota ballot. Senate Bill 95 seems more a response of politicos made nervous by the Attorney General’s willingness to take petition fraud seriously.

Gathering signatures has only been a problem for candidates who either cannot or don’t want to follow the rules for petitions. Those rules currently serve as a basic civics test for candidates to demonstrate they have some nominal ability to read and follow the laws that they are asking for the power to change. If those rules pose a problem to candidates (and I contend they don’t, at least not one that is addressed by Senate Bill 95), the simple personal-responsibility solution is for each candidate to study a little harder and follow the rules, which would be good for everybody. Strangely, Senator Otten and eight Republican co-sponsors choose a bureaucratic, big-money response where they let people with money escape those rules.

I understand that circulating petitions can be viewed in monetary terms. Campaign contributions, just like signatures, signal some level of popular support. But signatures ensure an equality of voice that a filing fee does not. It takes me the same effort to gather a hundred signatures as it does the richest man in Brown County. If it takes 2,000 signatures to make the ballot (that’s just a bit more than what Republicans Kristi Noem and John Thune have to collect this year to run), each signer counts for exactly the same one two-thousandth of the authority of that petition. Add a filing-fee option, and the voices of the 2,000 people who put John Thune on the ballot are given the same weight as one person, maybe not even a South Dakota voters, who hands a challenger $1,740 to cover her filing fee.

Think of the petition problem in terms of parliamentary procedure. Organizations conducting business by Robert’s Rules of Order generally require motions to have a second as a simple test to ensure that more than one person thinks an idea is worth discussing. The petition process is like asking for a second from the electorate, a small percentage of voters willing to submit a candidate for general consideration. SB 95 is like adding a provision to parliamentary procedure that says that instead of getting a second, a member can simply shout a motion and throw money at the chair.

I understand there are many ways in which money buys access to the political process. But Senate Bill 95 adds another avenue for money to influence the political process without identifying any substantial problem that needs to be solved. Senate Bill 95 feels neither right nor necessary.

15 Comments

  1. Mark Winegar 2016-01-27 12:46

    SB 95 is a bad idea and I would not support it. Representative government begins with the nominating petition.

  2. mike from iowa 2016-01-27 13:12

    But if a candidate doesn’t want to burn up all that sweat and shoe leather, if actually going out and talking to voters and checking signatures is too darned hard for a candidate, Senate Bill 95 would let that candidate throw money at the problem.

    Oh,oh,oh! Pick me-pick me, Why not let ALEC train new pols and pay their fees to get them on the ballot? Silly Libs prolly still believe that buying pols has any influence on legislation. Silly buggers. Plus it would be discriminating against poor people,so there’s that,too.

  3. Eve Fisher 2016-01-27 14:22

    Wanna bet that one of the arguments some legislators will use in favor of this is that a percentage of the fee will go to… teachers’ salaries! “See? We really care. We really, really do!”

  4. jake 2016-01-27 15:52

    This absolutely stinks like a dead carcass!! ALEC inspired for sure.

  5. Roger Elgersma 2016-01-27 17:41

    Obviously we have someone in the legislature that does not believe in democracy.

  6. Bob Newland 2016-01-27 19:47

    Having worked on a number of petition drives, both for issues and for candidates (including myself), I see no problem with offering folks the option of simply paying up front to get an issue or a candidate on the ballot.

    A petition drive is also a campaign tool, just like spending money is. In the end, the voters check off a box on the ballot, based (usually) on their (lack of) knowledge about a candidate or an issue.

  7. leslie 2016-01-27 19:57

    1. Cory tackles petition fraud. Republicans eliminate candidate petitions.

    2. Lakota elder, an educated spiritual man seeks to change a sacred place name to one that serves its purpose, passionate comments in support-much like votes-flood out of the woodwork. Dems vocally support the change. Legislature takes away local initiative and says NO. Paternalism and Schoebeck/Bolin/Daugaard politics, but not culture, prevail.

    3. Susan Wismer, knock Thune off!!! WISMER/HAWKS-an UNBEATABLE TEAM for SD. We’ll oust “EB5 Rounds” yet!

    What an unenlightened state majority party and populace. Born and raised here. Made a contribution in west river. Maybe winston is wrong about local party work and our only hope is a Democratic President. Again.

  8. John 2016-01-27 20:09

    Can “buy a verdict” be far behind? “buy a vote”? I hope his electors are proud of what they sent to Pierre.

  9. Bob Newland 2016-01-27 20:20

    “Buy a verdict” is already in effect. “Buy a vote” is already in effect.

  10. Joe 2016-01-28 10:43

    I’m not terribly against this idea, I believe other states have a similar formula, I might tweak it a bit, but the big problem is South Dakota is viable candidates for these elections.

    Contrary to what everyone says, South Dakota’s problem is not that the rich buy elections, its that the rich arrogant people are the only ones interested in those positions.

    So I’m not against this, I’d also up the salary to $22K a year, I’d probably cut a few seats in each house, I’d offer a summer program where if they want to live in Pierre part time they’d make decent enough money, to be on committees and task force. So again they aren’t spearheaded by a select few who have the time and money to sit on those committees. I’d probably expand the session a little bit. The other thing I’d do is if you resign during your session, you’d have to pay a fine, it would be pro-rated to at what time you resigned within your term.

    Anything to recruit people to want to run, so its not the same ole, rich retired people, arrogant people who can afford it and have time, and the self employed. Which I’m willing to bet if you look at Pierre over the past 10 years, 95%+ fall into one of those 3 categories.

  11. John Wrede 2016-01-28 13:34

    One can’t help but assume that historical legislatures and honest responsible politicians crafted the petition process for reasons associated closely to maintaining a constitutional democratic process. In this simple citizens purview, there has yet to be a showing that demonstrates that historical legislator’s thinking was faulty or counter productive to good results. This is yet another solution wandering aimlessly about looking for a problem. This legislature spends far to much time and far to much of our money attempting to invent new control mechanisms than it does problem solving. What we honestly need to do, as a prerequisite to any bill introduction is require bill sponsors to articulate several pertinent questions about the bill. “Is there a problem?” “If there is a problem,does it affect every citizen; and if it does, how does it do so?” “Does this bill fix the problem?” If so; how does it fix it and how much money will it cost?” “Is the measure enforceable and if so, who’s responsibility is it to enforce it and what are the consequences if it isn’t enforced.” Legislators and constituents that think this sort of thing up haven’t got enough to do and apparently are not capable of long term thinking much less planning! Why do we continue to support them and this self centered idealism?

  12. mikeyc, that's me! 2016-01-28 16:48

    Well said, John.

  13. leslie 2016-01-28 17:37

    John new laws are not about solving problems. They repay supporters. There are no ethics or socialistic philosophies in the repub party. Most repub legislators are to cut a fat hog for themselves. Quick road to power and career in a little state.imo

  14. clcjm 2016-01-29 21:02

    Senate bill 95, neither right nor necessary?? How about fundamentally unconstitutional? !? More blatant evidence that Republicans clearly believe all elections should be up for sale!

  15. caheidelberger Post author | 2016-01-30 14:07

    But there’s a good question, CLCJM: is it unconstitutional for the state to require candidates to pay a filing fee to get on the ballot?

Comments are closed.