Sheryl L. Johnson of Sioux Falls tells me she has filed a complaint with the Secretary of State’s office alleging that the City of Sioux Falls and Kristi Noem’s gubernatorial campaign violated campaign finance law during Donald Trump’s much ballyhooted campaign stop for Noem in Sioux Falls on September 7:
The City of Sioux Falls and Kristi Noem violated campaign finance law #(SDCL 12-27-20) that addresses using public funds for the purpose of influencing an election. This law states:
The State, an agency of the State, and the governing body of a county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the State may not expend or permit the expenditure of public funds for the purpose of influencing the nomination or election of any candidate.
On September 7th 2018 President Trump flew into Sioux Falls to attend a PRIVATE fundraiser put on by Kristi Noem in order to help her raise money for her campaign as well as promote her for governor. The city of Sioux Falls paid for the security costs associated with Trumps visit even though it was for a private, $500 per person, event that was meant to help Noem raise money and win the governorship [link added; Sheryl Johnson, complaint to Secretary of State Steve Barnett, draft to Dakota Free Press dated 2019.01.08].
Johnson ran as a Democrat for District 11 House last year. Her complaint echoes criticism aired last month by somewhat conservative though non-partisan Sioux Falls City Councilor Theresa Stehly, who said “it would be a noble, upright, and ethical gesture” for Team Noem to reimburse $20,000 of the $20,831 the City of Sioux Falls spent providing police protection for Trump’s expensive and exclusively campaign-oriented visit. Absent such reimbursement, Johnson contends the city is making a campaign contribution:
All of the news reports show that the only reason Trump was in Sioux Falls was to help Noem get elected (influence the election). It was not to ‘visit Sioux Falls’ (unless you count the road between the airport and the convention center.) If it had been a public rally that all taxpayers would have been able to attend I would not be pushing for repayment of city taxpayer money but this was for a PRIVATE event that the majority of citizens were shut out of due to the $500 entry fee and it was meant to help Noem win the governorship.
…Security costs for this PRIVATE fundraiser should be reimbursed by the Noem campaign or Republican party. City funds should not be used to help support private fundraisers by candidates! [Johnson, 2019.01.08].
Federal campaign finance law does require that political parties and candidates pay for costs incurred by a President who goes politicking, a fact Trump angrily referenced in criticism of Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama in 2016:
Taxpayers are paying a fortune for the use of Air Force One on the campaign trail by President Obama and Crooked Hillary. A total disgrace!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 5, 2016
Trump proceeded to burn up seventeen million taxpayer dollars on Air Force One alone campaigning for Noem and other Republicans during the 2018 mid-terms.
But Johnson’s complaint doesn’t target Trump or federal dollars; it focuses on South Dakota statute and the South Dakota players, Noem and the City of Sioux Falls.
I do have to wonder, though: no matter what brings people to town, police are supposed to do their job, right? If the Noem campaign can be forced to pay for the costs of having police on the job when Donald Trump comes to town to make another awful speech, can the state, counties, and municipalities force Keystone XL protestors to pay the costs of having police on hand for their peaceful demonstrations against the next black snake?
Related: Trump rallies are scientifically proven to increase violence. Donald Trump is also empirically proven not to foot even the bills he has agreed in writing to pay.
The statute clearly states that it applicable ONLY to “for the purpose of influencing the nomination or election of any candidate.” Expenditure for purposes that may be political in nature that are not related to a specific CANDIDATE. I don’t see a possibility for “mission creep” to demonstrations or issue related events.
Send her a 1099, let her deal with the IRS.
We are not surprised.
I totally agree with Sheryl Johnson. It was an apparent violation of the law.
Maybe she should have just threw a campaign sign wrap on a big hideous truck and drove by the polls every 3 min.
[Terry LaFleur submits here a link to his old and failed complaint against the Secretary of State, the SDGOP, and leaders of the SD and US Constitution Party for somehow causing him not to get enough signatures on his petition to run for governor in 2018, as if that complaint has anything to do with Johnson’s complaint against Noem. Where LaFleur simply provided his link without explanation, I provide this exposition so people know what they are clicking. Note to all commenters: if you submit a link, submit an explanation. Bare links can and should be read as spam or phishing and ignored. —CAH]
Cory I would not think the state could get reimbursement from peaceful demonstrations done by law abiding citizens. This campaign finance law specifically states it is aimed at events specifically designed to influence an election. I can understand that we needed to use our security forces but I just think the taxpayer should not have to pay the costs for it, especially since she raised over $500,000 at the event.
Fair statutory reading, Richard. There’s surely no case to be made under campaign finance law for charging pipeline protestors or other First Amendment exercisers for the presence of police at their demonstrations. But I offer that analogy as a counterexample: we don’t charge visitors an extra fee for the work police do while they are here. Do we risk setting a policy precedent for charging individuals for expressing unpopular views that require some sort of police protection?
Just a pondering. Isn’t the purpose of local security for the sake of maintainjng the local law and order when a person of noteriety comes? And another pondering. Isn’t this the same local security response that occurs with any candidate or high ranking official comes through town? So for all these decades, when a political candidate comes to town and the local law and order is kept by the hosting city, these have been campaign donations? And what was the local spending (and subsequent tax revenue) that was generated by the city of Sioux Falls for this event? I suspect the tax revenue generated took care of the expenditure. And probably more than enough.
I think this is probably a red herring and not worse the money that’s going to be spent on it. Just my opinion.