The topic of South Dakota’s voter-bribery ban deserves further coverage in this space this week for two reasons.
First, nobody seems to mind that the ban doesn’t seem apply to the people elected by the voters to state office in South Dakota. We’ll visit that point at length in a few moments.
Second, new information has surfaced from state Attorney General Marty Jackley regarding the allegations of offering food as an inducement to get people to participate in early voting.
In this space last week this columnist focused solely on the Democratic-organized chili feeds and early voting rallies, which were held contrary to the high-profile warnings issued a decade ago that the practice was illegal.
In recent days Attorney General Jackley issued a statement that his office has received continuing complaints about offering of food in exchange for or to induce voting.
“Complaints have been submitted by both Republican and Democratic political parties, local law enforcement, and private citizens,” his statement said.
A few days later 18 Republican legislators publicly endorsed the proposal from Sen. Jason Gant of Sioux Falls, the Republican candidate for secretary of state, to make voter bribery a Class 6 felony punishable by up to two years in prison and a $2,000 fine.
Voter bribery currently is a Class 2 misdemeanor punishable by 30 days in jail and a $500 fine.
The idea of increasing the penalty as a deterrent was first suggested in this space last week. It wasn’t made in conjunction with Gant or the Republican legislators.
Since they’re in the mood to look at bribery reforms, perhaps they would be willing to consider cleaning up similar practices during the legislative sessions.
Offering food, and drink, is a daily event during the annual sessions. In fact, the Legislative Research Council has helped coordinate the scheduling.
On most mornings and most noons, buffet-style spreads are offered behind the Senate and the House chambers. Organizations provide the food, coffee and water.
These are opportunities for organizations with interest in legislation to meet and greet legislators and other state officials who come for the food.
Many organizations also provide small gifts to legislators such as jars of candy for their desks and coffee mugs and other tokens.
Many organizations also hold evening meals for legislators at locations away from the Capitol including banquets and come-and-go buffets.
Rarely does a legislator need to pay for a meal if she or he doesn’t want to use the perdiem expense payment all legislators receive in addition to their salaries.
There are other less-visible practices that are perhaps much more influential.
Some lobbyists host “drink rooms” at local motels, or in private homes, where legislators know they can routinely stop after each day’s work ends at the Capitol.
This practice likely dates back to the territorial Legislature.
Some lobbyists take individual legislators to breakfast or lunch or dinner to discuss matters. Some lobbyists actually host entire committees for dinner prior to hearings on bills in which the lobbyists have an interest.
Governors also host meals and gatherings for legislators to discuss strategy and to make the pitches for legislation.
And legislators in turn host events each session for lobbyists to attend and pay money. The Republicans and the Democrats both do this to raise campaign contributions.
One of the simmering controversies among members of the Legislature are taxpayerfunded trips for legislators to meetings of the American Legislative Exchange Council, a pro-business national organization that is largely funded by corporations.
Private sponsorships in large amounts also help underwrite national meetings of the National Governors Association, the Council of State Governments and the National Conference of State Legislatures that are attended by South Dakota officials and legislators.
The murkiness extends into political contributions. Take an assortment of examples from the current election cycle – all legal under South Dakota’s current laws.
Two legislators received unusually large contributions from political action committees.
The South Dakota Trial Lawyers gave $15,000 to one of their members, Sen. Nancy Turbak Berry, D-Watertown.
She succeeded in winning the Legislature’s approval of a measure last year that insurance companies opposed and trial lawyers supported. Only a veto by Gov. Mike Rounds prevented it from becoming law.
Rep. Deb Peters, RHartford, received $10,000 from the Warner PAC, whose only contributors this year were Tom and Sharon Warner of Rapid City.
Years of records show the Warners normally support Democratic candidates and specific social causes, such as the Equality South Dakota organization, which promotes an equal-rights agenda for gays, lesbians and other sexual orientations.
The Warners strongly support the Equality group, and Sharon Warner filed the group’s PAC report as well as the Warner PAC’s report. Peters sponsored the Equality group’s legislation during the 2010 session. It was defeated in its first committee hearing.
Peters was the only recipient of a donation from the Warner PAC this fall, and the only other one this year was Sen.-elect Angie Buhl of Sioux Falls, who won a Democratic primary and is unopposed this fall.
Loopholes in state laws on PACs have allowed very large contributions to flow from a handful of big givers such as the Warners, Gary and April Wenzel of Rapid City, state Sen. Stan Adelstein of Rapid City and banker T. Denny Sanford of Sioux Falls to candidates this year, including three running for governor, Republicans Gordon Howie and Dave Knudson and Democrat Scott Heidepriem.
Big money has been routed through PACs even to secretary of state candidates Gant and Democrat Ben Nesselhuf, who are running for the office that oversees campaign finance reporting and elections.
Rep. Jason Frerichs, DSisseton, is unopposed for election to his district’s Senate seat. He reported receiving $2,375 from nine PACs and three other candidates’ committees this fall. Altogether he reported receiving $4,885 in direct contributions.
He’s used the money for other political purposes, which is legal. Nor is it uncommon for unopposed candidates to receive campaign donations.
Comments