Unlike Speaker G. Mark Mickelson (R-13/Sioux Falls), who thinks the proper remedy to the scourge of big money in ballot measures is an unconstitutional ban on out-of-state contributions, Senator Reynold Nesiba (D-15/Sioux Falls) says we just need more transparency.
Senator Nesiba seeks that transparency with Senate Bill 77, which would require ballot question committees to file a new “circulation report” in odd-numbered years, the years in which committees circulate petitions for initiatives. The meat of SB 77, Section 2, amends our statute setting the campaign finance reporting schedule to define when we get a circulation report:
Circulation report for a ballot question committee in an odd numbered year: by the first day of July for the reporting period commencing with the filing of a statement of organization submitted up through twenty days prior to the first day of July, or by not less than thirty days following the filing of a statement of organization for the reporting period commencing with the filing of the statement of organization submitted up through twenty days following the day of filing the statement of organization, whichever is later… [Senate Bill 77, published 2018.01.16].
SB 77 intends to put information about who’s bankrolling a petition drive in our hands while the petition drive is happening. The wording necessary to make that happen is tricky: set a specific date for reporting, and sneaky sponsors could either delay their fundraising (to leave a July 1 report uselessly blank) or speed up their circulation and submit early (to reduce or avoid the public-relations impact of an October 1 report). SB 77 thus takes an either-or approach: committees file circulation reports on July 1 or 30 days after they file their statements of organization, whichever date is later.
Unfortunately, SB 77 doesn’t guarantee the transparency it seeks. A sneaky sponsor could still organize on May 31, start taking big donations on June 11, and submit an honest circulation report on July 1 showing zero donations as of June 10. We then wouldn’t learn anything else about the ballot question committee’s funding until May of the following year, more than six months after the petition drive ends. Currently, we get a year-end report by the end of January, but SB 77 strikes that requirement in odd-numbered years for ballot question committees. So really, SB 77 doesn’t give us more transparency; it just moves when that transparency happens.
Plus, check SB 77’s language for reporting after July 1: it says later organizers must file circulation reports “by not less than thirty days following the filing of a statement of organization….” So if I organize my committee on July 1, I can’t submit my circulation report until July 31. But August 1 would also be “not less than thirty days following the filing of [my] statement of organization.” So would August 2, or August 20, or December 20… uh oh! SB 77 actually creates the reverse of a deadline… or a lifeline for sneaky ballot question sponsors.
A circulation report is a good idea, so let’s rework SB 77 to better achieve its goal of transparency:
- Require a ballot question committee sponsoring a petition to submit a circulation report no later than 30 days after the Secretary of State approves the petition for circulation covering all financial activities up to 20 days following that approval.
- Require all ballot question committees (sponsors and others) to submit a pre-deadline report by 20 days before the petition filing deadline covering all financial activities up to 20 days prior to that filing date.
Yes, that’s one extra report. Yes, that’s a burden for committees. But if we want transparency to alert folks to big money influencing our ballot measures, that’s the price we small-money campaigners have to pay.