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.

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?

South Dakota group offers an Alaska-like plan

In Alaska, while a group of activists worked to support an "anti-corruption" ballot measure, a similar group in South Dakota hit upon a similar idea at roughly the same time. On February 6, the Sioux Falls Argus Leader published this item among a list of news briefs:

A group trying to uncouple money from state government says it received $10,000 to help underwrite a ballot initiative to restrict political campaign spending and to enhance financial transparency in government. South Dakotans for Open and Clean Government says the donation was made by Americans for Tax Reform, one of the nation's leading taxpayer watchdogs.

The petition being circulated to get the South Dakota Open and Clean Government Act before voters would prohibit public money from being used to advance political agendas, including increased taxes. It would prevent legislators from securing "golden-parachute" jobs after their public service has ended. Recipients of no-bid contracts would be prohibited from donating to political campaigns while they hold a state contract and two years thereafter.

"Husband fired gun during fight, police say," Argus Leader (Sioux Falls, SD) - February 6, 2008

A few weeks later, the Argus Leader gave the group and their proposal a little more coverage. They were not opposed to the rights of private groups to hire private lobbyists, but they equated public agencies hiring lobbyists with "corruption."

A ballot initiative that would shake up Pierre lobbying and place limits on government contracts has been submitted to the secretary of state. Organizers say the Open and Clean Government Act will prevent corruption and expand transparency. But critics say the initiative will silence key players in the lawmaking process. If it passes, dozens of government associations that are supported by tax dollars no longer would be able to contact legislators.
...
The act would affect almost anyone who receives a government contract. It says someone awarding a contract can't accept campaign money from a recipient, and it would prohibit anyone who employs a legislator or legislative staffer from receiving a government contract.

"Ballot may get crowded," Argus Leader (Sioux Falls, SD) - March 22, 2008

On April 2, South Dakota's secretary of state certified the group's petitions, ensuring that their measure would be placed on the ballot.