The latest Dakota Free Press poll seeks your opinion on the longest initiative on the South Dakota ballot, Initiated Measure 22, the Anti-Corruption Act! Weighing in at 70 sections, taking up 28.3 pages of the Secretary of State’s 45-page handout of ballot measure text, and chock full of strike-and-insert language, IM 22 is easily the hardest measure around which to get one’s head. State ethics committee, new restrictions and reporting requirements for lobbyists and candidates, lower limits on campaign contributions, and those $50 Democracy Credits that the Koch Brothers do so loathe—it’s a lot to digest!
But you, dear readers, aren’t afraid of a challenge. Weigh in now: “How will you vote on Initiated Measure 22?” Vote in the near-right sidebar (view the screen in full browser mode, and there the poll is, right next to this article, right above the recent-comments widget). We’ll run this poll through Monday breakfast, then talk about the results.
Speaking of the Koch Brothers, their South Dakota minion Ben Lee reports raising $19,110 from South Dakota individuals, PACs, and parties while spending nearly $627,000 (including in-kind contributions) in Koch resources from the Americans for Prosperity office in Arlington, Virginia. That’s over 97% of the Defeat 22 money coming straight from the Kochs.
On the pro-22 side, South Dakota activist Rick Weiland’s TakeItBack.org has chipped in $11,125. South Dakotans for Integrity has received over $688,000 from Represent Us from Florence, Massachusetts, and nearly $664,000 in individual contributions. SDI lists those individual donors in two massive tables (see here and here)—kudos for detail down to single-dollar contributions, but raspberries for a non-searchable PDF sorted by first name—with gobs and gobs of small contributions, plus $275,000 from Sean Eldridge of Garrison, NY; $100,000 contributions from Jeffrey and Katherine Abrams of Beverly Hills; $100,000 from Mark Gallogly and Lise Stricker of New York City; $25,000 from Jonathan Soros of New York City; and three contributions totaling $30 from “Remove me from your list. I sdo NOT WANT TO C” from 435 East 57 Street, NYC.
Both sides in the campaign finance reform fight are getting the vast majority of their money from out of state. But at least the pro side is breaking down their individual contributions, while the Koch Brothers fight campaign finance reform to keep their high-roller donors secret.
I just watched my granddaughter do voting remotely on a paper to put in a big envelope and was proud when she voted NO on this abomination of a measure. She voted yes on a couple things but I still urge everybody that if you are unsure at all about this Mickey Mousing around by people like Slick Rick the fancy bistro owner and his rich out-of-state cronies, Vote NO on Everything!
Your obsession with saying No is reaching spam proportions, Grudz.
Why do you see fit to throw petty insults at a South Dakota restaurant owner, whom you portray as somehow too rich for our blood, but not at the Koch Brothers, who are far richer and far less interested in South Dakota’s well-being?
South Dakotans need to take a stand against corruption. I voted Yes on 22 and see it as a good start towards rising from 47th in the 2015 State Integrity Study. Also, the creation of an ethics commission will go a long way towards ridding ourselves of corruption in South Dakota.
Grudz must be getting some kind of kickback from the Thune,Noem,or Rounds, Or is just too lazy to invest in understanding politics or honestly wanting to get rid of corruption.It sounds good to win an election, Although it’s just too much to ask to truly do something real about it. These are the issues that count, It takes years for a presidents actions to trickle down to us. So if you want real change the issues on state ballots are the ones that count.
I don’t care for any of those fat cats playing in South Dakota politics like it’s their own personal political Petri dish, Mr. H. When all the funding for a campaign “against corruption” is funded by dark money, you must vote NO.
I’m voting “No”. It was unwise to make it so long and the $50 credits idea seems odd. I would benefit from the mo ey, but that doesn’t make it good policy.
I will be voting against this monster.
We have tradition here in South Dakota, One bill , one topic, this is an omnibus of bills thrown together.
I also agree with Grundznick, South Dakota is our home, not something that can be used for political experiments.
Grudz, when did the Koch brothers move to South Dakota? Last I heard the lived in KS making their economy great. (look it up to appreciate the irony) These guys are the kings of fake astro-turf organizations and dark money.
Of course you know that they fund AFP, ALEC, the Great Plains Policy Institute, FGA and United for Privacy? Right? Use the Google Grudz…you might be surprised…or god forbid informed.
That’s the out of state money driving the opposition.
Grudz, your commentary has made me think of Groucho Marx when he parodied thinkers and new ideas…can you dance like him?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtMV44yoXZ0
MC, you’re correct. There is one topic – corruption – it’s just a stool, a three legged stool to fight the corruption that is endemic in Pierre.
grudz’s is simply crying out for attention just like his favorite presidential candidate Donald Trump does
This is an everything and the kitchen sink IM. Had to vote no. Break it down into digestable pieces and it may pass – next time.
Nick, none of my funding came from dark money. We will have to wait to see if that has a negative impact on my bid for office. My point is your response is in error. Clearly not all funding comes from dark money. Except for two significant contributions, all my money has come from individuals.
The fact is too many bills introduced in South Dakota did not originate in South Dakota by South Dakotans. I propose legislation that will clearly identify the originators of every bill introduced into our state legislature. South Dakotans should know where these bills come from.
One bill, one topic? Tell that to Dennis Daugaard with his 2013 SB 70 criminal justice reform, which somehow managed to include fiscal analysis requirements for voter initiatives.
That said, I sympathize with Ben’s distress, something Weiland and friends had to be aware of: the more specific policy planks you write into a bill, the more separate reasons different folks can find to vote against it. Consider Amendment R: had the Legislature written the means of vo-tech governance into the amendment, it would have tanked for sure. Instead, the Legislature wisely chose just to say that the Regents won’t run the vo-techs but empowering themselves to decide who will.
But sometimes, as Jana says, you have to address a single problem with multiple legs.
(Hey, let’s not confuse our in-house satirist grudznick with our man Nick Nemec!)