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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Newspaper finds "clandestine sources of funding"

On May 29, the Aberdeen American News reported "new developments" in funding for two groups, including South Dakotans for Open and Clean Goverment.

South Dakotans for Open and Clean Government has received an additional $175,000 in the past five months from the South Dakota Conservative Action Council in support of Initiated Measure 10, which purports to be an anti-corruption initiative that attempts to further regulate political funding, campaign activities and private employment of legislators.

The Conservative Action Council won't reveal its sources of money. Only $829 was received from other contributors to the Open and Clean committee so far this year.
...
The new developments came to light through campaign-finance disclosure reports which the ballot committees were required by South Dakota law to publicly file this month.

In both instances, the ballot-measure committees have been using non-profit corporations as shields to hide their sources of funding. Corporations are allowed to make unlimited political contributions to ballot measure campaigns in South Dakota. Non-profit corporations must make their federal tax returns open to public inspection but they aren't required to reveal their donors.

The Conservative Action Council was formed last year in Pierre as a non-profit corporation by Louisiana native Lee Breard and two other directors, Steve Sibson of Mitchell and Lora Hubbel of Sioux Falls, just weeks before the Open and Clean Government ballot committee was organized. Breard, Sibson and Hubbel have refused to disclose the council's sources of funding being used to pay for the ballot committee work.

The council has now given $220,200 of secret funding during the past seven months to the ballot committee, which is attempting to further restrict campaign donations and regulate employment of current and former state legislators.

Initiated Measure 10 is similar to ballot proposals being attempted in Montana and Colorado and to a Nevada measure which a judge there threw off the ballot in March.

"Conservative Action Council pours $175,000 more into ballot campaign," Aberdeen American News (SD) - May 29, 2008

AG questions measures' constitutionality

On May 24, South Dakota Attorney General Larry Long told citizens that three of the ballot measures proposed in his state might be unconstitutional and would likely be challenged in court if they were approved. If state laws are challenged in court, it's the attorney general's responsibility to defend them, so South Dakota law requires the attorney general to give the voters his advice before a ballot measure comes to the polls.

The Aberdeen American News wrote this about Initiated Measure 10, which was sponsored by a group called South Dakotans for Open and Clean Government:

Initiated Measure 10: The full text of Initiated Measure 10 is about 2,000 words and attempts to prohibit a broad range of political activities. The petition drive to place Measure 10 on the ballot was funded almost entirely by the newly formed South Dakota Conservative Action Council, whose directors have refused to disclose their sources of revenue, and the Washington, D.C.-based Americans for Tax Reform.

Those two organizations provided nearly all of the money to the South Dakotans for Open and Clean Government ballot committee that is sponsoring the initiative. The initiative's official sponsors were Tonchi Weaver of Rapid City, Jessica Walberg of Sioux Falls and James Anderson of Sioux Falls.

The attorney general's explanation attempts to summarize Measure 10 in 125 words:

"Measure 10 would prohibit state and local governments, their officers, employees, independent contractors, consultants and candidates, from using government revenues or resources for campaigning or lobbying. Some communications and appearances before legislators and public bodies are exempted.

"It would prohibit persons who employ legislators or recent legislators from obtaining government contracts. It would prohibit, until two years after contract termination: some public officers, candidates and their agents from soliciting, accepting or directing contributions from some holders of competitively bid government contracts and their family members; and no-bid government contract holders, their officers, employees, agents, vendors and family members from making contributions to, or independent expenditures for, all candidate campaigns.

"The Secretary of State would be required to summarize government contracts over $500 on its website."

Long added that if Measure 10 is adopted, all or part "will likely be challenged in court and may be declared to be in violation of the United States Constitution. If so, the State may be required to pay attorney fees and costs."

Long noted that state laws already prohibit the acceptance of campaign contributions from all government and tribal entities; prohibit spending of public funds to support or oppose ballot measures; and prohibit certain state and county contracts which financially benefit legislators.

"Ballot issues raise concerns," Aberdeen American News (SD) - May 24, 2008