Supporters of the 36% rate cap on payday loan interest have complained that a new ad from Brett Koenecke’s new Credit for South Dakota ballot question committee improperly advocated both defeat of Initiated Measure 21 and support of Amendment U. Backers of the real rate cap were forced to file separate committee notices to advocate for 21 and against U; they feel Koenecke likewise should have had to file two committees for each ballot measure.
But to whom to complain? As Bob Mercer notes, no one in Pierre seems to be taking action on questions about violations of campaign law. When I tried to file a complaint about violations of notary law over the fraud-filled Lisa Furlong petition for Amendment U, I was bounced from the Secretary of State to the Attorney General’s office to the Minnehaha County state’s attorney to the Minnehaha County Sheriff’s Department to the Sioux Falls Police Department, which tried to bounce me back to Pierre before finally dispatching some poor detective to take my statement two months ago. I have heard nothing since.
South Dakota has no campaign finance cops. Initiated Measure 22, the Anti-Corruption Act, creates a state ethics commission, which could act as campaign finance cops. That should tell you why the Koch Brothers are spending so much money to oppose IM 22: they don’t want the state to have power to check their big-dollar influence over our elections and Legislature.
Want someone to act on campaign finance violations? Better vote for IM 22.