Group wants "transparency" only from others

Since Howie Rich has acknowledged that he's pouring a lot of money -- as much as $1 million by some estimates -- into South Carolina to influence state elections and government policy, and it's clear that he's doing something similar in Alaska with the "Anti-Corruption Act," I wonder if he'll reveal himself in South Dakota, too. According to the Aberdeen newspaper, Lee Breard is probably the person who knows best whether Rich is behind IM 10, since Breard founded the South Dakota Conservative Action Council, "a nonprofit group endorsing Initiated Measure 10 and providing more than 99.5 percent of the funding for it."

South Dakota Conservative Action Council isn't funding the campaign directly, but sending its anonymous donors' money to the South Dakotans for Open and Clean Government instead.

By my reading, IM 10 would take away the right of thousands of South Dakotans to contribute to the candidates of their choice, but it would leave corporations free to influence state government. The Alaska "Anti-Corruption Act" does the same thing.

Breard doesn't describe it that way, though.

...Breard is championing a ballot initiative this fall that he claimed will restore openness, transparency and public trust in government. Initiated Measure 10 would, if passed, restrict political donations by people with some state contracts, ban government-funded lobbying, and require the government to create a Web site listing all state contracts.

BACKER: INITIATED MEASURE TAKES ON STATUS QUO IN SOUTH DAKOTA
Aberdeen American News (SD) - August 11, 2008

The Aberdeen American may have asked Breard if Howie Rich was the source of the non-profit's funding. But if it did, it didn't get far.

The SDCAC is not required to report where it receives its funding and Breard declined to release more information. Dena Espenscheid, the spokeswoman for South Dakotans for Open & Clean Government, declined to comment, saying the group would not respond to press inquiries until closer to the election.

Others have commented on the measure's potential impacts and limits to free speech.

Jason Glodt opposes the initiative both in his role as the political director for the state Republican Party --- both the Republicans and the Democrats adopted resolutions to oppose Initiated Measure 10 --- and as a member of the Pierre City Commission. Speaking in his capacity as a city commissioner, Glodt said he believed the measure would weaken Pierre's voice.

"It's important to have that type of representation before the Legislature to represent the best interests of our cities, whether it be maintaining local control or protecting our municipally owned utilities," Glodt said.

Glodt said lobbying the Legislature is "not just an issue of testifying before a committee" as Breard implied. "It's a matter of talking to dozens, if not 105 legislators who will decide on an issue," Glodt said. "Contacting and working with those legislators is a lot of work."
...
Conservative blogger Pat Powers has repeatedly criticized Initiated Measure 10 on these grounds.

''The component that prevents people from making political donations in effect limits their free speech ability to support a candidate of their choice,'' Powers said. ''It goes so far beyond addressing possible corruption. It cuts people out of the process, unnecessarily so.''

Glodt said this clause would affect many more people than its sponsors were perhaps intending. Basic city purchases such as new tires would qualify as contracts, and anything more than $500 would make the owner of that business unable to donate to candidates in the town where they live.

"There's hundreds if not thousands of contracts like that that would affect businesses in this community and effectively silence their right to political speech," said Glodt.

Breard's response: Breard said the law is a fair exchange.

It looks like not many agree with Breard, though, especially in the economic development community. The leader of an Aberdeen organization even calls IM 10 "dangerous."

Economic development groups would be hurt if South Dakota voters approve a proposal designed to prevent such groups from lobbying, an Aberdeen development professional said on Wednesday. "It's very dangerous and very poorly written," Julie Johnson said of Initiated Measure 10, which will be on the Nov. 4 ballot.

The measure, if passed, would prevent development groups that receive public money from lobbying on their own behalf before county commissions, city councils and the like, said Johnson, executive director of Absolutely! Aberdeen.
...
Proponents argue the measure would restore openness, transparency and public trust in government. In addition to banning lobbying by government-funded groups, Initiated Measure 10 would restrict political donations by people with some state contracts and require the government to create a Web site listing all state contracts.

"It goes way too far," Johnson said, and is not the law in any other state.

Corey Brown, executive director of Gettysburg Whitlock Bay Development Corp., said he is concerned that the group funding the campaign for 10's passage is not releasing its money sources. Brown said it's an out-of-state effort that is using South Dakota as a testing ground.

PROPOSED MEASURE COULD HAVE IMPACT ON DEVELOPMENT GROUPS
Aberdeen American News (SD) - September 11, 2008

Still, the question of who's behind the South Dakota group isn't answered.

The people on the "No" side of the issue have put their own information out to the public, though.

Opponents of Measure 10 say thus far, they have been the models of openness. The coalition of opponents ranges from Associated General Contractors and South Dakota Education Association to South Dakota Volunteer Firefighters Association and South Dakota Student Federation. Campaign finance reports filed in Secretary of State Chris Nelson's office show only a bit of money in the coffers for No on 10, but spending won't be known until reports come out Oct. 24.
...
South Dakotans for Clean and Open Government, meanwhile, filed a midyear report that showed $195,360 in contributions, with $195,000 coming from the South Dakota Conservative Action Council. The group reported spending more than $198,000 during the period, including almost $183,000 for advertising.

[Spokesman Greg] Dean criticized Open and Clean Government for failing to break down contributions from the Conservative Action Council. "We believe it's hypocritical to ask government to be open and honest about its level of funding and contractual relationships at the same time the proponents will not put forward a similar level of transparency on who is funding their ballot measure," he said.
...
The Open and Clean Government filing lists directors or officers of the council, which is based in Pierre. They are Lee Breard, Pierre; Lora Hubbel, Sioux Falls; and Steve Sibson, Mitchell.

"Lobbying debate heats up:
Ballot measure restricts speech, opponents charge"

It sounds a lot like South Carolinians for Responsible Government.