Press "Enter" to skip to content

Greenfield Quits Substitute Teaching over Anti-Corruption Act

Brock Greenfield
Mr. Greenfield will not be coming in today…

An eager reader tells me that Senator Brock Greenfield has submitted his resignation… to the Clark School District. The younger Greenfield has substitute-taught in Clark, Henry, Florence, and Doland for sixteen years. (Hey, if a substitute teacher can become Senate President Pro-Tempore, I’m inspired!)

Greenfield has told KXLG Radio that Initiated Measure 22, the Anti-Corruption Act, criminalizes his continued substitute teaching by making it illegal for a lobbyist or employer of a lobbyist to give “gifts” worth more than $100 to any legislator in a single calendar year.

Greenfield, who is one of 24 legislators now taking South Dakota to court to overturn the Anti-Corruption Act so lobbyists can keep giving him free meals, says that IM 22 defines lobbyist as “a person who lobbies for a cause or somebody who employs somebody to lobby for a cause.” No such definition exists in IM 22 (here, read the text yourself).

Greenfield says that since the schools hire lobbyists, he can’t work for the schools. My search of the lobbyist registry shows no lobbyists hired by Clark, Henry, Florence, or Doland. Yes, there are lobbyists hired by the School Administrators of South Dakota and the Associated School Boards of South Dakota, but unless Greenfield’s subbing checks come signed by SASD or ASBSD, he’s in the clear to keep subbing if he really wants.

Of course, if Greenfield is serious about getting rid of anti-corruption laws that make it hard for him to do the work he loves, then maybe he should take his lawsuit a step further and fight for the rights of all the public university teachers who become criminals if they win election to the Legislature, or the state and county employees?

But factual reading of the law isn’t in Greenfield and his fellow litigants’ interests. They need to turn up the noise as much as possible to make it sound as if the Anti-Corruption Act is really some awful assault on their basic rights and not an honest effort by South Dakota voters to rein in the corruption that complacent Republican legislators have let run rampant in Pierre.


  1. Rorschach 2016-11-28

    The kids will find some way to get by if he quits substitute teaching.

  2. mike from iowa 2016-11-28

    All I can say is WAH WAH WAH!

    To clean the swamp means alligator tears has got to go, too. Buh bye.

  3. MD 2016-11-28

    When the lawsuit fails, they will make a push to make the legislature a full-time body since they claim they can’t make money anywhere else, so we can spend all year trying to fend off crazy bills.
    I thought the extent of legislative involvement that any government sponsored entity like a school could do is “educate” and not lobby. So what is the problem?

  4. John 2016-11-28

    The saddest part is that someone with the apparent lack of reading comprehension inferred to Mr. Greenfield was t e a c h i n g South Dakota’s children. It’s likely that the students’ performance will improve in his absence.

  5. Loren 2016-11-28

    Welcome to the new era of FACT FREE POLITICS!

  6. Greg 2016-11-28

    So Big Brock is out of a job, leaving him living in his mothers basement watching TV and eating chips. Why do they keep electing him. I t would be fun to see him actually do a real days work. I don’t think he could do it.

  7. Donald Pay 2016-11-28

    Yeah, Cue the violin. Action. Greenfield in full meltdown: “WAH-WAH-WAH.”

    What a fool!!! He was probably going to have to step out of his substitute teaching role because of his added legislative duties anyway, but this give crooked legislators a little bit more to whine about.

    I can’t recall the Rapid City School Districts hiring a lobbyists. Many districts belong to one or two associations. The associations may hire lobbyists, but those associations do not hire any teachers. Often school districts will send their superintendent or a school board member to represent the district at a hearing, often at the request of legislators. They usually have to register as a lobbyist to provide testimony or to speak to a legislator if they are representing the views of someone other than themselves. If they are representing their own views, there is no need to register as a lobbyist.

  8. mike from iowa 2016-11-28

    I’m guessing it doesn’t matter what people like Greenfield say, whatever it is will resonate with his/her voting base and will be taken as gospel.

    How do you fight against that? I get the feeling that R voters aren’t concerned with the truth because truth is messy and painful at times.

  9. jerry 2016-11-28

    Maybe the schools enacted an anti corruption act and dumped this putz for corrupting their children with his methods of the mental corruption of their young minds. There is only so much of a brainwashing a kid can take. After seeing some of this dude’s proclamations, the school’s are better off by dumping him, should have been done some time ago. Good news for him though, according to sam@, George Soros is hiring at Cannon Ball. They say they have good food with Jane Fonda serving, she is kind of a healthnut so he may want to bring a good supply of Twinkies.

  10. caheidelberger Post author | 2016-11-28

    Donald’s comment gets me thinking… maybe Brock is looking at the Anti-Corruption Act all wrong. Maybe it’s not about kicking legislators out of their day jobs. Maybe it’s about reining in lobbyists. If the Anti-Corruption Act prevents employers of lobbyists from also hiring legislators, then maybe those employers (schools, banks, what have you) need to not hire lobbyists. Maybe instead of supporting a professional class of power brokers in Pierre, our public schools need to send in their own teachers and principals and school board members to speak on their own behalf, from their own experience. If the principal who testifies in Pierre on her own behalf isn’t a registered lobbyist, then that principal can still come home and hire a legislator who also happens to be the best-qualified teacher in the pool.

    Did you discuss that possibility with your school boards, Brock? Or were you so determined to engage in this political grandstanding that you didn’t consider your alternatives?

  11. Darin Larson 2016-11-28

    Well, Brock Greenfield’s bump in pay for being part of the Senate leadership now will probably more than offset his loss of substitute teacher pay. He can therefore afford to stand on principle even thought his facts are once again entirely incorrect.

    Then again, he also has his wages for umpiring, doesn’t he? Didn’t he try to get some tax breaks for himself and others similarly situated a few years back? Luckily, he doesn’t have to employ a lobbyist, he can just lobby for himself.

    But to be fair, the Greenfield personal largess is chump change compared to Trump. Trump’s repeal of the Estate Tax along his income tax breaks for the wealthy will save Trump’s family billions of dollars. Divide Trump’s time in running for office and serving as President for the next 4 years by the billions of dollars that he and his family will save and he will be the highest paid person on earth. Throw in the side deals that he and his family will arrange and continue during his presidency and this will be a very profitable deal for the Trumpster. Let the American people eat cake.

  12. Jenny 2016-11-28

    Political Grandstanding is what Brock is doing for sure. Who’s next SD legislators, step right up to get your face on TV. Work that press, get that name recognition. The feeling of power is addicting isn’t it. You got your gun bill, anti-gay bill and ‘corruption is good for SD kick IM22 out’ agenda all lined up and ready to go. What a total freak show in SD, never a dull moment in politics.

  13. jerry 2016-11-28

    Cory, sometimes if you raise a stink about something it is to take your eyes away from the real issue they do not want you to see. These guys are good at that. They make up stuff that really does hide the gravy train they are tying to protect. From the looks of things, that is a lot of gravy. I think that Mr. Pay has nailed it, I wonder what the lobbyists have tossed into the pot to keep their influence peddling going.

  14. Porter Lansing 2016-11-28

    UNFIT FOR PIERRE … Have you noticed that Republicans faced with even the most minor change can’t adapt? Can’t respond? Can’t and won’t do anything but reject change. No trying to find a solution to a problem. No using the brain for it’s intended purpose. Well, let’s help them out with their ethics dilemma.
    ~ Once an ethics commission is established each of the Republicans with a “personal” conflict with IM22 can present their story to the commission, which can then rule on their situation. If it’s a minor alteration from the context of the law, then an exemption can be granted. That’s what an oversight body does. It doesn’t go “FULL GERMAN” and demand absolute and intolerable adherence to anything. My goodness, Republicans. It almost seems that you’re making up excuses to buffalo the public when you’re about to do something wrong … like repealing the will of the people. Hmmmmm?

  15. Stace Nelson 2016-11-28

    Dozens of organizations have canceled their events out of concern for the mess that is IM22.

    The liberal Left has taken a beating the last several years and is down to a handful of legislators in SD. You folks’ recipe for that is to double down with the hand that got you there?

    Brock was one of my mentors the first year I was in the legislature. He is a man of courage and conviction who challenged the policies of the Rounds and Daugaard administration that ran contrary to conservatism and the ethical government many claim to support.

    He has taken giant strides to reform the way our SD Senate runs and now has taken a principled sacrifice on behalf of his constituents.

    Hat tip to big Brock.

    On another note, congratulations to Fidel. He’s finally a good Communist. Good riddance to the murderous Communist tyrant. May he enjoy an eternity in hell with Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, and the rest of their ilk.

  16. Donald Pay 2016-11-28

    Lobbyists serve a purpose, and it would not be constitutional to do away with them. Lobbyists are used by many different groups, whether bankers or teachers unions or environmental groups. Clearly there is a hierarchy of influence based on which lobbyists have more money or expertise or the influence (defined in any number of ways) a group can bring toward pushing their issues. South Dakota could definitely do more to regulate or at least disclose information about lobbying.

  17. Porter Lansing 2016-11-28

    Stace Nelson. How about if any activity that might be contrary to IM22 is grandfathered until a ruling can be made by the new ethics commission. Nothing being done is horrendous or over the top, is it? If the commission finds that what you or your spouse or your employer is do something that just can’t be tolerated and is unethical then a cease and desist designation can be issued with a date that is must stop. Or … don’t you want to find a compromise?

  18. Donald Pay 2016-11-28

    Stace says: “Dozens of organizations have canceled their events out of concern for the mess that is IM22.”

    What specific events are we talking about? Which organizations? Who told them to cancel these events? Is this being orchestrated to make it look like there is some sort “mess that is IM22” because that is what the political crooks demand?

    Yeah, I’m sure they’ve probably cancelled some that bordered on bribery. I suspect others have been cancelled because they have received some pressure from the crooks in charge.

  19. Porter Lansing 2016-11-28

    @DonPay … I suspect Republicans are incensed about having to answer to an ethics commission and are attempting an end run to distract the voters and provide some flimsy, invented excuse why they have to ash-can IM22, in it’s entirety. It’s the ethics board they’re afraid of. Didn’t a former Governor disband a previous one?

  20. Roger Cornelius 2016-11-28

    Do ALL Bible loving Christians dance on the graves of the dead?

  21. o 2016-11-28

    Stace, I have always appreciated your view from the inside on theses issues. Are there elements of 22 that need to be retained to reduce the element of crony capitalism in Pierre? I have seen posturing to repeal it directly or through the courts, but is the baby being thrown out with the bathwater? Is 22 at all a wake up call to get SD’s house (and Senate) in order?

  22. mike from iowa 2016-11-28

    On another note, congratulations to Fidel. He’s finally a good Communist. Good riddance to the murderous Communist tyrant. May he enjoy an eternity in hell with Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, and the rest of their ilk.

    The holidays just bring out the goodness in kristian wingnuts, donut?

  23. mike from iowa 2016-11-28

    He has taken giant strides to reform the way our SD Senate runs and now has taken a principled sacrifice on behalf of his constituents.

    Principled sacrifice based on a fabrication of his very own making. Essentially he peed his pants because he scared hisownself.

  24. Stace Nelson 2016-11-28

    @Donald Pay Lobbyists do serve an important purpose that I did not appreciate before getting into office and for those that are concerned about perpetuating their political futures, you are probably correct about the influence

    @Porter The arbitrary illegality determination and lack of actual current serious problems you highlight is one of the major problems with the whole scheme. It violates the SD Constitution on several levels and is a solution looking for a problem.

    @O The easiest explanation of why this is a mess is to toss the question back and ask what problems do you see each element fixing? There is no secret unlimited donations to legislators. This creates more government that is unanswerable to the voters and drains away much needed funding from actual needs of the taxpayers.

    @Roger Cornelius If my eulogy upset your Leftist sensibilities, you’d really be scrambling for your safety zone if you heard the running cadences Marines used to sing about the butcher of Havana. He was an evil, evil enemy of the USA. I mourn for his victims, suck it up, enjoying my 1st Amendment rights, “Buttercup.”

    @IOWA Mike Ironic you insult Brock and claim he is scared when your so afraid of your own shadow, you post under an alias.

  25. mike from iowa 2016-11-28

    Insult? Hell, that is the gospel truth as spoken by men who know truth.

  26. o 2016-11-28

    Stace, “There is no secret unlimited donations to legislators.” Can you see how this seems to fly in the face of the recent news of many events being cancelled because they would be seen as donations to legislators? It seems like there was a lot of donations flowing to legislators from special interests/lobbyists.

    “This creates more government that is unanswerable to the voters . . .” Again, isn’t that what voters hoped 22 would do: make our legislators – our government – answerable to voters and not to special interests?

    I think legislators need to tread lightly in handling 22. If they rush in to reverse what the voting public put in place, the image will be that of the corrupt system perpetuating itself. This is truly a time for clear and thoughtful analysis – something that I would guess you would say was lacking in the campaign leading up to the vote, but now must not be just as guilty of in your response.

    From conservatives, I hear the term “crony capitalism” thrown around so much that it made me sympathetic to the 22 cause. Insider self-enriching deals seem wrong. As a voter, I saw 22 as an answer to these objections of how my government operates.

    Politics makes for strange bedfellows, but sometimes I think one has to stop and take stock of who is on your side and what are THEIR reasons for supporting your cause. Are all the repeal 22 voices on the side of the angles here?

  27. Porter Lansing 2016-11-28

    In basketball and soccer what Greenfield is doing is called “flopping”. i.e. (faking that someone has hurt you in order to get an advantage).

  28. Stace Nelson 2016-11-28

    @O one of the common requests from voters I have received was LESS appointed commissions. Not seeing how an appointed commission not answerable to the voters makes legislators more answerable to the voters. Probably the best idea is to break up the whole mess into single subject bills, attach tax increases to the costly measures (as it should have been in the first place) and send it back to the voters at the next election.

    In what world is our state better when we make it harder for the citizens to have time with their legislators? These groups represent every facet of SD. They host events for their section of SD, they are in public places, and encourage South Dakotans to be more involved with their state government.

    These laws that do not require mens rea, create criminals where there are none.

    The mess that is IM22 fixes none of the problems that led to EB5 and Gear Up and does nothing to combat that corruption. You were unable to cite one problem that it actually fixes and you ignore the problems it creates which is less involvement of Southern Dakotans in their own government which contributes to the problem of corruption.

  29. mike from iowa 2016-11-28

    This creates more government that is unanswerable to the voters and drains away much needed funding from actual needs of the taxpayers.

    Nelson must think the taxpayers want more abortion restrictions and armed goons running around everywhere.

    Your wingnut buddies made government unanswerable to the people. The people can’t get any papers about Benda’s alleged suicide or any elected official’s role in EB-5 cronyism.

  30. Porter Lansing 2016-11-28

    You’re flopping, too Nelson. What voters have you talked with that say those things? B.S. You’re just making that stuff up aka lying ….

  31. Donald Pay 2016-11-28


    Ha. That’s funny. “Flopping” happens in hockey, basketball and football, too, but soccer generates the most flagrant flopping, until the South Dakota legislators got involved.

  32. Craig 2016-11-28

    I’ve heard more Republicans complaining about the South Dakota Government Accountability and Anti-Corruption Act in the past two weeks than I have seen ethics bills originate from Republicans in Pierre over the past decade.

    That should tell you something.

    They had their chance and they failed to act. We have witnessed corruption often enough to know some action was needed. We were the only state in the nation that allowed unlimited bribes from lobbyists to members of our legislature, and not one person in Pierre thought it wise to address this fact.

    Once again the voters took action where the legislature did not, and once again the Republicans who control our Legislature don’t like what the people have said. So they once again are trying to silence the people. Remind me again who they claim to represent? If not the people… then who?

  33. Stace Nelson 2016-11-28

    @Porter & IOWA Mike Ahhh, the ever intolerant Leftist. Two out of state knuckleheads that think you win elections by being internet trolls who alienate SD voters with their incessant ignorant diatribes. Take a bow you two, that drubbing SD Democrats took the last election? You helped build that. You two are worth your weight in gold in motivating people to not join the SDDP and to register Republican.

    @Porter You keep lying to yourself and think voters didn’t know what they were doing when they gave me 78.20% of the vote, “Buttercup.” You don’t like the truth that you have no clue what’s going on in SD? That doesn’t make me a liar, it just makes you an ignorant blowhard Coloradan out of touch with South Dakotans.

  34. Porter Lansing 2016-11-28

    Nelson … You’re telling us that voters don’t want commissions when they clearly voted for an ethics commission? That’s a lie, Huckleberry. I may keep a home in CO but I control money and property in SD and need no permission to advocate for it against charletons like you.

  35. Darin Larson 2016-11-28

    I’d say when legislators are making up excuses to condemn the people’s vote, it is time for the legislator to consider who they represent and the message being sent by voters. It is not the time to blame the voters.

    It is not the time to claim the sky is falling because we now will have a state ethics commission. It is not the time to claim the sky is falling because legislators can no longer receive gifts greater than $100. It is not time to claim the sky is falling because conflict of interest law now applies to legislators.

  36. Troy 2016-11-28

    A lot of people here giving Brock legal advice. But, if they are wrong, Brock commits a crime and listening to you won’t be a defense.

  37. 96Tears 2016-11-28

    I’ve talked with folks on both sides of this issue, and nobody thought IM 22 had a shot. What’s interesting is the first ones to yell about IM 22 after election day were the lobbyists. Reactions from Democrat and GOP legislators is interesting.

    For the Republicans, like ham actor Greenfield here, it’s clear they’ve realized their puppet strings were cut. They can no longer stand up and think and speak on their own. The lobbyists are the Fourth Estate in Pierre. They get the marching orders from the Governor’s CoS, hook up a leash to the rings in the legislators’ noses and lead they around like the prize hogs at the winter farm show … and with about as much grace.

    I don’t think the Democrats have their arms around this one yet. There’s good news and bad news. The good news: Those insensitive lobbyists can’t bankroll their opponents’ agenda like they once did (don’t worry, money is like water and will find its own way up as soon as somebody finds the loopholes … and there are ALWAYS loopholes). The bad news: If Democrats gain power (which will be the day I win the Powerball lottery), those lobbyists won’t be much use to them either. But no loss, they aren’t that helpful now.

    To Porter’s point, the words that came glaring out of the ballot description of IM 22 were state ethics commission. Voters of all political and age and gender categories saw that as the one thing that made sense to them on the 2016 ballot. There is too much corruption in Pierre. Eight people (that we know of) died violently because of the deep corruption in Pierre. Joop Bollen got away with stashing millions from 100 or more jilted Chinese investors. And there is corruption in Washington, D.C., as always.

    Those who voted yes grabbed their pens like it was Professor Abraham Van Helsing’s wooden stake to drive it through the heart of the corrupt system of governance in Pierre. Bam!

    And, of course, the bloodsuckers screamed. As do their simple-minded sycophants.

  38. owen reitzel 2016-11-28

    @Stace. How is this unconstitutional? Are there parts you like? If so which ones?

    Here is an editorial and a story on IM22. Looks like the Koch Brothers were in on trying to defeat it. Hmm. Do you support the Koch brothers Stace?
    Look, Republicans have talked the good talk about the corruption in South Dakota but I haven’t seen any answers from them yet. Now that you are back in the legislature Stace maybe you can change that.

    Porter made a good suggestion. Lets put everything on hold until the commission is up and running. Seems like a god compromise to me Stace.

  39. scott 2016-11-28

    What the D and R really means to most South Dakotans:


    Overheard this today. I suspect many people have this same philosophy when it comes to politicians.

  40. grudznick 2016-11-28

    The voters were very weak.

  41. Stace Nelson 2016-11-28

    @Porter Southern Dakotans want something done about the corruption, that’s why I was elected. I talked with thousands of voters this year and they made it clear they want the tax, fee, & spending increases stopped. Lecture me about what South Dakotans want when you’re a SD registered voter and go door to door to over 4,000 houses and actually talk with South Dakotans.

    @Owen Read the lawsuit. I don’t know the Koch Brothers. My counsel and support is all South Dakotan. It can’t be suspended by a wave of the hand as Obama did with Obamacare provisions. It requires legislative action to do anything with the mess. As I said, I favor sending it back to the voters broken down in SD Constitution compliant single subject measures with appropriate tax increases on the parts that require funding.

  42. grudznick 2016-11-28

    In the meantime, until Mr. Nelson’s idea can be done, I say we need to figure out a way to just tax the voters who foisted this upon us after it was packaged up by out-of-state shysters and fed to the weak minded.

  43. Greg 2016-11-28

    Stace Nelson, your last two posts explain why nearly 80% of the voters voted for you. You are spot on. The two out of state experts should spend more of their time fixing problems in their own backyard. We really don’t care what they have to say.

  44. owen reitzel 2016-11-28

    I’ll trust my good friend Rick Weiland over your right wing lawyers or the Koch brothers

  45. grudznick 2016-11-28

    Your good friend Slick Rick will have lost all of his South Dakota credibility over this thing, the IM #22, Mr. reitzel.

  46. Donald Pay 2016-11-28

    How about this? IM 22 goes into effect for two years. The negative and positive impacts of the initiative are tracked over this time. For example, we track all cancelled secret meetings between lobbyists and legislators, which legislators and lobbyists can both report. We find out whether the cancelled meetings between lobbyists and legislators caused any negative impacts or had positive impacts. After two years you can reassess and make any necessary changes.

    I don’t think South Dakota lobbyists (or most legislators) are dumb. They have just taken the easy way out: corruption, secret meetings, model legislation, etc. My guess is lobbyists will figure out they can be just as effective by getting more citizen participation in the legislative process. Let the Anti-Corruption Act play out to see whether the reining in of these lobbyist/legislator meetings causes any decrease or increase in citizen participation in the legislature.

    I would hypothesize that the influence of lobbyists under the new Anti-Corruption Act will come not from how much money they can throw at election campaigns, etc., but from how many letters, emails and personal visits they can generate from real South Dakota citizens. In other words, South Dakota lobbyists will adapt and start doing work that will benefit both their clients and South Dakota. Legislators will adapt and start doing the work of the people.

  47. owen reitzel 2016-11-28

    I disagree Grudz. The people voted for it. I don’t get your point.
    I take it you don’t want any transparency.

    And his name is Rick Weiland

  48. Robert McTaggart 2016-11-28

    How are you going to track a secret meeting? Or one that got canceled?

  49. grudznick 2016-11-28

    Mr. reitzel, you are correct. Mr. Weiland is his name indeed. I fell into the Mignon Mike Mindset there for a moment.

  50. Roger Cornelius 2016-11-28

    It’s a damn shame that the republican dominated state government and legislator should even have to have an anti-corruption act and ethics commission in the first place.
    Everyone of them should be embarrassed ashamed that a law like this has to be in place because voters don’t trust them with our money.
    Most of these republican legislators claim to be Bible reading Christians and yet they have continually demonstrated over the past forty years they can’t be trusted, sometimes even by their own party members.

  51. Porter Lansing 2016-11-28

    Nelson … You visited 4000 homes in your district alone which isn’t a large enough sample size to validate your assertion that you know what’s inside the desires of the DoDak voters. The things you say and the foul reputation you have in Pierre are proof of your cluelessness. The passing of IM22 is the only accurate indicator. The voters demanded an ethics commission.

  52. Porter Lansing 2016-11-28

    lol … not DoDak. That’s something else.

  53. grudznick 2016-11-28

    What we need, Mr. C, is more conservatives who are not bible thumpers. We need more Conservatives with Common Sense. Do not confuse bible thumping with being a conservative. For many of them it is just a facade to get some primary votes by the ultra nuts. In reality, then are not holier than you.

  54. mike from iowa 2016-11-28

    koch bros have embraced Saul Alinsky. Yup and now they are turning out gazillions of community organizers of the deplorable kind.

  55. owen reitzel 2016-11-28

    The voters demanded just that Porter.

    Stace didn’t come to my home, but he’s always welcome.

    “What we need, Mr. C, is more conservatives who are not bible thumpers. We need more Conservatives with Common Sense.” Grudz I don’t disagree. But they would be called RINO’s

  56. grudznick 2016-11-28

    They would be called that name only by those on the lunatic fringe, who would then be called the lunatic fringe by all of those in the real majority.

  57. jerry 2016-11-28

    You nailed it Roger, why have a law to protect against corruption unless it runs rampant. Proof positive that the outlaws are running state government. Greenfield quit, maybe maybe not. Why didn’t he defend himself as proof that there is no there there? If you are innocent, why are you spooked?

  58. grudznick 2016-11-28

    This young Mr. Greenfield must have made a lot of money as a substitute teacher. He was probably one of the best and got the highest raises.

  59. Roger Cornelius 2016-11-28

    Did Greenfield vote himself a raise when the past legislature voted to raise teacher salaries.
    If so, that is part of the corruption that exist in Pierre.

  60. Lana Greenfield 2016-11-29

    Four things to say: fact checking is important. There are unconstitutional portions of this joke, IM22/ Check it out. Anyone associated with being employed by a lobbyist organization has to fight this or quit a job…even if their spouses are employed by such organization. The people voted for this as they were duped by misleading ads that we receive bags of secret cash, trips, jewelry…not true at all. Second, NO, Brock did not vote for a raise of teacher salaries (the correct term would be a sales tax increase, not the teacher bill). And third and the most vile statement by an uninformed ignoramus was that Brock stays in our basement. He does not even live in the same town as us. Get your facts correct. And when I am on the subject …maybe the TV ad should have shown the SDEA handing bags of money out to candidates…. Two years ago they doled out a total of 80,000 dollars to just a few select candidates…Check it out on the contribution website of the SOS.

  61. Jenny 2016-11-29

    I agree with Donald Pay, let’s just wait and see how IM22 plays out. Change is always hard but especially more so for So Dak legislators, apparently. Like Roger said, IM22 wouldn’t have been needed if the Party in power hadn’t been so negligent and secretive. Being voted most corrupt is very concerning and frankly, embarrassing to SD voters. The last few years has seen one scandal after another with hardly a word from the governor. The GOP needs to face the hard truth and own up to their misdeeds that have happened under their watch. Don’t blame this on the voters

  62. Porter Lansing 2016-11-29

    That’s crazy talk, Lana Greenfield.

  63. caheidelberger Post author | 2016-11-29

    Oh, those jokers, the voters.

    “Anyone associated” exaggerates the scope of the law.

    “has to fight this or quit a job”—again, the false dilemma. The employer could also stop paying a lobbyist and instead testify on her own behalf.

    “duped”—Again, portraying the voters as too dumb to know what they are doing.

    “trips”—that reminds me: how do all those trips to ALEC meetings get affected by IM 22?

    “jewelry”—really? When was that mentioned? Were there ads featuring jewelry?

    “the correct term” is teacher salaries. We all know full well the intent of HB 1182 and SB 131. Brock voted against raising teacher salaries.

    “SDEA” contributes to candidate campaigns just like the SD Cable TV PAC, SD SOYPAC, Midco, SODAK D-PAC, Northwestern Energy, the bankers PAC, the nurse anaesthetists PAC, the Retailers, the ethanol producers, the Insurance Alliance PAC, the Pork Producers, 6-PAC, VIA Travel PAC, the Specialty Care PAC, wMDU, Energy Transfer PAC (Dakota Access, right?), ALLPAC, NextEra Energy, Eli Lilly, a national insurance PAC, BNSF, Wells Fargo, Pfizer, and CenturyLink, which all gave Brock $6,300 for his uncontested Senate race. Do those “bags of money” bother you, Rep. Greenfield? If you’re bothered by “bags of money,” then you ought to be all about IM 22 and its effort to limit and make more transparent campaign finance.

  64. Darin Larson 2016-11-29

    Wow, $6,300 for an uncontested race from the PACs for Brock Greenfield. What were the donations for? Access, influence, party favors? Money, money, money.

    Let the pigs squeal as IM22 takes away their feeding trough.

  65. o 2016-11-29

    SDEA is the financial political juggernaut you choose to single out (from two years ago)?

    I do appreciate our elected representatives throwing in on the debate here. How do we reconcile the idea of “duped” voters falling for 22 being the self-same voters who elected these representatives (in primaries or general elections)? Statistically, there has to be a huge crossover. Are we only a selectively gullible group?

  66. Donald Pay 2016-11-29

    Dr. McT asks: “How are you going to track a secret meeting? Or one that got canceled?”

    That question, of course, is the point. Apparently there is a lot of caterwauling about the dire impacts of IM 22. Meetings are being cancelled, lions and tigers and bears, oh my! Well, tell us about all these meetings. Who cancelled the meeting? Why was it cancelled? What was supposed to be discussed? Why can’t what was going to be discussed be addressed in public?

    I’m assuming if the legislators want to document the dire impacts of IM 22, people should be willing to listen and make changes. But it can’t be ridiculous scare tactics and whining. People need data about these meetings. Since the public is not usually privy to these meetings, we have to rely on the lobbyists and legislators to provide that data. Give people the facts about these meetings, then they can decide if they should make changes in IM 22.

  67. 96Tears 2016-11-29

    I appreciate Stace Nelson’s remark, “Southern Dakotans want something done about the corruption, that’s why I was elected.” No doubt in my mind. Stace stood up to the power structure, got kicked out of his caucus and remained an outlaw until his party’s voters dismissed his unremarkable campaign for the U.S. Senate against racketeer Marion M. Rounds, the very essence of deep-seeded corruption in Pierre.

    Considering Stace’s tiny base of voters, lack of money and absence of professional consultants, his message never caught fire with primary voting Republicans.

    That’s in the past. Going forward is what matters.

    As I said earlier, voters grabbed the wooden stake and hammered it into what they thought was a cure to the stench and corruption that is business-as-usual in Pierre. I credit them with identifying the problem and a solution. Bam!

    So, it’s a little surprising to see Stace opine here about this possibly imperfect solution, IM 22.

    Going forward, Stace, what are you going to do to be effective as the voters were with their vote earlier this month to drain the swamp? Having you in office, you are one of 105 voices that all see the world from different perspectives. You may give some comfort to your district’s voters, but what about the other two legislators from your district? Are they on board with your plan … and what is that plan to correct the evil in Pierre?

    If your course of action pushes you out of the caucus again, how does that add value to your seat in the Legislature? I mean, it’s going to look cool on your obituary that you, as a Republican, won a new chance to be a legislator. But before you exit the legislature, what are you going to do other than complain about voters already did this month? Remember, they elected you in your district, but they also overwhelmingly mandated big changes in Pierre with their votes as well.

    Which vote was wrong? Electing you or passing IM 22?

    Please know that I’m a fan, even though I’m certain we disagree on a lot of issues. The people have spoken, or as our State Motto says, “Under God the People Rule.” I think this gives you an opportunity to support some corrections to IM 22, but not to demonize it. I think doing so confuses people and marginalizes your reputation as a reformer.

    Don’t come off as a demagogue. Don’t get kicked out of your caucus … stay in it by all means necessary and win the battle. Politics is a game of addition, and it continues beyond the last election.

  68. Roger Cornelius 2016-11-29

    Actually I like Lana Greenfield’s use of the word “duped” as it can be applied to many situations.
    The obvious use is that in every election cycle republicans are “duped” into voting for the same old candidates for the same old reasons.
    They keep us from modern times and creates one financial crisis after another.
    The state legislature is gearing up to fight IM22 by changing the legislation and lawsuits, that will leave little or no time to investigate and prosecute actual corruption. Typical for South Dakota government, allow corruption to go on and bitch about free meals and booze.
    Hopefully one day we’ll elect grown-ups that know the difference between right and wrong without having a law in place to remind them.

  69. Robert McTaggart 2016-11-29


    Sounds like quantum mechanics for politics: The act of observing changes the thing being observed. Maybe you should advocate for legislators to wear body cameras at all times :^).

  70. o 2016-11-29

    Actually, neither Cory or Lana are right in their labeling of 1182 et al: legislators did not vote for that package of bills because they love to raise taxes, nor did they vote for the end to be raising teacher salaries, both of you miss the point. Those who supported, at their core, took action to affirm and realize student opportunity in SD education. Legislators put political careers on the line (some had those careers ended) for the students of South Dakota by taking concrete action to endow our schools with ability to reverse the growing teacher shortage that negatively affects our students.

    Leaving out the true end leaves out the true motivation.

  71. scott 2016-11-29

    It would appear that the same people who voted for Lana Greenfield also voted for IM#22.

    So Lana if you say the voters were “dupped” into IM22, then you are also saying those same voters could have also been dupped into voting for you.

    IMO it is not smart to call the people who elected you dumb as when you say dupped you are saying we the voters are not smart enough to know what we voted for.

    If you do not like the results, then bow out and let your opponents take you seat in the house.

  72. grudznick 2016-11-29

    It almost would appear so, Mr. scott. How do you libbies reconcile that these stupid voters that passed the IM #22 are also so stupid to elect that Ms. Greenfield lady who actually mothered and bore out Mr. Greenfield?

    Are these people, who you claim are wise, just insaner than most in potato country? I would tell you that the Conservatives with Common Sense have few members in potato country. I think there is a reason, and it does not involve eating potatoes with gravy but involves growing the little beasts.

  73. JLB 2016-11-30

    I know I am late to the show, but I think this is a little complicated than than just School Administrators of South Dakota and the Associated School Boards of South Dakota. It depends on how these have been structured, but several school districts have sent administrators to lobby in the past (Sioux Falls and Rapid City), Sioux Falls School District has its own contract lobbyist, and many pay a lobbyist through unincorporated associations which very reasonably could be viewed as employing a lobbyist because they may do this through their joint powers authority or because it isn’t a separate entity (SD United School Association (of which the Clark school district is part of) (once again, I don’t know how these are structured exactly).

    Quite frankly, Sen. Greenfield is acting cautiously and prudently regarding his situation. More importantly, this underlines a basic problem with IM22. Teachers or school district employees in Sioux Falls should be barred from serving in the Legislature, which there is no dispute that IM22 would plainly ban. I don’t think schools should be forced to choose between going to the Legislature and asking for funding or asking teachers (or other employees) that work for them to resign for the Legislature. I don’t think you can honestly say you think that is good policy? Maybe I’m wrong.

    By the way, this doesn’t address legislators whose spouses are employed by school districts or other companies that have lobbyists.

    From reading the ballot explanation or watching proponent ads, no reasonable person would think that IM 22 did any of this. Who defines “gift” as being employed, anyway?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.