Rep. Michael Clark (R-9/Hartford) takes a moment to mock public protest as futile:
On the opening day, there was a group of a dozen or so people demonstrating on the capitol steps,in the cold, asking to have their voices heard. That is their right, and I donot [sic] want to take that away from them. However If you really want your voice heard, come in out of the cold, I will buy you a cup of coffee, or hot coco [sic], and we can have a discussion. Waving signs on the capitol steps is media stunt [Rep. Michael Clark, “My Time in Office—Week One,” Dakota War College, 2017.01.14].
Rep. Clark aims this mockery at the supporters of Initiated Measure 22, the Anti-Corruption Act that Clark’s leaders have sued to block and will likely repeal. Hmm… would Rep. Clark issue similar mockery about the Capitol steps rally held by Franklin Graham last May, when legislators weren’t even in town?
And are “media stunts” really that bad? Isn’t getting media attention a vital component of any political campaign? Doesn’t Rep. Clark himself post to a blog in hopes of getting attention for his views? (You’re welcome, MC!)
Rep. Clark takes a separate whack at IM 22 that may at least signal some legislative good sense:
IM 22 is a monster, loaded with (un)intended consequences. Yet, even after being warned twice that the measure would be challenged as unconstitutional, the sponsors still pushed the campaign, and the voters approved it. We, as a legislature, have heard the voters, we know you are tired of hearing about the scandals, tired of hearing about the corruption. We working on a series of bills to address those issues. It is not going be fast, however it [sic] be done right [emphasis mine; Clark, 2017.01.14].
Hmm… I’ve issued warnings about the unconstitutionality of several bills that have come before the South Dakota Legislature: drug tests for welfare recipients, stealth vouchers, onerous petition requirements for independents, ballot selfie restrictions (Rep. Clark! See HB 1034!), abortion restrictions, bills disguising discrimination as religious freedom…. I take from Rep. Clark’s comment on IM 22 above that when the GOP leadership offer bills that might draw lawsuits, he will remain a true Scalian and vote against any such possibly unconstitutional measures. For proof, let’s watch those roll call votes!
Come on MC, prove Cory right with smart voting this session!
Would a 2×4 to the head be better? This guy apparently wants violence. Take away petitions, I&R, and peaceful protests and the only options left are to bow down to corrupt tyrants or 2nd amendment solutions. What is wrong with these legislators.
We did manage to get Rep. Michael Clark’s attention as well as that of the statewide media so just how does he figure our efforts were ‘futile’? It seems to me we are meeting of our objective of raising awareness.
your wasting your time with this guy.
Mr. H, I did not read Mr. Clark’s blogging as mocking as much as I read your pointing out of his spelling errors as mocking, much as I, when deserved, point out your French math.
I think Mr. Clark’s point is that these people could have been more effective if they came inside and talked with people, unless their point was not really to be effective but to stomp around in the cold and be ignored. I think that was the point I made too, prior to this marching that they apparently did. I did not see it on the news but you probably have links to news things with it.
Grudz,
Sure, talk to them. Tell them to keep IM-22 intact. Watch their eyes glaze over as they turn away, at best, or start calling you names.
You know, I spent a lot of years talking to them. They really didn’t want to listen, but they had to because we had demonstrated an ability to put them in the papers in a bad light or use the petitioning process to end run them. We talked to legislators, not because it was a fruitful exercise, but because it gave us legitimacy. So we, felt it was a necessary step to take before doing things that were really effective. We didn’t hold rallies, but we were still looked down on because we threatened their status quo. So, no, rallies aren’t the problem. It’s the brain dead people who inhabit leadership positions.
My experience is that you rarely change minds by talking to legislators. They generally get their marching orders from the elite lobbyists, their corrupt leadership, or the executive branch. Every now and then you will find an independent thinker willing to buck the corrupt system. Sometimes you will find someone who is on the fence on an issue, and you can convince them. You have to have a lot of people writing or coming to Pierre have an effect and even then minety percent of legislators aren’t reachable by “talking to them.”
So, yeah, protests were not my thing, but it got press attention and probably stoked people’s morale. And it pissed off one on the brain dead. So what? You probably can’t reach him anyway.
I won’t dismiss Clark as unreachable. IM22 defenders should talk directly to legislators, at least once, to make their case and identify allies.
But as Mark notes, protest can get legislators’ attention, too. Protest publicly, get voters’ attention, motivate a hundred people to send letters to their legislators, and we ultipled the impact of our words.
Please tell me who initiated the ban on same sex marriages? What did the State of South Dakota spend defending this ban? Seems like that money was wasted.
This year we have a record 24 brand new legislators. They worked hard for year or more. Most of them had a campaign staff of one, maybe two. They trudged through the snow to get petitions signed, they walked in parades, they knocked on doors, shook hands, got chased by dogs, drank gallons of coffee, ate cookies, listen to stories. I gather some were willing to throw in the towel. Still they went on, sometimes in the rain, hail, heat. They did what they had to do.
After eleven months, on election night, they found they had won!
They come to Pierre ready to serve, ready to be sworn in, only to have they hour before they are to be sworn in marred by protests. For these 24 people that day was to be something special, now, their swearing in, will also be forever known as the first day marked with protests.
IM 22 can not continue in its current form. The people have spoken loud and clear. There will be a series of bills that do many of the same things as IM 22. It will take time, however it will be done right.
As far as any other bills,, I will want to see the finished bill before I know how I am going to vote.
Just my opinion: for a legislator to disparage protest because their “special” day is marred by it is petty and likely prompted by a lack of perspective on just what is a legislator’s role in serving the public.
Mr Pay,
Please be advised that the 2nd Amendment is clearly worded as NOT for offense, it is for defense.
Talk like that gives idiots ammunition for their poorly thought out opinions and positions.
Should have written “shallow thinkers” instead of idiots.
Clark thinks we are tired of hearing about scandals, no he is tired of hearing about it, we are disgusted that they happened at all. His attitude is typical of those who just do not want the common person to actually know what they do. That is why we have a Gag Law.
It could be worse in South Dakota if they followed the example of North Dakota.
This not Fake News.
The North Dakota legislature is considering passing a law making it legal to hit and kill DAPL protestors with their vehicles if the protestors are blocking roads and bridges
“marred by protests”? Representative Clark, I’m with Caleb: who do you think you are? What do you think swearing-in day is, a birthday party? We pay you to do a job for a mere 40 days. We expect you to be working every one of those days. No amount of campaigning or coffee or snow-trudging (uphill, both ways!) entitles you not to hear citizens voicing their opinions while you are in Pierre on our dime.
What “marring” is done by citizens who exercise their First Amendment rights at the State Capitol? Some of those protestors worked as hard to get their measure on the ballot and win a majority vote as candidates worked to get elected. How does any of that oh-so-noble toil render any public statement of opposition ignoble?
Hear, hear Citizen Heidelberger. A protest on “Take Pollyanna To Work Day?” A trauma the good Rep. may never recover from.
haha- “We, as a legislature, have heard the voters, we know you are tired of hearing about the scandals, tired of hearing about the corruption.” What year was EB5 scandal? What year were MCEC murders? When did Medicaid Expansion under the ACA become available to cover 55,000 south dakotans? When did Scalia die? When did republicans conspire, with thune, noem and rounds, to to obstruct EVERY action on Obama’s 1st year agenda, 2009. Nothing has happen since then as a result. So a majority in SD vote for an ETHICS bill. And you republicans categorize it like dirty out of state legislation–like what–ALEC legislations and seminars you all go to on the public dollar? What are you waiting for…pitch forks? Tar and feathers? Burning at the stake? Revolution?
Remember when rounds was running for senator, his cabinet member killed himself to hide a scandal? And Tidemann, your republican committee leader decided to soft ball questioning of Rounds about it so it wouldn’t detract from his campaign? Move on right?
Thanks, Porter!
I understand what a pain in the neck it is when the boss shows up at the office to remind you who’s in charge.
Mr. C, do you seriously think they are meaning that or are they just wanting to be funny in that NoDakian sort of way?
MC-
WHAT PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN!? Clearly not the voters, in your opinion.
You were given a clear mandate by the people you represent to enact IM22. THAT is when the people spoke.
You cannot act in the inexcusable manner that you have, and then try to shame the PEOPLE YOU REPRESENT for voicing their opinion on your “special day”.
Your nerve is incomprehensible. If you cared even 1% as much about the people you represented as you do about yourself and your special interests, you might actually be a decent public servant.