Intitiated Measure 10; What the party fools aren’t telling you.

 I decided to look at Initiated Measure #10 to see what all the hoopla is about. I had read it about a month ago and found nothing in it that I disagree with. So I decided to take a second look to see if I was missing something, since both parties oppose it. Which doesn’t surprise me. Like I have said in the past, parties oppose open government laws because they don’t want the public to know where their campaigns get money. Read the Measure here, with explanations.

http://cleanupsd.com/read-the-sd-open-and-clean-government-act/

My analysis:

I agree with Section 1. It should be against the law to use taxpayer’s money to lobby. We have seen this in the past with the city of Sioux Falls hiring lobbyists.

I agree with Section 2. This basically charges you with a crime if you violate Section 1. Makes sense, because then their is accountability.

I think Section 3 is really unnecessary because those rights are already granted to an elected official under the First Amendment. But it does not take away anything from the measure by keeping it in there.

I strongly agree with Section 4. It basically says your tax dollars cannot be used to buy supposed ‘neutral’ studies that support one position or another. It is up to voters to do their own research when it comes to candidates and ballot issues.

Section 5 is wishy-washy. On one hand I agree with limiting golden parachute jobs, but I also wonder if this will hamper the right for someone to provide for themselves? I think this section needs more clarification.

I strongly agree with Section 6. This has been going on way to long. Awarding contracts to campaign contributors will become illegal under Section 6.

Section 7 goes into more detail about Section 6 and reiterates it. These two sections should have been combined.

Section 8 allows citizens to file complaints in court about violators of Section 7 if state attorney’s choose to ignore complaints. This is good, because it gives citizens the power to hold government officials accountable when state employees fail us.

Section 9 is long overdue. Governor Rounds has been promising a state contract website for a longtime, and he will NEVER deliver it on his own, he has too much at stake to do so. I have also believed this section of  the measure should be on the ballot by itself. As a Pierre insider told me once, “If the citizens of South Dakota knew the enormous waste state contracts are, they would overthrow the government in Pierre.”

Section 10 clarifies what state contracts will apply to Section 9.

I think this measure is long overdue, and I can see why state Republicans and Democrats oppose the measure, it’s all about campaign contributions, favors and PAC money, that’s all it seems they live for these days. If we publicly funded campaigns in the state, there would be no need for this measure, but that’s a whole other debate in itself.

I’m no lawyer, but it seems to me this measure is very solid and constitutional. Of course anyone can challenge it in court if it becomes law, BUT I wonder if any politicians would want to go through that embarrassment? It’s time we tell politicians they work for us, not lobbyists or contractors.