Former Republican legislator Don Frankenfeld and former Democratic legislator Darrell Solberg, co-chairs of Yes22.org, send out the following press release cheering steps our Legislature is taking to tackle corruption but calling for much more substantive action. Specifically, Frankenfeld and Solberg call on us voters to pass Initiated Measure 22, the Anti-Corruption Act, in November.
South Dakota state lawmakers are demonstrating true bipartisan leadership through their labors on anti-corruption bill HB 1214. The proposal is a step in the right direction toward a range of anti-corruption reforms our state desperately needs. With prime sponsors Representative Mark Mickelson in the House and Senator Deb Peters in the Senate, HB 1214 aims to protect South Dakota from cronyism and special interest influence by preventing certain public officials from personally benefiting from government contracts. It also mandates full public disclosure for additional conflicts of interest not outlawed by the bill.
We support the hard work on both sides of the aisle that went into responding to corruption concerns with this necessary conflict-of-interest reform. While tougher conflict rules are important, there needs to be a way to enforce the law. Without an enforcement agency, the new conflict-of-interest law alone is like a speed limit with no police officers on the road. An independent ethics commission is included in our anti-corruption initiative, which is set to appear on the November ballot.
As the Republican and Democratic co-chairs of Yes22.org, we’ve come together to support the South Dakota Government Accountability and Anti-Corruption Act. Initiated Measure 22 is a tough anti-corruption law, backed by a bipartisan coalition of South Dakota liberals and conservatives. It builds on HB 1214’s reforms by preventing political bribery, closing lobbying loopholes, and strengthening enforcement of the law. Moreover, the Act empowers small donors and gives every voter a voice.
Stronger and more comprehensive anti-corruption policy is needed in South Dakota because our state is at major risk of corruption. A recent national study gave South Dakota an “F” for failing to protect our state government from corruption. We cannot fall prey to the culture of corruption in Congress, where highly-paid lobbyists leverage their cozy relationships with politicians to get lucrative government contracts and tax loopholes. By taking preventative action now, we can ensure that South Dakota’s government represents the public interest, not special interests.
Initiated Measure 22 will make all political spending fully transparent and available to the public, so voters know who is paying for political influence. Lobbyists will no longer be allowed to influence politicians with unlimited gifts and meals. Other key provisions will close the revolving door, disclose potential conflicts of interest, and empower small-dollar donors. In November, the people of South Dakota will have the opportunity to truly protect our state from corruption [Don Frankenfeld and Darrell Solberg, press release, 2016.03.08].
Understandably trying to build bridges and demonstrate our common interest in fighting corruption, Frankenfeld and Solberg are a bit too gentle on Mickelson, whose tepid anti-corruption measures leave too much room for excuses and exemptions to protect corrupt cronies. Initiated Measure 22 provides much stronger protections against the corruption that plagues our fair state.
“Frankenfeld and Solberg are a bit too gentle on Mickelson”
Very true. Feel good legislation designed to deceive the public is what we got. The only way to reduce corruption is to starve the beast by reducing the size and scope of government. Neither political party wants to do that. So IM22 is most likely also feel good propaganda, since it is “backed by a bipartisan coalition of South Dakota liberals and conservatives.” Like to know who the so-called conservatives are. I bet they are really liberal corporate capitalists.
Send money to No22.org
All initiated measures should be outlawed.
sibby-only way to reduce corruption is to starve the beast by reducing the size and scope of government
poppycock
my statement is just as valid as yours
Sibson always talks in generalities and never offer specifics over who these corrupt Democrats and republicans are and how they are corrupt.
The size and scope of government will not reduce or eliminate corruption, only strict laws with consequences will help to accomplish corruption.
Roger HB1182 is a specific example of bipartisan corruption. What fueled it? Tax increase.
I fully support IM 22 the “anti-corruption” measure. Learn more about this topic at https://represent.us/.
IM22 has to do with campaign finance reform, not corruption on state boards and commissions, or in state contracting with external entities. In fact, the only appointed state board or commission to which the initiated measure refers is the Ethics Commission the measure would create.
It’s good that the yes22.org website links to its own 34-page legislative language. It’s bad that the yes22.org website doesn’t have a succinct yet factual representation of the key points contained in the legislative language.
As a matter of curiosity, I wonder whether the proponents have a draft design and estimated budget for the Ethics Commission? Exclusive of the “democracy credits,” I believe it would require significant staff and a budget well into the millions to administer.
The Yes22.org press release is a misdirection capitalizing on popular interest in anti-corruption reforms.
Michael offers a reasonable question about budget for the new Ethics Commission that IM 22 would create, one which I cannot answer.
However, I disagree that the press release is “misdirection.” Read Section 32:
The verbage of IM 22 focuses on laying out the new rules for campaign finance and lobbying and explaining how the new Ethics Commission would enforce them. But Section 32 empowers the Ethics Commission to deal with state ethics laws, which would encompass a wide variety of public corruption.
If there are no enforcement provisions in the Mickelson legislation, under what authority would the proposed Ethics Commission enforce it? The specter of an unelected commission defining punishments (rather than implementing punishments in accordance with state statute) it its own affront to accountability.
By “enforcement,” I mean defined penalties/punishments as well as the mechanism for enforcing the penalties. Sorry for the imprecision in language.
Section 32 is good enough reason for me to vote against this initiative.
1) “prevent corruption and its appearance.” Appearance really? Corruption in the eyes of so many people is a program one thinks is a waste of money or furthers a policy objective one disagrees with. The visceral screeds against anything and everything “economic development” contains a charge of corruption.
2) “protect the integrity of the democratic process” Talk about over-promising and guaranteed to disappoint. Half the problem is the crap that goes on as a matter of campaigns and the other half is under the purview of the Secretary of State. Give me a break.
3) “ensure that state ethics laws are not violated.” Again, over-promising and guaranteed to disappoint. 90% of non-violation of ethics laws are in the hands of day-to-day state employees and their directors. The other 10% is under the purview of state control processes, state auditor, and Legislative Audit.
All sounds good but just a cursory look exposes it is an empty promise and will ultimately feed disillusionment.
oh troy. “appearance of impropriety” is a major part of widely enforced ethical rules in the nation. a high bar is envisioned. google it.
your pooh-pooh of vague generalities leaves us with what? specifics leave too much unaddressed. you have to know something about what you are critiquing to have credibility.
Regent Violated Ethics Rules, Review Finds (we need to look into our own nest feathering regents activities imo)
A secret 2015 report found that a doctor on the UC board of regents tried to negotiate a deal between his eye clinics and UCLA, and engaged in discussions in which he had a financial interest. He denied wrongdoing but resigned as chair of the regents’ health committee.
by Charles Ornstein
ProPublica, May 2, 2016