CDZ Wow! SD Legislature goes too far! So much for draining the swamp in SD

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by Xelor, Feb 2, 2017.

  1. Xelor
    Offline

    Xelor Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Messages:
    8,160
    Thanks Received:
    1,198
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    D.C.
    Ratings:
    +4,229
    Last November, the voters of South Dakota in a statewide referendum vote passed anti-corruption legislation. This week, the legislature overturned the law saying that voters didn't know what they were doing.

    South Dakota's citizen-led experiment to "drain the swamp" of political corruption appears to have lasted less than three months. Lawmakers in the state Senate voted 27-8 Wednesday to repeal the voter-approved initiative and send the measure to the governor. The legislation was given emergency status so it would take effect immediately when the governor applies his signature — which he said he expects to do.

    The state's voters supported Donald Trump in a landslide last November. They also gave a 51 percent majority to a ballot initiative called the South Dakota Accountability and Anti-Corruption Act. It targeted South Dakota's status as the only state that allowed lobbyists to give politicians unlimited and undisclosed gifts. As a campaign ad said last fall, "Measure 22, the anti-corruption initiative, will stop that. No wonder the lobbyists are so afraid of it. They say you can't take your government back. Yes, you can."

    But the state's governor and many lawmakers say the voters goofed. The repeal battle has drawn national attention, as voters endorsed the measure, lawmakers rushed to court to block it, and its backers have demonstrated in 15-degree weather at the state Capitol.

    So why the rush to repeal the initiative? Critics say the gift language is too broad, a problem, they say, for other provisions as well. Gov. Dennis Daugaard speculated to reporters that voters might not have thought through a provision for public financing of campaigns. "I think it's possible that many voters were either unconcerned or unaware of the degree to which those dollars would be impacting the budget," said Daugaard.

    Some critics say the initiative is a bait-and-switch, promising to drain the swamp but then suppressing free speech. "The bait is anti-corruption, right?" said Scott Blackburn, a research fellow at the anti-regulatory Center for Competitive Politics in Alexandria, Va. "The switch is then to target a broad array of charitable organizations, and anyone who falls even close to the purview of talking about something kind of campaign related." But Josh Silver, director of the national advocacy group Represent.us, which campaigned for the initiative, said the voters accomplished what they meant to do.

    "In South Dakota, the people have had an opportunity to do what politicians have been unwilling to do: that is, pass comprehensive laws around campaign finance, ethics, transparency," he said. "This is one of these rare opportunities for the American people to actually drain the swamp."

    Key Provisions of the IM 22 Referendum (full text here):
    1. IM 22 limits the amounts political parties and PACs can contribute to South Dakota candidates. Right now, parties and PACs can make unlimited contributions.
    2. IM 22 reduces the maximum amount that parties, PACs, and most candidates may accept from individual donors.
    3. IM 22 requires more frequent campaign finance reports and makes those reports available free online in a searchable database.
    4. IM 22 creates a public financing system for elections. Registered voters receive two $50 “Democracy Credits” to assign to the candidate or candidates of their choice. Candidates can receive Democracy Credits only if they agree not to take donations larger than $250 (for Legislature) or $500 (for statewide office).
    5. IM 22 expands the activities the require an individual to register as a lobbyist, increases the penalty for improper lobbying activity, expands “revolving door” restrictions to include appointed directors and top government staffers, and doubles the “revolving door” waiting period between leaving government to working as a paid lobbyist to two years.
    6. IM 22 creates a five-person state ethics commission to enforce all provisions of this law and to investigate and respond to other instances of corruption in state government.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
    • Informative Informative x 2
  2. oldsoul
    Offline

    oldsoul Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2015
    Messages:
    2,236
    Thanks Received:
    346
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Location:
    East side of Spoon Lake
    Ratings:
    +1,157
    Expect a Massive backlash in the next state election. Wow, just Wow. And we are the crazy, uniformed people that have no idea what is good for us? Really? Go figure a bunch of politicians would try to tell their own constituents that they are dumb.

    "So why the rush to repeal the initiative? Critics say the gift language is too broad, a problem, they say, for other provisions as well. Gov. Dennis Daugaard speculated to reporters that voters might not have thought through a provision for public financing of campaigns. "I think it's possible that many voters were either unconcerned or unaware of the degree to which those dollars would be impacting the budget," said Daugaard." So, in other words, Mr. Governor, your constituents are too stupid/ uniformed to know what is good for them. Well, it's a damn good thing they elected you to set them straight.

    Jeez, what a pompous ass. I wonder how long until he faces a recall election....
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. Tommy Tainant
    Offline

    Tommy Tainant Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2016
    Messages:
    10,095
    Thanks Received:
    1,152
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Y Cae Ras
    Ratings:
    +6,874
    Its quite breathtaking. These people throw money round in order to nullify our democratic rights. This must be an issue that unites right and left.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. oldsoul
    Offline

    oldsoul Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2015
    Messages:
    2,236
    Thanks Received:
    346
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Location:
    East side of Spoon Lake
    Ratings:
    +1,157
    Well it should be. Sadly both sides are far too busy bickering over who is more to blame, and have no time left to realise we actually agree this is a problem. I am not, repeat, not referring to politicians. I'm talking about the everyday people out there trying to prove their "side" didn't do this, or the other guys are more to blame. It's time for this country to grow-up and quit worrying about who did what (groups, parties, etc.), we have more important things to do, like fix our Republic. I don't think there are too many people who don't think it's broken, just disagree on why, and what is broken about it. Well, I can clear both of those things up with one word:

    Divided.

    Abraham Lincoln: “A house divided against itself cannot stand."

    So, who out there is adult enough to come to the table to fix the real problem? Are there any?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. Tommy Tainant
    Offline

    Tommy Tainant Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2016
    Messages:
    10,095
    Thanks Received:
    1,152
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Y Cae Ras
    Ratings:
    +6,874
  6. FA_Q2
    Offline

    FA_Q2 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    16,006
    Thanks Received:
    2,359
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Washington State
    Ratings:
    +5,495
    Sad. Hopefully the voters take this to heart and pay the local government there back in kind. I suspect that they are as open as they are to taking it out because it so narrowly passed. Maybe this will get the measure more attention and garner more support.
     
  7. Xelor
    Offline

    Xelor Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Messages:
    8,160
    Thanks Received:
    1,198
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    D.C.
    Ratings:
    +4,229
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. oldsoul
    Offline

    oldsoul Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2015
    Messages:
    2,236
    Thanks Received:
    346
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Location:
    East side of Spoon Lake
    Ratings:
    +1,157
    Hate to break it to you, but Republicans do not have a monopoly on this type of arrogant behavior.
     
  9. Xelor
    Offline

    Xelor Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Messages:
    8,160
    Thanks Received:
    1,198
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    D.C.
    Ratings:
    +4,229
    I'd be interested to learn of instances where Democrat majority legislatures, along with a Democratic governor, have repealed referenda, particularly just a few months after the voters passed it. Jesus H. Christ! The SD legislature and governor didn't even give the measure a chance to "do its thing." I can't go so far as to say it's not happened in modern times, but can say I'm not aware of it happening.
     
  10. oldsoul
    Offline

    oldsoul Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2015
    Messages:
    2,236
    Thanks Received:
    346
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Location:
    East side of Spoon Lake
    Ratings:
    +1,157
    "In Michigan, voters are allowed to overturn laws they don't like. This is how it works: you try and get enough signatures to get a referendum to repeal the law on a ballot. If a majority of voters vote against the law... it's repealed. But there's a catch: laws that have appropriations attached to them cannot be repealed by voters." Michigan Radio
    They simply make it so they don't have to.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1

Share This Page