IM-10 would "take away political free speech"

In the give-and-take about South Dakota's Initiated Measure 10 -- which is similar to two Howie Rich-funded measures in Alaska and Colorado but hasn't yet been introduced to the Rich-targeted South Carolina -- there hadn't been much clear definition of its impact on free speech until October 12, when the Sioux Falls Argus Leader asked that question.

"Proponents like to talk about how this will promote open and clean government ," said Greg Dean of Pierre, who opposes the measure. "If you go through and read the 2,000-some words, it certainly has the potential to take away..political free speech from hundreds of South Dakotans, a lot of them simply because they may be related distantly to someone who may be a party to a government contract or no-bid contract."

Ballot issue targets open government
Argus Leader (Sioux Falls, SD) - October 12, 2008

The Argus Leader also published Attorney General Larry Long's description of the measure:

Attorney General Larry Long is required by law to write a short explanation of each ballot measure. His description of Initiated Measure 10 says:

§ State law already restricts campaign contributions from all government and tribal entities, prohibits spending public money to support or oppose ballot measures and limits contracts that benefit legislators.

§ It would prohibit state and local governments and their officers and employees, independent contractors, consultants and candidates from using government resources for campaigning or lobbying.

§ Exceptions exist for communication with or appearances before legislators and public bodies.

§ It would prohibit those who employ current or recent legislators from getting government contracts. It would bar holders of no-bid contracts, and their employees and family members, from contributing to candidate campaigns.

South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds opposes IM 10

In South Dakota, the governor announced October 10 that he was opposed to Initiated Measure 10, the ballot measure that would ban political contributions by a large part of the state's citizens. The committee that sponsored IM-10 doesn't reveal the sources of its funding, but measures very similar to this one have sprung up in Alaska and Colorado, funded in various ways by the real estate millionaire Howie Rich.

The Sioux Falls Argus Leader covered the governor's announcement.

PIERRE - Initiated Measure 10 on the November ballot would "do a large amount of damage" to South Dakota by discouraging participation in the political process, Gov. Mike Rounds said Thursday. Rounds told the South Dakota Municipal League that he thinks the measure would bar cities, counties and schools from using associations such as the Municipal League to lobby the Legislature on their issues. "I think I'm calling it pretty straight," he said after the appearance.

The measure would restrict political donations by people with state contracts and by people related to them, would ban government-funded lobbying and would require a state Web site operated by the secretary of state and containing all state contracts.

The measure's sponsors say it would prevent political influence from playing a part in state contracts and would stop the use of taxpayer money for lobbying and political campaigns. Rounds said the measure might block owners of any business that made even a modest sale to a government agency from making political contributions.

Rounds warns of `damage' from Initiated Measure 10
Argus Leader (Sioux Falls, SD) - October 10, 2008

According to a representative of the coalition working to defeat IM-10, almost 60 statewide organizations are working together against it, including many whose lawyers have read the measure and advised against it.

Even family members would be barred from donating

On October 6, the Colorado Independent and the Rocky Mountain News each published reports that highlighted the lack of transparency behind the ballot measure that demands transparency and "clean government."

Backers of an initiative campaign hyping the values of “clean government” are funding their efforts with anonymous cash, and the mainstream media is starting to catch on. As was reported by The Colorado Independent last week, proponents of an anti-union amendment allegedly focusing on government transparency have funded their campaign with over a million dollars in anonymous cash, making it impossible to know who is supporting the initiative and who paid to put it on the state ballot.
...
Now it would appear that the mainstream media is starting to catch on to the transparency questions, with a recent article from The Rocky Mountain News pointing out the same facts:

Clean Government Colorado has raised about $1.5 million to promote Amendment 54. All of that money has come through Colorado At Its Best, a nonprofit founded by Independence Institute fellow Dennis Polhill.

Most recent campaign finance disclosures from Clean Government Colorado show that the nonprofit Colorado At Its Best has already contributed an additional $200,000. The nonprofit has given a total of $1.7 million in anonymous dough to the committee, according to the finance documents.

Media catches on to ‘clean government’ campaign’s transparency woes

Two days later, the Independent took a closer look at the ballot measure itself and discovered "a little-known clause targeting the immediate family members of union officials and supporters."

A so-called “clean government” initiative that would snuff out political contributions given by certain labor unions has a little-known clause targeting the immediate family members of union officials and supporters. If passed by Colorado voters and made into law, Amendment 54 would prohibit both unions and sole-source contractors with the state from giving to political campaigns, and the law even applies to various family members of union officers.

The text of the initiative actually includes “domestic partners” under the definition of family members:

“Immediate family member” means any spouse, child, spouse’s child, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, parent, sibling, grandparent, grandchild, stepbrother, stepsister, stepparent, parent-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, aunt, niece, nephew, guardian, and 1 domestic partner;

Joel Heinemann, president of the Littleton Firefighter Association located in the Denver area, has been working to oppose Amendment 54, and says he’s worried about how the measure may be interpreted into law.

“It includes language that includes relatives, so it wouldn’t just affect me, it would affect anyone related to me, and politicians would have no idea who to take money from,” Heinemann told The Colorado Independent while being interviewed last week. “They’re going to need fingerprints and a retinal scan before they can take a dime from anybody. It’s just a mess.”

On top of that, Heinemann worried about whether his two children would be eligible for state scholarships after Amendment 41, an “ethics in government” initiative, was passed by voters in 2006, prohibiting the giving of certain gifts to public employees. Just this week — nearly two years after Amendment 41 was approved by voters — a state panel found that indeed, scholarships of any amount would be permitted under the the law’s provisions.

Amendment 54 would bar political donations from union officials’ kin

Is Howie Rich "monitoring" everyone?

This blogger's friend got a letter from Howie Rich himself earlier this month.

A friend recently received the following letter. He's only given financially to two politically oriented organizations. He checked with the other and their donor lists are confidential. He believes his name was obtained from public records of Obama donors.

Americans For Limited Government Foundation
www.getliberty.org
9900 Main Street
Fairfax, VA 22031
Phone: 703.383.0880
Fax: 703.383.5288
info@getliberty.org

Dear Mr. [redacted],

Recently a new left-wing organization announed that it would be targeting donors to conservative, free-market organizations. The major press announcement stated that the organization intended to engage in such activities as "public exposure," having "watchdog groups digging through the lives" of these individuals, and "possible legal trouble."

As someone who has been put through that abuse over the years, I can tell you from first-hand experience that it is not fun and not something to take lightly. I have supported groups and efforts that I believe will push back against the radical agenda of the Left. And, I have paid the price for it, in attacks, slurs and threats.

As a donor to one or more of these organizations and efforts, you have been able to engage in these activities without notice, operating in relative obscurity. I am writing to inform you that this will no longer be the case.

Your name has been put in our database. We are monitoring all reports of a wide variety of leftist organizations. As your name appears in subsequent reports, it is our intent to publicize you involvement in your local community. Should any of these organizations be found to be engaged in illegal or questionable activity, it is our intent to publicize your involvement with those activities. You should know that instances of coordinated voter fraud are surfacing all across America and investigations into possible criminal coordination are underway.

For your review, I have enclosed a memorandum from our legal counsel.

Sincerely,
Howard Rich
Chairman

Some news outlets found out about the letter too and reported that thousands of donors to various political campaigns have gotten one. In one report, the Online Journal identified Howie Rich as "an extreme right-wing libertarian."

(WMR) -- Although right-wing Republican groups have been reported targeting and intimidating potential Democratic voters across the United States, especially in Florida, Alabama, Wisconsin, and Michigan, WMR has now learned that the right-wing is now trying to intimidate donors to the Democratic Party. WMR has obtained a copy of an undated letter sent by Americans for Limited Government Foundation Chairman Howard Rich. Rich is an extreme right-wing libertarian and New York real estate magnate who also heads the organization “U.S. Term Limits.”
...
However, it is Rich who has run afoul of the law in the past. In 2006, Rich’s Americans for Limited Government was forced to move its headquarters from Chicago because it could not comply with Illinois charity laws. On December 18, 2006, the Center for Public Integrity reported, “Americans for Limited Government spent at least $8 million in 2006 pushing ‘regulatory takings’ initiatives and other ballot measures across the country. The organization faced public scrutiny in failing to disclose its donors or activities through a network of interconnected, tax-exempt entities. On Sept. 15, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan notified ALG that its registration under the state’s charitable solicitation laws was ‘delinquent and not in good standing’ and would be canceled in 30 days if it failed to file a complete annual report, including an audit by a certified public accountant, as required by law.

“Madigan sent identical warnings to ALG’s affiliate, Americans for Limited Government Foundation, but neither organization responded to the warnings, leading to the Illinois Attorney General Office’s cancellation of their registrations as charitable organizations. Rich recently was described by The Wall Street Journal as ‘a publicity-shy, libertarian-leaning businessman who has become the go-to man for supporters of conservative ballot initiatives.’ ALG had operated from offices in Illinois since 2002, but just after the November 7 elections it quietly changed its address to the Virginia residence of one of its officers. At the same time, ALG created two new tax-exempt groups, the Sam Adams Alliance and the Sam Adams Foundation, which occupy its former Chicago address.”

Rich sits on the board of the right-wing Cato Institute, and runs, along with his wife Andrea, the Center for Independent Thought. Rich’s operations have been linked to those of Americans for Tax Reform head Grover Norquist, a very close friend, according to our sources, of Karl Rove.

Rich donates money to right-wing Republican candidates via a network of front companies and various corporate officials using the same Manhattan address of 73 Spring Street, Room 408.

Corporate contrivances listed at the Manhattan address include Dayrich LLC, Bradford Management of NY, Ltd., 51 First Avenue LLC, 470 W 166 LLC, Spring, Inc., West 14 & 18 LLC, Springrich Limited Partnership, Stilrich LLC, Bayrich LLC, 123 Lasalle Associates, Silver & Silver Properties LLC, 188 Claremont LLC, 4220 Broadway LLC, 4220 Broadway Inc., 405 49 Associates, Rich & Rich LLC, 332 E 11 LLC, 123 Lasalle Inc., Secure Data LLC, Rich & Rich Associates, Newrich LLC, Rich Acquisitions, Rosemeade Investors LLC, Streetrich LLC, and Spooner LLC.

Rich’s recipients include Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO), Rep. Ric Keller (R-FL), Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), Sen. John Sununu (R-NH). Texas Democratic Representative Henry Cuellar has also received campaign cash from Rich.

Elections & Voting

Measures are similar in CO, SD and Alaska

According to the Rocky Mountain News, the measure funded by Howie Rich in Colorado does the same thing that IM-10 would do in South Dakota, and that the Rich-directed "Anti-Corruption Act" would do in Alaska.

Companies that win exclusive contracts with governments, as well as unions that represent government workers, would not be allowed to make political contributions under the proposed Amendment 54. The measure seeks to reduce the influence of any special interests on government, said Tom Lucero, campaign manager of Clean Government Colorado, which is backing the measure. "All Amendment 54 does is say that if you're going to have a no-bid government contract, you're going to be prohibited from giving," he said.

The ban on contributions would remain while the contract is in effect and for two years after it expires. The ban would extend to issue campaigns as well as candidates.

The measure also requires a public database that lists "sole source" contracts and their terms. The Colorado Department of Personnel and Administration would maintain the database and publish terms of such contracts when they're awarded. Rich Gonzales, director of personnel, said the proposal would require additional spending of up to $311,500 to build the database and as much as $137,000 a year for monitoring.
...
Amendments 47, 49 and 54 "are bad and divisive for Colorado," said Jess Knox, campaign director for Protect Colorado's Future, which has raised more than $3.5 million to fight proposed amendments it says are thinly veiled attempts to disable unions. "It would prohibit our public employees from banding together and advocating for each other," he said.

Some contractors' political contributions are at stake

The paper said the measure was written by "associates of the Independence Institute," which is tied to Howie Rich through funding he gives to Colorado committees, according to the Colorado Independent.

Just like in South Carolina, funding for the measure is hidden by a nonprofit organization.

Clean Government Colorado has raised about $1.5 million to promote Amendment 54. All of that money has come through Colorado At Its Best, a nonprofit founded by Independence Institute fellow Dennis Polhill. But where the nonprofit's money is coming from isn't clear. Polhill, who helped pass amendments limiting terms for elected officials, declined to identify donors to the group. The lack of transparency, from a group pushing for more transparency from government, is unsettling, Knox said.
...
Polhill said he was willing to accept criticism for the failure to disclose financial sources because he said his donors feared retribution.

The newspaper spelled out the Colorado ballot measure this way:

What Amendment 54 would do:

Prohibit contractors with no-bid, sole-source government contracts and unions representing teachers, firefighters, police and state workers from contributing to political campaigns during the term of the contract and for two years afterward.

* Who is for it: Clean Government Colorado

* The money behind it: $1.54 million, donated by a nonprofit that refuses to reveal its donors.

* Who opposes it: Protect Colorado's Future

* The money behind it: More than $6.67 million, raised largely from unions.

Dakota War College ties Rich to IM-10

At least one blogger in South Dakota believes that Howie Rich is the man behind Initiated Measure 10 there. Like the Colorado plan offered by Colorado At Its Best, Clean Government Colorado and the Independence Institute, IM 10 would prohibit campaign contributions from a large population of South Dakotans.

The Dakota War College published its theory on September 30 and cited several other sources to support it.

Rich, a wealthy Libertarian New York real estate developer who is the founder and chairman of U.S. Term Limits, has been a stealthy operator in the growing field of ballot initiative politics and in making use of the most unregulated political entities — nonprofit organizations. Critics complain that Rich and his colleagues are abusing the initiative process by using their nonprofit status to hide the identity of a handful of wealthy conservative businessmen and large corporations pursuing various anti-government causes aimed at freeing industry from regulations and taxes.

and…

Two initiatives funded by Rich’s shell groups were aimed at the judiciary last year. One that lost in Colorado would have allowed the recall of judges. The other, called Jail 4 Judges, in South Dakota, would have created a special grand jury to indict judges for such offenses as a “deliberate disregard of material facts,” and “blocking of a lawful conclusion of a case.” After three such “convictions,” the judge would be fired and docked half of his or her retirement benefits. It failed by an 8-1 margin.

and…

“Rich is the figurehead who seems energized by these stealth methods of operating,” said Bill Hogan, an investigator with the Center of Public Integrity, a nonprofit nonpartisan group that funds investigative reporting. “He’s built layers of nonprofit organizations (that are) pretty hard to fathom. They seemed to be set up to avoid disclosure triggers.”

If all of these connections were circumstantial, Dakota War College found a significant real one too: "Well according to a commenter, (and as verified by myself) the IM10 and SDCAC websites were hosted at the same location as the website for Rich’s Americans for Limited Government (www.Americansforlimitedgovernment.com). Although that was no longer the case after those website comments were posted. Coincidence? Maybe. Although, there seems to be more than just that."

There’s other parts of the trail. As this website discloses, it seems as if people are talking more and more about this possible funder of Jail-4-judges pushing the Open and Clean Government act in several states:

In 2008, Rich moved away from tax fights and is concentrating his efforts on trying to diminish the voices of employees. Rich is one of the primary funders behind the “Open and Clean Government” initiatives in both South Dakota and Colorado. Open and Clean Government prohibits political contributions by labor unions that have collective bargaining agreements with state or local governments but is silent about corporate gifts to elected officials and ignores most contributions by large and out-of-state corporations. These two initiatives served as the model for Alaska’s Anti-Corruption Act.

When the Anchorage Daily News attempted to clarify Rich’s involvement in the Anti-Corruption Act, Scott Kohlaas a Libertarian working on the initiative said, “I can tell you he sent me an e-mail telling me not to ‘eff’ this up.”

Read the Alaska writeup here. And here’s what this same website had to say about South Dakota:

The 2008 election has also seen activity by anti-government and anti-worker ideologues. An initiative deceptively titled “Open and Clean Government,” is being funded by Americans for Tax Reform, which is headed by Grover Norquist, and has possible ties to Howie Rich, the libertarian New York developer behind the 2006 TABOR initiatives. The initiative, while wrapped in the guise of government reform and transparency, would severely restrict the ability of regular South Dakotans to participate in elections or lobbying their government. Any person or entity with a no-bid government contract, including labor unions, would be prohibited from contributing to a political candidate or lobbying the state legislature, as would any member of the extended family of the person with the contract or any person associated with the entity that has the contract. As an example, the cousin of a member of the teacher’s union who contributes to a candidate for the state legislature would be committing a crime if this law passes. The initiative is so extreme that South Dakota’s labor unions and chambers of commerce have united to oppose it.

Rich-funded plan prohibits political donations in CO

The day after the South Carolina newspaper asked "Who is Howard Rich?", his name turned up in a Colorado news outlet too. A reporter for the Colorado Independent wrote an article about an organization called the Independence Institute, which it called "a conservative think-tank." This year, the Institute has opened a website "extolling the virtues of 'clean government' via the 'clean team,' a supposed grassroots effort meant to back an anti-union proposal being sponsored by the organization."

A Web site has been launched supporting Amendment 54, a measure backed by the Institute that would prohibit both unions and sole-source contractors with the state unions from giving to political campaigns, essentially snuffing out the traditionally pro-Democratic contributions that are given by labor. While the Institute is quick to assail the “out-of-state union money” being used to promote a number of ballot measures submitted by labor groups, the Institute is naturally mum on how its own political efforts have been funded.

Here are the facts.

Clean Government Colorado, the political committee supporting Amendment 54, has raised more than $1.5 million dollars. At least 90 percent of that money has come from the nonprofit organization Colorado At Its Best, created by Institute fellow Dennis Pohill in 2001 and directed by New York libertarian activist and real-estate developer Howard Rich, according to documents filed with the secretary of state’s office.

Because Colorado At Its Best is a nonprofit, it is not required to release the names of its contributors, meaning that the ‘clean’ campaign has been funded primarily from donors who are anonymous.

The pro-Amendment 54 campaign is correct in stating that unions have spent millions in Colorado, including funds that came from out-of-state labor groups and other national union affiliates. But the difference is that members of the public can see exactly where the union money is coming from, and in the example of Colorado’s ‘clean team, that’s just not the case.

Meet Colorado’s anti-union ‘clean team’

Newspaper asks, "Who is Howard Rich?"

A month ago, after Howie Rich appeared in a YouTube interview with South Carolina's Republican Party chairman, the Spartanburg Herald-Journal published an article that asked in its headline, "Who is Howard Rich?" It gave a simple answer to its own question: "He's one of the most popular figures in South Carolina politics. He's also one of the most despised."

What makes him popular and despised at the same time, the Herald said, was "his willingness to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars - in his own name, through a network of LLCs, through like-minded associates and through groups such as South Carolinians for Responsible Government, Conservatives in Action and the S.C. Club for Growth - in an effort to create a Legislature in his image."

It has made Rich "a political superstar," the paper said.

The issues he pushes make him public enemy No. 1 for some members of both parties. Causing the most heartburn is his desire to create a private school system funded by taxpayer dollars. But Rich's fan club includes some of South Carolina's top-ranking Republicans. State Republican Party Chairman Katon Dawson fawned over him in a soft-hitting interview that was broadcast over the Internet. Spartanburg County GOP Chairman Rick Beltram wants to worship at his feet, or at least his hip pocket.

Leading the "Get Rich, Quick" club are top Democrats and public education supporters. Spartanburg County Democratic Party Chairman Glenn Lindman calls him a "disaster waiting to happen." State Rep. Mike Anthony, D-Union, the public information officer for Union County Schools, says Rich is pouring money into candidates who are willing to "sell their souls" to get elected.

The local Republican Party chairman, Rick Beltram, told the paper that when South Carolina elected Mark Sanford its governor, it opened the door to Howie Rich, since both have "strong libertarian leanings."

Rich "sailed under the radar for a time," the paper said. He gave thousands of dollars in contributions to candidates and committees through several companies that he owns in New York. His activity was discovered when someone found the same address attached to many different entities popping up on campaign disclosure forms. He used this system in 2006 to funnel more than $51,000 to the pro-voucher Republican candidate for superintendent of education. She was narrowly defeated.

This spring, the paper said, "he pumped at least $500,000 into primary races across the state - including six in Spartanburg County." In some cases, Rich gave the money directly to candidates, but in other cases he contributed to a group called South Carolinians for Responsible Government and the South Carolina Club for Growth. Those groups then paid for television ads and mail flyers.

No one knows how much money Howie Rich contributed to those front groups because "SCRG is not required to report where its funding comes from or where it spends its money because it is an 'advocacy group'."

Bob Walker, the veteran lawmaker from Landrum who had become chairman of the House Education Committee, was one of Howie Rich's targets.

While [Lee] Bright got the most money locally, Joey Millwood scored the biggest victory. Millwood unseated Rep. Bob Walker, the chairman of the House Education and Public Works Committee. Millwood collected at least $50,000 from Rich and his associates, and also benefited from "advocacy" mailings by SCRG and Conservatives in Action.

Who is Howard Rich?

The local Democratic Party chairman predicted a quid pro quo relationship behind Howie Rich's contributions. "If Rich spent that much money to buy a seat, he says, he's going to expect something in return," he paper said.

"If you're that beholden to that man for that amount of money, you're representing his interests," Lindman said. "And his agenda is in conflict with what's in the best interest of Spartanburg County and the state."

It looks like Lindman is right. Both Bright and Millwood, the two candidates who won with Rich's funding, support Rich's school voucher plan.

Bright said he would support a voucher plan for students in failing schools. Millwood, like Rich, said he favors a tax credit. When asked how low-income students would benefit from a tax credit plan, Millwood said, "I'll have to get back to you." He said there were "a lot of student grant organizations out there," but when asked where they were he said he didn't know and that he'd never looked into it.

The Herald found another troubling pattern in Howie Rich's political activism:

Most of Rich's money showed up in the "dark period" between the date candidates had to file pre-election disclosures and the time voters went to the polls. That prevented voters from knowing who was receiving his funding, and how much they were getting. Rich said he wasn't trying to hide anything.

"I made donations based on when the support would have the most impact," Rich said. "No other reason."

The paper said that school vouchers are only one of Howie Rich's favorite issues. He has also poured money into state ballot initiatives for "spending limits, based on a formula of inflation plus population growth, and private property rights - particularly regulatory takings legislation."

But the Herald didn't name which states have been Rich's targets for political activity. It did say that Rich has accused opponents of his ideas and his contributions deceitful.

While Rich claims deceit on the part of opponents, it's his initiatives that have run into trouble with the law. In 2006 in Montana, for example, a district judge threw out ballot measures to cap state spending, enact a takings law and to make it easier to recall judges because of fraud by out-of-state, paid signature-gatherers, the newspaper The Missoulian reported. The state supreme court upheld the ruling.

The paper also added this warning to the voters of South Carolina who hope this sort of politics is temporary:

In his interview with Dawson, Rich said that he and his groups "weren't going anywhere."

Why should political donations be illegal?

South Dakotans for Open and Clean Government apparently don't deny that the group seeks transparency from others while hiding its own origins, a posture that was seen in South Carolina too.

Sam Kephart, a former candidate for the U.S. Senate in the Republican primary, and former two-term state Treasurer Dick Butler unveiled a video this week that they say is proof backing up the campaign's key points. The two are leading Yes on 10, or the South Dakotans for Open and Clean Government campaign. The measure will appear on the Nov. 4 statewide ballot and would restrict political donations by people with state contracts and people related to them, would ban government-funded lobbying and would require a state Web site operated by the secretary of state containing all state contracts.
...
The Vote No on 10 campaign says the measure is a gag law that limits free speech by denying thousands of people the right to participate in the political process.

"The measure claims to be about transparency, but its supporters won't say who is giving most of the money to promote it," said David Owen, president of the South Dakota Chamber of Commerce and one of the leaders of the Vote No on 10 campaign. If the initiative passes, Owen said, it wouldn't even do anything to change the bidding process.

About the pledge, Owen said, "We're not using any tax money in this campaign. The supporters of the measure signed the pledge, but they're being funded from out of state. They don't have to worry about fund-raising," Owen said. "They talk about openness, but they're hiding their cash."

Owen also said that under the measure, anyone related to anyone who does business with city, county or the state would be committing a crime by donating to a political candidate.

Yes on 10 backs ballot issue
Argus Leader (Sioux Falls, SD) - September 26, 2008

So, would donating to a political candidate become a criminal offense under IM 10? Why?

Why should anyone want to make it a crime to support candidates for public office?

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.

Paul Hyde's opinion of the Howie Rich interview

A reader of The State newspaper sent a scathing letter on August 18 about Katon Dawson's interview with Howie Rich. It's another self-explanatory note:

Howie Rich , the rich New Yorker who's trying to buy the S.C. Legislature, hates public education....

Rich, who spent a half million dollars in our state's primary election trying to put school voucher advocates in the S.C. Legislature, drips elitist contempt for S.C. public schools. In a fawning interview (posted on You Tube) with S.C. Republican Party Chairman Katon Dawson, Rich describes public education supporters this way: "The other side is in it for one thing -- taxpayer dollars. They love it every year when the Legislature gives them more money for what they call 'education.'"

What they "call 'education'"? (In the interview, Rich supplies the quotation marks with his curled fingers.) Well, that's a nice slap in the face to 46,000 dedicated and hardworking South Carolina public school teachers, not to mention hundreds of thousands of parents and other supporters (of) public schools. Has the man ever met a South Carolina teacher?

PAUL HYDE
State, The (Columbia, SC) - August 18, 2008

Anonymous money floods Colorado too

It's a system: An anonymous donor supplies funding to a non-profit organization, which then supplies funding to a campaign committee, which then promotes a ballot measure that, in some way, meets the needs of the original anonymous donor.

Why does the donor remain anonymous? It's anybody's guess.

Why does the donor contribute to a non-profit organization instead of directly to a campaign committee? Because non-profit organizations don't have to reveal their donors, while campaign committees are required to report that information.

It's a system, and the Colorado Independent found $2.4 million flowing through one in Colorado.

Nonprofits are traditionally “social welfare” organizations that register with the federal Internal Revenue Service, but recently they have been used in Colorado to fund political causes, all while keeping secret the names of donors who have paid for campaign costs or for petition efforts to put a proposal on the ballot.

Morgan Carroll, an Aurora Democrat who is running against Republican Suzanne Andrews in Senate District 29, said she wants to bring further transparency to nonprofit electioneering, possibly by supporting legislation in 2009 that would require certain nonprofit groups to disclose funders or by using state audits to examine the organizations’ political activities.
...
“To the extent people really are electioneering and using the [nonprofit] status as a way to avoid disclosures I think we need to address that assuming we can find a clean constitutional way to do it,” Carroll says.

The majority of initiative campaigns this year have not funded their efforts exclusively with anonymous nonprofit funds, according to state campaign-finance records. For instance, Colorado For Equal Rights, a campaign supporting a ballot question to define a fertilized human egg as a person, has disclosed dozens of individual names. Protect Colorado’s Future, another group opposing Amendments 47 and 49, has released records showing that a large majority of the campaign’s funding comes from various labor unions.

In contrast, the Amendment 49 campaign, being supported by the Golden-based Independence Institute conservative think tank, has collected nearly 100 percent of its funding through a nonprofit organization called Colorado At Its Best, receiving more than $1.4 million dollars since February, records show.

Anonymous dough flows into Colorado initiative campaigns

Howie Rich is "operating in eight states" plus some

Following the release of Howie Rich's interview by Republican Party chairman Katon Dawson on YouTube, the editors of the Greenville News gave the interview a close look and published a review on August 10. The interview "wasn't with a professional journalist" but with a beneficiary of Rich's generosity, they note. And they say he's "operating in eight states that he identifies, plus others he doesn't."

"The interview provided some interesting moments," they write.

Among them:

- Rich is in South Carolina for the long haul.

- He sees the state as a "model" for what he hopes will start the dominoes tumbling in other states.

- There is a Southeastern Strategy built around South Carolina, Florida and Georgia.

- Rich speaks of South Carolina as "we," sort of like a Clemson fan would when talking about the Tigers.

- He's currently operating in eight states that he identifies, plus others he doesn't.

Oh, he admires the state's leading school vouchers-tax credits cheerleader, Gov. Mark Sanford. He even dressed in the Sanford uniform for the interview: navy blazer, light blue shirt open at the neck, khaki trousers and casual brown shoes.

Why South Carolina? Dawson asks. Rich says it's because the state is 49th and 50th in SAT scores and dropout rates, despite $11,000 per pupil spending, that he believes "parents should have the opportunity to decide how their children get educated and they just don't have it in South Carolina." State Education Department officials say Rich was cherry-picking statistics and coming to a "misleading" conclusion.

He makes it plain that choices should run the gamut: public, private, religious, whatever.

"I believe in something very strongly and I want to make it happen," Rich says. "Government programs," of which education is one, "don't work and need competition," he adds.

He's been operating, that is, dropping gobs of money, in South Carolina for five years and isn't going away any time soon. That Sanford leaves office in January 2010 with nary a voucher ally in sight to replace him, is no barrier for Rich.

"We're going to stay until parents are empowered," he told Dawson.

What does Rich actually get out of it, assuming the change he seeks actually comes about?

"Great satisfaction."

And not one nickel.

"I don't own any businesses down here."

What motivates a man of Howie Rich's wealth, who lives in New York, to push his agenda on people in states so far away, and literally across the country? It's a curiosity to me, but Katon Dawson didn't ask that question.

I thought this part was Clintonian, if you want to call it that, and not in a good way:

When Dawson asks if he's "manipulating" the state's campaign finance reporting laws, as some critics contend, Rich says he's using "money I earned honestly. I can do with it as I choose. Everything I've done is 100 percent legal."

State law, enacted in 1991 after the Lost Trust scandal, limits donations to legislative candidates to $1,000 from an individual or business for primary, runoff and general election campaigns, essentially a $3,000 maximum. Campaign reports show that business entities linked to Rich have combined for $15,000 to $30,000 to some 2008 candidates.

So long as he contributes his money through a lot of different filters and never exceeds the legal limit from any single filter, then he's not breaking the law.

Is that right?

The News quoted the head of Common Cause in South Carolina saying, "I don't know that it's legal. He's using these corporate conduits to avoid the legal limits." And Attorney General Henry McMaster said he would launch a preliminary review. At least one Republican Senator, Larry Martin, said that Rich is "basically circumventing" the law's intent. But that sounds like saying that Rich broke the law.

"The problem is, you don't know who controls the businesses," he said, but expressed doubt that anyone creates business entities merely as vehicles for political donations. Martin and others say there is little legislative sentiment for banning corporate donations as North Carolina and other states have done.

The head of Common Cause said that he asked for a ban on corporate contributions when the law was changed in 1990, "but Republicans opposed it 'because it was such a large proportion of their funds'."
...
House Speaker Bobby Harrell, R-Charleston, said, "Yes, obviously," he has concerns about the totality of Rich's donations, "but it's the kind of thing that's incredibly hard to fix because someone like Howie Rich could probably come up with a dozen, 25 different addresses for different company names fairly easily.

"It's something we ought to look at and try to figure out if there's a way to deal with it, but there is no easy fix. There are a lot of Republicans concerned about what Howard Rich is doing," those on the other side of the donations, Harrell said.

Rich says he's in S.C. for long haul
Greenville News, The (SC) - August 10, 2008

"GOP hypocritical about money"

Mike Cubelo of Greenville sent an interesting and self-explanatory letter to the editor of the Greenville News in early August.

Funny how Republican politicians don't want any of that gay tourist money in South Carolina but they line up with their hands out for that hetero money from New York. Guess the S.C. GOP screens its funds for sexual orientation.

Republicans cite biblical principles to criticize gays but certainly don't care when a rich Yankee undermines ethical principles for political contributions. According to The Greenville News, there are 24 ways (via family and affiliated firms) that Howie Rich can get around the $3,000 individual contribution limit. Howie violated the spirit of that ethical principle to the tune of a million dollars. Guess if it ain't in the Bible, Christian conservative politicians grab what they can get.

Here we have a millionaire Southern governor taking money from a millionaire Yankee so that both can take money away from public school children. We probably have three or four school buses totaling a million miles on them but not one penny of Howie Rich 's million is going to replace them. However, the gay tourist money to increase our state revenue to replace these buses is just too sinful of a proposition for these God-fearing but greedy politicians.

As a parent of three children who have gone through our public school system, it was always a struggle to get our teachers what they needed for our kids. Some of these dedicated teachers and principals are gay and it must disgust them (certainly me) to see a million dollars used to demean them and make their jobs harder.

Mike Cubelo, Greenville
Letters
Greenville News, The (SC) - August 6, 2008

That tells the story, doesn't it?

Same idea surfaces in Colorado

Something similar to the South Dakota and Alaska measures surfaced this year in Colorado, too, and the same questions surround it. The Rocky Mountain News called it a "proposal to bar no-bid government contractors from contributing to political candidates," which is the core of both Alaska's "Anti-Corruption Act" and South Dakota's Initiated Measure 10.

The group proposing it is called Clean Government Colorado, which sounds a lot like South Dakotans for Open and Clean Government -- and like South Carolinians for Responsible Government, for that matter. Clean Government Colorado is run by Tom Lucero, "a University of Colorado regent."

But the Rocky Mountain News found another part of the measure:

The proposed constitutional amendment would ban those contractors or any organization with exclusive collecting bargaining rights - namely, labor unions - from giving political contributions for two years after expiration of the contract.

Any company that violated the rule would lose access to no-bid contracts for three years, and any official taking such a donation could be removed from office.

"Until you change the culture of how government does business, there's this automatic distrust with the citizens," said Lucero, a Republican. "The Clean Government Amendment is specially engineered toward addressing the idea of 'pay to play.' "

The proposed amendment would continue two recent trends in ballot initiatives: Making government more transparent and changing state law in a way that irks union leaders.
...
Jess Knox, executive director of Protect Colorado's Future, said the measure would not shut down corporate contributions but would eliminate a valuable way that union members have to communicate during elections.

Plan would bar some contractor donations
Rocky Mountain News (CO) - July 31, 2008

So the Colorado measure has a strong anti-labor union component, but it would allow corporate contributors to continue doing business as usual.

South Dakota blogger suspects Howie Rich there too

It looks like I've not been the only one assuming that Howie Rich is the source of Initiated Measure 10 in South Dakota, the ballot measure that's nearly identical to the "Anti-Corruption Act" that Rich's organization is promoting in Alaska. A blog called South Dakota War College makes the assumption too. I haven't read much of the War College before now, but its blogger seems to be one of the most knowledgeable sources on IM-10.

He's also apparently the target of a stalker.

About that same time, I was also pointing out a link between NY Libertarian Real Estate Investor Howie Rich who is allegedly dumping money into these “Open and Clean” Measures across the country through front groups, such as the SDCAC, and is likely the source of the funding for the ballot measure here.

Getting back to the issue at hand, predictably, Susan disagreed with me on my call for her resignation.

But this “West River Coordinator of Initiated Measure 10″ inadvertently let it slip as she apparently tried to intimidate me by pointing out that they apparently had someone watching my house, and noted in explicit detail that they’ve detailed what stickers were on my car, what signs were in my yard, and they type of dog I keep in my backyard.

I'm going to include the War College on my blogroll, and keep an eye on what developments he uncovers out there.

Alaska, South Dakota measures almost identical

In thinking through the influence that led to Rep. Bob Walker's defeat in South Carolina, and finding the same influence surfacing in Alaska, and in South Dakota, I realized something: The man who has been identified by major papers in South Carolina and Alaska hasn't actually been named in the case of South Dakota. So I looked closer, to make sure that the assumption was right.

In Alaska, a group pushed to get an initiative called the "Anti-Corruption Act" on the ballot for 2010. The Anchorage Daily News reported that New York millionaire Howie Rich asked former state Rep. Dick Randolph, a Libertarian, to lead that effort. The man who runs the "Anti-Corruption Act" group, Bob Adney, told the newspaper that Rich hadn't given any money to the campaign but that Adney planned to ask him for funding once it made it onto the ballot. And the man who ran the petition drive for that campaign, Scott Kohlhaas, told the newspaper that Rich "sent me an e-mail telling me not to 'eff' this up."

The Daily News described the "Anti-Corruption Act" this way: "The Anti-Corruption initiative would make it a crime for someone who hires a politician fresh out of office to get a government contract, ban government contractors from giving donations -- and ban any public money for campaigns."

In South Dakota, a group called the South Dakota Conservative Action Council was formed in 2007 as a non-profit corporation by three people. A few weeks later, a group called South Dakotans for Open and Clean Goverment was formed, and its purpose was to get a measure on its state ballot, a measure now called Initiated Measure 10. Howie Rich hasn't ever been named as a part of the South Dakota Conservative Action Council, or as a member of South Dakotans for Open and Clean Government.

But the Aberdeen American News described IM-10 this way: "[It] would place a multitude of additional restrictions on individuals' rights to contribute to campaigns and to lobby, and on government involvement in campaigns and lobbying."

The two measures, the one in Alaska where Rich has been named as an influence behind the ballot measure, and the one in South Dakota where he hasn't been named, sounded similar enough that I looked at their full texts. Both can be found online.

This part spells out the main idea of the proposed "Anti-Corruption Act" in Alaska:

(A) No public body, public officer, person in the employ of the state, any of its political subdivisions, any school district, or candidate for public office may, directly or indirectly, direct, permit, receive, require, or facilitate the use of tax revenues or any other public resources for campaign, lobbying, or partisan purposes, including payment of dues or membership fees of any kind to any person, league, or association which, directly or indirectly, engages in lobbying, campaigns, or partisan activity. No candidate, political committee, or political party may accept any contribution from any state, state agency, political subdivision of the state, foreign government, federal agency, or the federal government. A violation of this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

This part spells out the main idea of Initiated Measure 10, now on the ballot in South Dakota:

Section 1. That §12-27-21 be amended to read as follows: No public body, public officer, person in the employ of the state or any of its political subdivisions, or candidate for public office may, directly or indirectly, direct, permit, receive, require, or facilitate the use of tax revenues or any other public resources for campaign, lobbying, or partisan purposes, including payment of dues or membership fees of any kind to any person, league, or association which, directly or indirectly, engages in lobbying, campaigns, or partisan activity. No candidate, political committee, or political party may accept any contribution from any state, state agency, political subdivision of the state, foreign government, Indian tribe, federal agency, or the federal government. A violation of this section is a Class 1 misdemeanor.

The only difference between the two texts is the additions of the words "any school district" in the Alaska version and "Indian tribe" in the South Dakota version, and the label of the misdemeanor (Class A in Alaska, and Class 1 in South Dakota). Otherwise, these texts are the same.

This part spells out situations where the proposed "Anti-Corruption Act" in Alaska doesn't apply:

(C) The provisions of this section do not limit public officials in the performance of their constitutional duties, and do not apply to:
(1) Communications among and between a member and a staff member of a legislative body;
(2) Comments by an elected official or communications from an elected official that are designated for constituents;
(3) Appearances by a public officer or employee pursuant to a specific request to appear before a public body to provide information;
(4) Communications between an elected or appointed public officer and a legislator or a legislative staff member;
(5) A public employee acting in an uncompensated personal capacity, undirected in any manner by, and who does not purport to represent the interests of, a public employer; and
(6) An authorized employee of the office of the Governor, the Supreme Court, or the Alaska Department of Revenue, whose responsibilities are to assess the impact of proposals which affect the administration of government.

This part spells out situations where Initiated Measure 10, now on the ballot in South Dakota, doesn't apply:

Section 3. The provisions of §12-27-21 do not limit public officials in the performance of their constitutional duties, and do not apply to:
(1) Communications among and between a member and a staff member of a legislative body, or between an elected or appointed public officer and a legislator or a legislative staff member;
(2) Comments by an elected official or communications from an elected official that are designated for constituents;
(3) Appearances and communications by a public officer or employee, pursuant to a request to appear before a public body to provide information;
(4) A public employee acting in an uncompensated personal capacity, undirected in any manner by, and who does not purport to represent the interests of, a public employer; and
(5) An authorized employee of the office of the Supreme Court, Governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, secretary of state, auditor, treasurer, and commissioner of school and public lands, and other principal departments of the executive department of government having responsibility to assess the impact of proposals which affect the administration of government.

With the exception of what look like changes for style, and the addition of several more state offices in South Dakota's version, this part also is mostly identical. Whole sections of it are exactly the same.

This part spells out the definitions that will be considered law under the proposed "Anti-Corruption Act" in Alaska:

(D) Definitions. Terms as used in this section mean:
(1) "Direct, permit, receive, require, or facilitate the use of tax revenues or any other public resources for campaign, lobbying, or partisan purposes," includes
(i) the use of public funds or credit, facilities, rights of access, equipment, supplies, or trademarks to influence any state, municipal, or school board election;
(ii) undertaking, promoting,or distributing studies, surveys, analyses, descriptions, or other communications usingpublic resources in a manner specifically calculated to induce support of, or opposition to, proposed legislation or ballot questions; and
(iii) incurring any public administrative expenses or activities to allocate or designate portions of public employee income toentities that engage in lobbying activities, other than charitable organizations qualified as exempt from federal income tax under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, or the corresponding section of any other future tax code.
(2) "Campaign," includes
(i) communications or expenditures related to the pursuit of a public office, either electoral or appointive;
(ii) all lobbying activity; or
(iii) efforts paid in whole or in part by public revenues or resources to coordinate or induce members of the general public or any segment thereof to directly influence legislative activity by communicating with members of a legislative body, supporting or opposing legislation, or supporting or opposing a petition drive or ballot question.
(3) "Lobbying," means attempts to directly influence legislative activity by communication with any member or employee of a legislative body, or with any government official or employee who may participate in the formulation of legislation.
(4) "Person," includes any individual, business entity, governmental entity, organization, committee, political party, campaign fund, and association.
(5) "Public officer or person in the employ of," includes any person who is elected, appointed, or employed by this state, or any political subdivision or school district in this state, including persons who are independent contractors or consultants hired by the state, a political subdivision, or school district in this state.

This part spells out the definitions that will be considered law under Initiated Measure 10, now on the ballot in South Dakota:

Section 4. Terms as used in §12-27-21 mean:
(1) “Direct, permit, receive, require, or facilitate the use of tax revenues or any other public resources for campaign, lobbying, or partisan purposes,” includes
(a) The use of public funds, facilities, rights of access, equipment, supplies, or trademarks to influence any election;
(b) Undertaking, promoting, or distributing studies, surveys, analyses, descriptions, or other communications using public resources in a manner specifically calculated to induce support of, or opposition to, proposed legislation or ballot questions; and
(c) Incurring any public administrative expenses or activities to allocate or designate portions of public employee income to entities that engage in lobbying or partisan activities, other than charitable organizations qualified as exempt from federal income tax under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code, or the corresponding section of any future federal tax code;
(2) “Campaign,” includes
(a) Communications or expenditures related to the pursuit of an elected or appointed public office;
(b) All lobbying; and
(c) Efforts paid in whole or in part by public revenues or resources to coordinate or induce members of the general public or any segment thereof to directly influence legislative activity by communicating with members of any legislative body supporting or opposing legislation within this state, or supporting or opposing a petition drive or ballot question;
(3) “Lobbying,” includes attempts to directly influence legislative activity by communication with any member or employee of any legislative body or with any government official or employee who may participate in the formulation of legislation of this state;
(4) “Person,” includes any natural person, business entity, organization, committee, political party, campaign fund, and association;
(5) “Public officer” and “person in the employ of the state or any of its political subdivisions,” include any person who is elected, appointed, or employed by this state or any political subdivision of this state, including any person who is an independent contractor or consultant hired by the state or a political subdivision of this state; and
(6) “Tax revenues or other public resources," includes all state and local government revenues and resources, and does not include any revenues paid or resources provided by the United States government.

In fact, the legal definitions of terms used in the Alaska "Anti-Corruption Act" were so important to its authors that a second set of definitions is found in that document:

(E) Definitions. Terms as used in this section mean:
(1) "Contribution," means a purchase, payment, promise or obligation to pay, loan or loan guarantee, deposit or gift of money, goods, or services for which a charge is ordinarily made and that is made for the purpose of influencing the nomination, election, or selection of a candidate for public office, either elective or appointive, or for the purpose of influencing an initiative, ballot proposition, or question, including payment to another person for the purpose ofthat person's influencing the nomination, election, or selection of a candidate for public office, either elective or appointive, or for the purpose of influencing an initiative, ballot proposition, or question. "Contribution" does not include personal services rendered without compensation by individuals volunteering all or part of their time for these purposes.
(2) "Government contract," includes any contract awarded by an agency or department of this state or any public body receiving state subsidy or authorized to levy taxes, for the purchase of goods or services for amounts greater than five hundred dollars, indexed for inflation per the Consumer Price Index after the year 2010. A contract for services includes collective bargaining agreements with a labor organization representing employees but not employment contracts with individual employees;
(3) "Holder of the government contract," includes any party to the contract, including partners, owners of five percent or more interest, officers, administrators or trustees of any person who is a party to the contract, or, in the case of collective bargaining agreements, the labor organization and any political committees created or controlled by the labor organization;
(4) "Holder of the public office with ultimate responsibility for the award of the contract," means any elected official who may award the contract or appoint an official responsible for awarding the contract, or any elected official of a public body where the contract is awarded by that public body;
(5) "Immediate family member," includes any spouse, child, spouse's child, son-daughter-in-law, parent, sibling, grandparent, grandchild, step brother-sister, step- parent, parent-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, guardian, and domestic partner;
(6) "No-bid government contracts," includes all government contracts that do not use open, blind competitive bidding processes for procurement. Collective bargaining agreements qualify as no-bid government contracts if the contract confers an exclusive representative status to bind all employees to accept the terms and conditions of the contract;
(7) "Person," includes any individual, business entity, governmental entity, organization, committee, political party, campaign fund, and association.

And strangely enough, the same set of legal definitions appears in South Dakota's Initiated Measure 10:

Section 10. Terms as used in sections 5 to 9 of this Act, inclusive, mean:
(1) “Contribution,” includes money, monetary donations, loans, and any in-kind donations, but does not apply to volunteer activities by individuals that do not otherwise qualify as an in-kind donation;
(2) “Government contract,” includes any contract awarded by an agency or department of this state or any public body receiving state subsidy or authorized to levy taxes, for the purchase of goods or services for amounts greater than five hundred dollars, indexed for inflation per the Consumer Price Index after the year 2010. A contract for services includes collective bargaining agreements with a labor organization representing employees but not employment contracts with individual employees;
(3) “Holder of the government contract,” includes any party to the contract, including partners, owners of five percent or more interest, officers, administrators or trustees of any person who is a party to the contract, or, in the case of collective bargaining agreements, the labor organization and any political committees created or controlled by the labor organization;
(4) “Holder of the public office with ultimate responsibility for the award of the contract,” includes any elected official who may award the contract or appoint an official responsible for awarding the contract, or any elected official of a public body where the contract is awarded by that public body;
(5) “Immediate family member,” includes any spouse, child, spouse’s child, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, parent, sibling, grandparent, grandchild, stepbrother, stepsister, stepparent, parent-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, guardian, and domestic partner;
(6) “No-bid government contract,” includes all government contracts that do not use open, blind competitive bidding processes for procurement. Collective bargaining agreements qualify as no-bid government contracts if the contract confers an exclusive representative status to bind all employees to accept the terms and conditions of the contract; and
(7) “Person,” includes any natural person, business entity, organization, committee, political party, campaign fund, and association.

The authors of both measures also devised a provision requiring a new state website that allows public searches of all government contracts. The language in the Alaska version reads,

(H) The State of Alaska shall promptly publish a summary of each government contract in a searchable website accessible from a conspicuous place on its official website. Any holder of a government contract shall promptly prepare and deliver to the State of Alaska a true and correct "Government Contract Summary", in digital format as prescribed by the State, which shall:
(1) identify the names and addresses of the holders and all other parties to the government contract,
(2) briefly describe the nature of the contract, including whether the contract was awarded based on a competitive bidding procedure or was a contract awarded with no bid, and goods involved or services performed,
(3) disclose the estimated duration and end date of the contract,
(4) disclose the contract's estimated amount, and apportioned sources of payment, and
(5) disclose other relevant contract information as specifically required by the State of Alaska, including verbatim copies of all contract documents, to the extent disclosure would not violate federal or other state laws.

And the South Dakota language reads,

Section 9. The secretary of state shall promptly publish a summary of each government contract on a searchable website accessible from a conspicuous place on its official public website, for a period of at least ten years. Any holder of a government contract shall promptly prepare and deliver to the secretary of state a true and correct "Government Contract Summary," in digital format as prescribed by that office, which shall identify the names and addresses of the holders and all other parties to the government contract, briefly describe the nature of the contract and goods or services performed, disclose whether it is or is not a no-bid government contract, disclose the estimated duration and end date of the contract, and disclose the contract's estimated amount, and apportioned sources of payment. The summary shall also disclose any other relevant contract information as determined by the secretary of state, to the extent disclosure would not violate federal law, trade secrets, or intellectual property rights.

The authors drafted a section on penalties for violation of the Alaska version this way:

(B) Any person who knowingly spends or receives funds in violation of this section shall pay full restitution for the greater of the public cost or for the market value of any misappropriated resources. The second or subsequent violation by a public officer or employee shall render that person ineligible to hold public office or employment with the state or any of its political subdivisions for ten years.

And the South Dakota version reads:

Section 2. Any person who knowingly spends or receives funds in violation of §12-27-21 shall pay full restitution for the greater of the public cost or for the market value of any misappropriated resources. A knowing violation of §12-27-21 is grounds for discharge of an employee. A knowing violation of §12-27-21 is deemed corrupt misconduct.

This section lays out who can and cannot contract with the government to provide services in the Alaska version:

(A) No person may enter into a government contract if such person also employs, hires, or retains the services of a current or former legislator or legislative staff member who is less than two years removed from such public position. A person who knowingly violates this prohibition is guilty of a class A misdemeanor and shall, in addition to other penalties, forfeit any contractual rights to any payment or reimbursement, and shall make restitution to the state in the amount of funds accrued during the period of violation. This subsection shall not apply to a bona fide position, trade, occupation, or profession in which a person engaged or obtained certification within one year prior to becoming a legislator or legislative staff member.

And this is found in the South Dakota version:

Section 5. No person may enter into a government contract if the person also employs, hires, or retains the services of a current or former legislator or legislative staff member who is less than one year removed from such public position. A person who knowingly violates this prohibition is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, in addition to other penalties, forfeit any contractual rights to any payment or reimbursement, and shall make restitution to the state in the amount of funds accrued during the period of violation. This section shall not apply to a bona fide position, trade, occupation, or profession in which a person engaged or obtained certification within one year prior to becoming a legislator or legislative staff member.

The only difference between the two is the length of time that a former legislator or legislative employee must wait before entering a contract with the government: Two years in Alaska, one year in South Dakota.

Here is the text governing who can and cannot contribute to the campaigns of those running for public office, and for how long, in the Alaska version:

(B) Beginning on the date a government contract is awarded and extending until two years following the conclusion of that contract, no holder of the public office with ultimate responsibility for the award of the contract, no candidate for that office, and no person acting on behalf of either may knowingly solicit, accept, or direct a contribution from the holder of the government contract or an immediate family member of the holder. No candidate or other person may knowingly accept or make a contribution that is solicited or directed in violation of this subsection. A person who knowingly violates this prohibition is guilty of a class A misdemeanor and shall, in addition to other penalties, make full restitution to the donor and shall pay restitution in a like amount to the state. If the person has previously been convicted of violating this prohibition, the person shall be ineligible to hold public office or employment with the state or any of its political subdivisions for two years,

(C) Any person entering into a no-bid government contract awarded by the State or any of its subdivisions shall be considered a holder of a government contract and shall contractually agree to cease making, inducing, or soliciting contributions or independent expenditures, directly or indirectly, through any officer, employee, immediate family member of any officer or employee, vendor, or agent, to or for the benefit of any candidates for any elected office of the state or any of its political subdivisions, or to persons who intend to make such contributions within the state or any of its political subdivisions, for the duration of the contract and two years thereafter. The contractual agreement shall provide that any violation of this provision by the holder of the government contract shall, in addition to other legal consequences, result in forfeiture of any contractual rights to payment under the contract, and in payment of restitution to the state in an amount of not less than twice the amount of the contribution. Any person who knowingly violates this provision, or accepts contributions on behalf of a candidate or other entity in violation of this provision, shall pay restitution to the state in an amount not less than twice amount of the contribution. If the treasurer of any entity subject to such agreement obtains knowledge of a contribution made or accepted in violation thereof by that entity, then liability for the violation shall be also attributable to the treasurer unless the treasurer notifies the State of Alaska about the violation in writing within three business days of learning of such contribution. If a person has previously been determined responsible for violating this section, the person shall be ineligible to hold public office, any contract, or employment with the state or any of its political subdivisions for three years. The governor may temporarily suspend any debarment under this Subsection (C) during a declared state of emergency.

And here's the same section in the South Dakota version:

Section 6. Beginning on the date a government contract is awarded and extending until two years following the conclusion of that contract, no holder of the public office with ultimate responsibility for the award of the contract, no candidate for that office, and no person acting on behalf of either, may knowingly solicit, accept, or direct a contribution from the holder of the government contract or an immediate family member of the holder. No candidate or other person may knowingly accept or make a contribution that is solicited or directed in violation of this section. A person who knowingly violates this prohibition is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, in addition to other penalties, make full restitution to the donor. A knowing violation of this section is deemed corrupt misconduct.

Section 7. Any person entering into a no-bid government contract awarded by the state or any of its subdivisions shall be considered a holder of the government contract and shall contractually agree to cease making, inducing, or soliciting any contribution or independent expenditure, directly or indirectly, through any officer, employee, immediate family member of any officer or employee, vendor, or agent, to or for the benefit of any candidate for any elected office of the state or any of its political subdivisions, or to any person who intends to make such a contribution within the state or any of its political subdivisions, for the duration of the contract and two years thereafter. The contractual agreement shall provide that any violation of this provision by the holder of the government contract shall, in addition to other legal consequences, result in forfeiture of any contractual rights to payment under the contract, and in payment of restitution to the state in an amount of not less than twice the amount of the contribution. Any person who knowingly violates this provision, or accepts contributions on behalf of a candidate or other entity in violation of this provision, shall pay restitution to the state in an amount not less than twice the amount of the contribution. If the treasurer of any entity subject to such agreement obtains knowledge of a contribution made or accepted in violation thereof by that entity, then liability for the violation shall be also attributable to the treasurer unless the treasurer notifies the secretary of state about the violation in writing within three business days of learning of such contribution. A knowing violation of this section is deemed corrupt misconduct. If a person has previously been determined to be responsible for violating this section, the person shall be ineligible to hold any government contract, or public employment with the state or any of its political subdivisions, for three years. The Governor may temporarily suspend any debarment under this section during a declared state of emergency.

Except for minor style differences to conform with their own state codes, they are mirror images.

There are few more minor segments in each version, but they, too, are nearly identical in the Alaskan "Anti-Corruption Act" and South Dakota's IM-10.

In fact, when you consider the measures, the groups that support them and the way they've been funded, there's only one major difference between the two: In Alaska, it's public knowledge that Howie Rich brought the proposal to that state, found someone to organize a campaign for it, and will contribute funding to it. In South Dakota, the organization that was created last year to propose IM-10, and to organize a campaign for it, doesn't reveal who is funding their work.

Column details Howie Rich's attempt to buy SC

The State newspaper editor Cindi Ross Scoppe, whose columns have detailed Howie Rich's involvement in South Carolina, wrote at the end of July that she's often criticized for overlooking the contributions of other individuals and organizations from outside the state, and focusing so much on Rich.

If anyone wants to ban corporate and union donations, that's fine with me. A corporation or a union is not a human being, and doesn't have the First Amendment rights that the U.S. Supreme Court has ridiculously said gives actual people the right to spend all the money they please to influence our votes.

But there's a big difference between those donations and the Rich donations, in at least four ways.

** First, while some incumbents receive the bulk of their funding from corporate interests, it's rare that any one business is responsible for more than a sliver of a candidate's total donations; few evade the $1,000 donation limit. Moreover, there's a balancing function inherent in the hedge-your-bets approach of most corporations: A donation from AT&T, for instance, might be counterbalanced by one from rival Time Warner Cable.

And in those instances when a candidate is bankrolled by a single interest -- say trial lawyers -- that usually becomes a campaign issue. As it should. The Rich lackeys are clearly perturbed that his donations are an issue.

** Second, unlike Mr. Rich, who practically brags during his famous Katon Dawson interview that he has no financial, business or personal interests in our state, those other out-of-state interests do: They employ thousands of South Carolinians, pay S.C. income, sales and property taxes, run their businesses under the rules our Legislature passes.

I don't think they should have as much say as voters (and certainly not a greater say), but they do have a legitimate interest in how our state is governed, which cannot be said of Mr. Rich.

** Third, although Mr. Rich makes the point that he is obeying our laws, he goes to greater lengths than anyone I've seen to get around the intent of the law, by hiding his donations until it's too late for the information to do voters any good.

Donations that candidates receive during the final 20 days before an election don't have to be reported until the following quarter. That makes it pretty easy for donors to hide their involvement until after the voting. (It also means voters have no idea who's bankrolling a runoff campaign, since all runoff donations come in during this blackout period, but we can't really blame the candidates or the donors for that.)

According to blogger Ross Shealy (scbarbecue.blogspot.com), who has been scouring legislative candidates' campaign disclosure reports for Mr. Rich's fingerprints, 10 of the 37 recipients of Rich et al funding in last month's primaries didn't receive any of that money until the blackout period.

In some cases, this penchant for secrecy is almost comical. In Greenville's House District 22, Wendy Nanney took $18,000, 45 percent of her donations, from the Rich gang to unseat Rep. Gloria Haskins -- a fellow voucher supporter. Yet even with no threat of an attack on that issue, Mr. Rich still delayed all but $3,000 of the donations until after the final pre-election disclosure reports were due, so voters couldn't learn of them until after they voted.

** Finally, what makes the Howie Rich machine so different is the sheer volume of money he throws at candidates.

The Associated Press' Jim Davenport identified $577,000 in last month's primaries: $357,000 from Mr. Rich and 21 of his companies; $49,000 from other companies that share his Manhattan address; and another $171,000 from a handful of individuals and organizations affiliated with him.

That wouldn't be quite so bad -- though it's more than the big corporations that employ South Carolinians tend to give -- if it were equally distributed among the 35 recipients Mr. Davenport wrote about, or the 37 Mr. Shealy identified. It is not.

Mr. Shealy, who is as fixated on unmasking Mr. Rich as Mr. Rich is on imposing his vision on our state, tells me that 13 of the candidates received more than half their total donations from Mr. Rich and company; one received 97 percent. It wasn't uncommon for House candidates to receive $20,000 or more; one Senate candidate received $740,000.

And what did Mr. Rich get for his investments? Twenty-one of his candidates lost, including three incumbents. One dropped out. One was unopposed. And 14 won, but that included five incumbents who were shoe-ins for re-election. Which shows that this kind of money can't buy you everything -- but it can buy something, particularly when no one knows you're doing the purchasing.

What makes Howie Rich 's donations so different
State, The (Columbia, SC) - July 29, 2008

And in the next day's edition, she continues her examination of Rich's influence by outlining in detail who collected Rich's contributions -- the ones that went directly to candidates' campaigns, and which don't include the funding of independent organizations like South Carolinians for Responsible Government.

I PROMISE you I'm more tired of writing about Howie Rich's campaign to buy our Legislature than you are of reading about it. But I figure if somebody's willing to put down more than half a million bucks in a single round of primary elections, just to make sure a Legislature in a state he has no ties to spends other people's tax dollars the way he sees fit, we owe him some ink.

Today we'll look at the candidates who took money from Mr. Rich, his 21 LLCs, other companies that share his Manhattan address and a handful of related people and organizations that tend to donate the same day he does.

My list is drawn from the research of blogger Ross Shealy (scbarbecue.blogspot.com), whose totals match the ones produced by The Associated Press. It shows how much each candidate received and how much of that came in during the 20-day blackout period before the primaries, when donations don't have to be reported until after the election. It doesn't include expenditures by third-party groups that receive their funding from Mr. Rich.

Some candidates face opposition in November, but here's the score so far: Three of the 11 incumbents Mr. Rich backed lost; two of his 14 challengers unseated incumbents; candidates he backed in open seats won seven of 12 races; and one of his candidates dropped out.

Rich incumbents re-elected:

** Sen. Mike Fair, Senate District 6, $6,000, all of it during the blackout period.

** Sen. Greg Ryberg, S.24, $7,000, all of it during the blackout period.

** Sen. Robert Ford, S.42, $8,000, half of it before the blackout period but none reported until July.

** Rep. Thad Viers, House District 68, $13,000, none of it reported until after the election.

** Rep. Kit Spires, H.96, $3,000 -- $2,000 of it during the blackout period.

** Rep. Curtis Brantley, H.122, $28,000 -- 65 percent of his donations -- all during the blackout period.

** Rep. Richard Chalk, H.123, $3,000, all during the blackout period.

Rich incumbents defeated:

** Rep. Bob Leach, H.21, $5,000.

** Rep. Ralph Davenport, H.37, $7,000. His disclosure report shows all his donations were made before the blackout period, but he did not report them as required by law until July.

** Rep. Heyward Hutson, H.94, $7,000 -- $3,000 of it during the blackout period.

Incumbent slayers:

** Wendy Nanney, H.22, $18,000 -- 45 percent of her donations --all but $3,000 during the blackout period. She beat fellow voucher supporter Gloria Haskins.

** Joey Millwood , H.38, $32,000 -- 65 percent of his donations. All but $3,000 was given on May 24 -- three days into the blackout period. He defeated House Education Chairman Bob Walker.

Rich open-seat winners:

** Dee Compton, S.10, $33,000, all during the blackout period.

** Lee Bright, S.12, $50,000, all during the blackout period.

** Deborah Long, H.45, $12,000 -- 40 percent of her donations. All but $3,000 of that came during the blackout period.

** Tim Scott, H.117, $16,000, all but $2,000 during the blackout period.

** Tommy Stringer, H.18, $10,000, all but $3,000 during the blackout period.

** Daniel Hamilton, H.20, $5,000. He was unopposed.

Rich challengers defeated:

** Katrina Shealy, S.23, $74,000 -- 51 percent of her donations -- all but $5,000 during the blackout period.

** Levone Graves, S.30, $5,000, all but $1,000 during the blackout period, which covered the runoff.

** Raymond Russell, H.31, $21,000 -- 76 percent of his donations -- all on a single day, during the blackout period.

** Ken Roach, H.34, $16,000 -- 69 percent of his donations. All of it was given on a single day, during the blackout period.

** Roger Nutt, H.35, $20,000, all but $2,000 during the blackout period.

** Annie McDaniel, H.41, $21,000 -- 85 percent of her donations -- all during the blackout period, on the day of the primary.

** Ed Rumsey, H.2, $17,000 -- 65 percent of his donations -- $14,000 during the blackout period.

** Trey Whitehurst, H.3, $18,000, all but $2,000 during the blackout period.

** Kyle Boyd, H.48, $2,000.

** Ennis Bryant, H.50, $4,000 -- 74 percent of his donations -- all during the blackout period.

** Naim Salahudeen, H.54, $5,000 -- 61 percent of his donations -- none reported before the election.

** Zina Manning, H.55, $8,000 -- 96 percent of her donations -- all during the blackout period. (If she had defeated Rep. Jackie Hayes, this would have made a great trivia question: What candidate was swept into office by the video poker barons because the incumbent opposed them and then out by the voucher barons because he opposed them?)

** Priscilla Robinson, H.66, $14,000, all but $2,000 on the first day of the blackout period. She received another $4,000 from donors with a New York address that Mr. Shealy considered suspicious but whose affiliations he has not confirmed.

** Sheri Few, H.79, $26,000 -- 51 percent of her donations. Half of it came in during the blackout period.

** Scott Singer, H.81, $21,000, all during the blackout period. (The Aiken Standard reports that he returned all but $3,000 after the election.)

** James Whitehead, H.83, $11,000 -- 98 percent of his donations -- all on a single day, during the blackout period.

** Wendell Gilliard, H.111, $5,000, all of it during the blackout period, on the day after the primary.

** Joseph Bustos, H.112, $27,000 -- 55 percent of his donations -- all but $3,000 during the blackout period.

Finally, Rep. Joe Mahaffey, H.36, received $4,000 on Feb. 29 and dropped his re-election bid that same day, making way for voucher backer and former Rep. Rita Allison to take back her seat.

The Who's Who list of Howie Rich friends and foes
State, The (Columbia, SC) - July 30, 2008

Counting up the number of House and Senate races that Howie Rich sought to influence, it's 37 out of the South Carolina General Assembly's 170 total seats. If he'd been completely successful, Rich would hold sway over nearly one-quarter of a state's legislature -- a state where he can't cast a single vote.

S. Carolina, S. Dakota groups funded similarly

At the same time that campaign finance reports across South Carolina were revealing the heavy hand of New York millionaire Howie Rich, reports were filed in South Dakota with similar features: One organization, the South Dakota Conservative Action Council, contributed more than $195,000 to a committee called South Dakotans for Open and Clean Government, which uses the money to support a ballot measure "restricting individuals' right to contribute to campaign and to lobby." Neither group, SDCAC or SDOCG, reveals who supplies its funding.

The two big fights are over Initiated Measure 11, which would ban most abortions in South Dakota; and Initiated Measure 10, which would place a multitude of additional restrictions on individuals' rights to contribute to campaigns and to lobby, and on government involvement in campaigns and lobbying.

The reports cover the period from late May through early July and must be filed with the state elections office.
...
Open and clean government : The group officially supporting Measure 10, South Dakotans for Open and Clean Government , reported receiving 13 contributions between late May and early July totaling $195,699, with 11 from individuals ranging from $10 (six) to $100 (three) and two from its main financial supporter, the South Dakota Conservative Action Council, in the amounts of $15,000 and $180,000.

The Open and Clean committee reported spending $198,551 during the same period. The major expense was $182,892 for advertising.

* No on 10, the Pierre-based group opposing the measure, reported receiving $1,345 in donations less than $100 from unnamed individuals and spent $45 on supplies. The anti-10 committee started the period with just $2,180 in the bank and ended with $3,479 cash on hand.
...
Neither the South Dakota Conservative Action Council nor American Entrepreneurs for Securities Reform has revealed the sources of funding being passed along to the ballot committees.

CAMPAIGN CASH FLOWING - ABORTION BAN, 'OPEN AND CLEAN' INITIATIVES ATTRACTING LARGE AMOUNTS OF MONEY
Aberdeen American News (SD) - July 26, 2008

But the media in South Carolina continues to publish what it learns about the New York millionaire.

A wealthy New York developer pushing a school vouchers agenda used an assortment of companies to pump tens of thousands of dollars into a handful of primary campaigns for legislative seats in Greenville and Spartanburg counties, South Carolina and New York State records show.

Howard S. Rich, through at least nine firms and several associates, contributed at least $40,000 to eight Upstate Republican primary candidates, five of whom won nominations and face no general election opposition. Statewide, the same individuals and businesses donated $179,000 to Republican primary candidates and a scattering of Democrats.

The nine firms are listed on New York State Secretary of State's database of corporations and computerized records of business entities, and their donations appear on South Carolina candidates' filings with the state Ethics Commission. The New York records contain Rich's name, that of his wife, Andrea, or his business address of 73 Spring St.

Rich couldn't be reached for comment.

Fifteen other firms that have no named affiliation with Rich but share the same 73 Spring St., Suites 408 and 507 addresses, donated to South Carolina candidates and didn't show up on the New York database. Those donations totaled $70,000 to the six Greenville-Spartanburg candidates and totaled $166,000 statewide.

New Yorker bankrolled Upstate races
Greenville News, The (SC) - July 27, 2008

The Greenville News article goes on to estimate that Rich contributed up to $1 million in the South Carolina primaries of 2006 and 2008, including $10,000 to Joey Millwood, the 28-year-old sports writer who defeated the eight-term chairman of the House Education Committee.

State law limits donations to General Assembly candidates to $1,000 for each primary, runoff and general election, a maximum of $3,000 per individual or business entity.

Rich discussed his goals and extensive use of his personal wealth to achieve them in a videotaped interview conducted by Dawson, the state Republican Party chairman, and recently posted on Youtube.com. The interview took place three weeks ago in the den of Dawson's Columbia home. It had been arranged during a 2007 meeting between the two in New York, Dawson told The Greenville News.

A disclaimer on the video says it was paid for by South Carolina Citizens for Responsible Government, a pro-voucher organization whose critics say is partially funded by Rich, although the group isn't required to make public its donors.
...
Turning to candidates and issues he has bankrolled in a number of states, Rich describes himself as "a political person" with two main interests: term limits for politicians and "individual freedom, the rights of parents versus big government."
...
Most of the Rich donations were made after the pre-primary campaign finance reports were filed. They weren't made public until after the primary election