Initiated Measure 10, on the ballot this November, has the professed aim of ensuring a more open and transparent government. It bans or restricts political contributions and lobbying by holders of government contracts, particularly no-bid contracts.
The “No On 10” committee has the support of a range of organizations, most of which would be directly affected by the law. Both the state Democratic and Republican parties oppose the measure, as do advocacy groups such as the state’s Chamber of Commerce & Industry, Education Association and Municipal League.
|
Advertisement |
The initiative is principally backed by the South Dakota Conservative Action Council, a libertarian nonprofit group.
At a Pierre event Wednesday, representatives of the Associated School Boards of South Dakota, the state Telecommunications Association, the state Republican Party and the Associated General Contractors of South Dakota presented arguments against the measure.
Many objections to the measure conflict directly with the Conservative Action Council’s goals. For example, Brian Aust, the director of communications for the school board association, criticized the CAC’s argument that individual cities, counties and school districts should talk to legislators themselves instead of hiring lobbyists.
“They don’t have the manpower for each individual district to read through 500 bills or 1,000 administrative rules and decide what impacts them,” Aust said. “It would virtually make it impossible for school districts to weigh in — and even to find out what’s going on — in the legislative process.”
Other criticisms of Initiated Measure 10 highlight ambiguous language in the law where supporters and opponents disagree about the measure’s true impact. For example, one section of the law would ban holders of no-bid government contracts from “making, inducing or soliciting any contribution ... directly or indirectly, through any officer, employee, (or) immediate family member of any officer or employee.”
Opponents of the law interpret this expansively, arguing it would ban children, cousins, in-laws and step-parents from even talking to legislators or city council members. Supporters, such as CAC director Lee Breard, say this measure would only prohibit funneling banned contributions through relatives. The language of the measure would appear to support Breard’s argument, but is ambiguous enough that it, and other passages, could lead to expensive litigation if passed, as state attorney general Larry Long said in a ballot statement.
The No On 10 coalition is launching a major campaign against Initiated Measure 10 after several polls showed the measure to be popular. Greg Dean, with the state telecommunications association and a spokesman for No On 10, said the group will put several hundred thousand dollars behind its campaign. Groups in the coalition have also been urging their members to oppose it.
“There is nothing in this measure that has any redeeming value anywhere in South Dakota,” said Dean.
Comments
2 comment(s)IM 10 is a Gag Law wrote on Sep 22, 2008 4:00 PM:
If this thing passes, I can't talk to my father who is on the county commission about county issues because my husband has done work for the state on contract. I don't call that open government, I call that a gag law! "
Richard wrote on Sep 18, 2008 10:12 PM:
They've already bought three quarters of a MILLION dollars in TV ads alone.
Ask the stations.
How much of that is from tax-funded lobbying groups or government contractors paid by tax dollars? "