Press "Enter" to skip to content

Mickelson Making No Effort for Initiated Measure 24

The Secretary of State’s office is slow on posting the pre-general campaign finance reports that were due Monday. Ballot question committee finances are still incomplete.

One form did get in early: on October 10, Speaker G. Mark Mickelson submitted the pre-general for his “Protect Our Ballot SD” committee supporting Initiated Measure 24, the unconstitutional and laughably hypocritical ban on out-of-state contributions to ballot question committees. Apparently, Mickelson hasn’t spent a dime to support his ballot measure:

Summary page, Protect Our Ballot SD pre-general report, signed by treasurer Nathan Hall, filed 2018.10.10,
Summary page, Protect Our Ballot SD pre-general report, signed by treasurer Nathan Hall, filed 2018.10.10.

Neither this pre-general report nor the pre-primary report from May 18 show any fundraising on behalf of IM 24. The fact Mickelson filed a full week before the final day of activity required to be accounted for on the pre-primary report signals Mickelson didn’t expect any income or expenses, either. With no committee organized against IM 24, Mickelson may figure he may not need to make the effort. But one may also wonder if IM 24 is just clutter on the ballot, some wishful thinking that Mickelson wouldn’t mind seeing luck into an inattentive Yes (but come on: inattention produces nays, not yeas) but which better serves its purpose by obfuscating real issues and promoting a general “Vote No on Everything” attitude that helps defeat the Republicans’ single biggest target, Amendment W and any restoration of Initiated Measure 22.


  1. Donald Pay 2018-10-24 13:50

    I think we all realized it was con from the very start. Maybe some of that balance will be spent, but I assume he’ll find some corrupt way to transfer it to himself or some corrupt politician or political campaign.

  2. Debbo 2018-10-24 23:53

    Every time i read anything about him, I feel a bit of sadness because I think of his father. Gov. George Mickelson was such a good and decent human being who tried to do the right thing by South Dakotans of all ages, skin colors incomes, jobs etc.

    And then there’s this kid. Where did he come from? Talk about tarnishing the family name. smh 😞😔😕

  3. Donald Pay 2018-10-25 08:37


    Yes, George Mickelson was a decent guy, although it just may have been that after Janklow anyone would seem decent. I had supported Lars Herseth, but I knew Mickelson to have been one of the Republicans who opposed the Oahe Irrigation Project. I thought Mickelson was much better than his administration, but he was really slow to react to the sewage ash scam, when that Janklow project blew up in his face. He had some bad advisors working in the Governor’s office that took him in bad directions on some key issues. His Centennial Environmental Bill, as introduced, was a great piece of work (also violated the “one subject” rule), but it was somewhat gutted, and he was conveniently out of town and sent no one to defend it when the legislature amended it. That, I’m sure was a planned gutless move. In a gesture of compromise, we had pulled our bills to support his bill. That, of course, was our mistake. He tended to flip-flop on the Lonetree dump. I think he wanted to be against it, but the elite Republicans were all for it, so he would find himself going back and forth. Pat Duffy and I really gave him fits over that. But “Families First” came around to become a decent effort and his “Year of Reconciliation” was saintly.

    Yeah, G. Marky must be a real disappointment to his father.

  4. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2018-10-25 21:18

    G. Mark Mickelson’s legacy: more hog CAFOs and more personal profit, and less power for the people. And a couple of crappy ballot measures that will lose.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.