Representative Will Mortenson (R-24/Fort Pierre) wanted to take one small bite at corruption in Pierre. On Monday, two thirds of his House colleagues said they weren’t that hungry.
On February 23, the House took up House Bill 1278, Rep. Mortenson’s proposal to prohibit state officials from taking political contributions from their immediate subordinates in state government. Arguing for his bill, Rep. Mortenson acknowledged that HB 1278 prompts “a difficult and uncomfortable conversation,” which is “an inherent aspect of any ethics bill.”
Former Cabinet member, now Representative Tim Reisch (R-8/Howard) told House State Affairs last week that he felt such pressure to donate to the boss during his Cabinet tenure. From the House floor Monday, Rep. Mortenson said he wanted to protect at least a few of the state employees whom he represents from such corruption. He quoted Theodore Roosevelt on civil service reform:
…[H]e said, “The offices of government should be administered in the interest of the people and not for the benefit of the politicians.” Today I would suggest we are drawing a clear line. We should only ever want those folks who ruin these agencies to be in their jobs because they are good at their jobs. We want them to be interested solely in the practical and efficient administration of government. I think there is an inherent and inescapable pressure when your boss asks you for a political donation. I think no matter the purity of that request, no matter how well that person who’s asking believes in their heart there are no strings attached to it, the person being asked cannot help but feel that pressure. And it may be that several people say well I don’t mind being asked and I don’t mind giving, and that may be true, but there are still many more who are making a decision to reach into their own wallet and give politically for fear of a string being attached, for fear of some impurity [Rep. Will Mortenson, floor speech supporting 2026 HB 1278, South Dakota House of Representatives, 2026.02.23, SDPB video, timestamp 27:36; transcribed by CAH-DFP].
Mortenson urged his colleagues to set aside opinions about current office holders and employees and consider the merits of this bill ten years from now, when who-knows-who will be in office. He emphasized that HB 1278 is “narrowly tailored” (a phrase anticipating judicial scrutiny) and maybe applies to 100 people out of 23,000 working for state government. He said this “small ethical reform… could add a bit more confidence of the public in their government.”
Representative Mary Fitzgerald (R-29/St. Onge) opposed such ethical reform and confidence. She countered that HB 1278 prohibits voluntary contributions “absent any evidence of coercion” (because, apparently, Representative Reisch’s personal testimony affirming what we’ve all heard about how things work in Pierre isn’t to be taken seriously).
Rep. Fitzgerald said current laws already prohibit coercion and campaign contributions are protected political expression. “Public employees do not surrender their constitutional rights when they accept public service.”
Rep. Fitzgerald should know the law better than that. Public employees in South Dakota have to take off their campaign hats, literally and figuratively, when they are on the job (SDCL 12-27-20). Public employees of the federal government surrender constitutional rights under the Hatch Act. Among other Hatch Act prohibitions, federal employees cannot…
- running for partisan office as a partisan candidate (§734.207, §734.304),
- soliciting political donations from subordinate employees (§734.208(b)(4)(ii)),
- personally soliciting political contributions in a speech or keynote address at a fundraiser (§734.303(b)),
- soliciting, accepting, or receiving uncompensated volunteer services from subordinates (§734.303(d)),
- serving as an officer of a political party (§734.409(a)),
- organizing a political party (§734.409(b)),
- managing a political campaign (§734.411(a)
- (Contrary to the concern expressed by some federal employees I’ve encountered while circulating ballot question petitions, §734.402 explicitly permits signing political petitions!)
In rebuttal, Rep. Mortenson said he didn’t want to go as far as the Hatch Act or even other states with HB 1278, but he noted that HB 1278 resembles the part of the Hatch Act that prohibits Senator John Thune’s chief of staff from contributing to his campaign. Mortenson also emphasized that the public employees protected by HB 1278 would still be free to put up yard signs and spend money independently to support whatever candidates they want.
But the House chose not to adopt this narrow ethical reform. 47 Representatives, including all five Democrats, voted to kill HB 1278. Radical leaders and gubernatorial running mates Speaker Jon Hansen and Rep. Karla Lems voted yea, but many of their fellow-traveling right-wing insurgents who talk a lot about fighting the power in Pierre—Baxter, Andera, Garcia, Hunt, Ismay, Manhart, Schaefbauer—voted against checking establishment corruption.