Back in August, Governor Dennis Daugaard said he would back Speaker G. Mark Mickelson’s unconstitutional effort to ban people from Minnesota from giving money to South Dakota ballot question campaigns.
“I’m hopeful that that will have some success and I might just help him out,” Daugaard said.
The Republican governor clarified that he would likely be willing to provide financial backing to the ballot measure committee [Dana Ferguson, “Daugaard to Back Mickelson Measure,” that Sioux Falls paper, 2017.08.03].
Just might help him out? Heck, Daugaard underwrote 87% of the petition drive for what has made the ballot as Initiated Measure 24:
So we have the Republican Governor giving the Republican Speaker of the Republican Legislature $40,000 to put a measure on the ballot. They have the power to move pretty much any bill they want through the Legislature; instead, they place a measure that is sure to fail judicial scrutiny (I think I heard Mickelson himself say on the radio that the odds IM 24 withstands a court challenge is only 50–50) on the ballot to give themselves a platform for calling into question the legitimacy of other ballot questions that they don’t like.
Speaker Mickelson enjoys saying that out-of-state groups are committing a “perversion” of the ballot initiative process. But ballot initiatives are meant to check overreaching or unresponsive governors and legislators. Don’t a Governor and a Speaker of the House “pervert” the process by using their money and power to throw measures on our ballot?
Related: Governor Daugaard didn’t put anything into Speaker Mickelson’s push to raise tobacco taxes for vo-tech tuition relief. Mickelson had to lean on First Premier Bank of Sioux Falls, which, on the authorization of bank president Dana Dykhouse on October 10, 2017, chipped in $25K, 67% of what G-Mick spent on that petition drive.
Wait! Did Mickelson for District 13 House or Daugaard for South Dakota receive any out-of-state money or money through other entities that look like South Dakota entities, but actually have money from out-of-state? I’m betting these fools have funneled out-of-state money through their slush funds to this bogus effort.
It is indeed good that our Governor and our Speaker of the House are both against the insaner, perverted use of out-of-state money to foist experimental legislation upon the good citizens of South Dakota. I appreciate them both ponying up the money that others would not. Bravo, Governor and Speaker. You fellows are true patriots of South Dakota.
Now that’s economic development!
They are against out-of-state money until they aren’t.
Donald, unfortunately, we can’t answer your question definitively. Mickelson and other legislators don’t have to file year-end reports for odd-numbered years, so the last info we have on Mickelson’s cash sources are his 2016 reports. His 2016 pre-general report shows only $7,100 in out-of-state/federal PAC contributions out of $72,650 in total income. No individuals from out of state contributed to his 2016 campaign.
That’s the point, Cory. These guys are using out-of-state money and laundering it through their slush funds. It’s all a hoax.