Legislature Passes 6 out of 11 Campaign Finance Measures

Candidates, committees, and donors don’t have to worry too much about changes in South Dakota’s campaign finance laws. The South Dakota Legislature considered eleven bills tagged “campaign finance” this year*; of the six it passed, only one—SB 8, still awaiting the Governor’s signature—limits contributions. Specifically, SB 8 would end the ability of one wealthy donor to donate the maximum amount to one candidate from her personal checkbook, then write another maximum check to that same candidate from her business account. The Legislature rejected three other bills that would have imposed new campaign finance limits.

Among the other campaign finance bills passed, the one I like best, SB 128, loosens campaign finance laws to allow a ballot question committee to work on more than one ballot question and to remain in existence across multiple election cycles. SB 77 relieves donor-companies of some paperwork but leaves in place the requirement that ballot question committees report goods and services they receive. HB 1003 fixes the 2017 Legislature’s careless omission of the requirement to itemize donations from “entities”. The other two bills are trivial clean up.

The Legislature thus remained mostly timid on campaign finance reform this Session. If you really want to shake up campaign finance, you’ll have to vote for Amendment W/IM 22 2.0 in November.

Here’s the full list of approved campaign bills:

• HB 1002 (Government Accountability Task Force): clarifies that…
  • “ballot question committee” includes groups that raise and spend money to oppose placement of any ballot question on the ballot;
  • treasurers may be responsible for monetary penalties for violation of campaign finance law;
  • statements of organization may be filed electronically.
• HB 1003 (GATF): fixes omission in SDCL 12-27-24, requires committees to itemize donations received after July 1, 2017, from “entities” (businesses, unions, non-profits). Enacted by emergency clause upon Governor’s signature February 5.
• SB 7 (GATF): harmlessly rewords campaign finance limits.
• SB 8 (GATF): subjects committees controlled by the same individual or entity to a single aggregate campaign finance limit. Awaiting Governor’s signature; effective January 1, 2019.
• SB 77 (originally Nesiba, but hoghoused): exempts entities from having to report donated goods and services in ballot question contribution statements under SDCL 12-27-19.
• SB 128 (Haverly): allows a ballot question committee to work on more than one ballot question and to remain in existence across multiple election cycles.

…and the defeated campaign finance measures:

• HB 1176 (Dennert): require pre-primary reports from candidates not on primary ballot.
• HB 1216 (Gosch): cap out-of-state contributions to ballot question committees at $100K.
• HB 1267 (Wismer):
  • deny $25K+ government contracts to campaign donors for one year;
  • ban lawyers working cases involving the state from making campaign contributions.
• HB 1282 (Jamison): require ballot question committees to say “Paid for in-part with out-of-state money” in all ads if they receive any out-of-state contributions.
• SB 129 (Sutton): impose lower campaign finance limits.

*Update 12:02 CDT: I neglected to include Senate Bill 128 in my original post. LRC coded SB 128 under ballot question, elections, and public records, but not campaign finance, even though SB 128 amends three parts of the campaign finance chapter, SDCL 12-27.