Sibby Online

Bob Mercer points to corruption in the South Dakota Legislature. Does it apply to governors? Why didn't he mention Deb Peters name, the SDGOP gay activist?

Bob Mercer promised more last week, and here it is:

Would it be bribery of a legislator if a lobbyist or group of lobbyists operated what’s known as a drink room at a motel or hotel during session?

How about if they had a house just a block from the Capitol where the door was always open for the same purpose? What if a business group handed out passes to legislators, allowing them to ride the River Cities transit buses whenever they wanted? What if a lobbyist took a legislator, or a few legislators, or an entire committee of legislators, to dinner? What if a group of legislators invited lobbyists to a fundraiser for their political party during session? What if a legislator sent a letter to lobbyists asking for contributions?

What if a candidate for state office set up a political action committee, commonly known as a PAC, so that it appeared to be independent of his campaign? And then routed money from the PAC to his campaign, as a means of allowing donors to give more than they otherwise legally could directly contribute to the campaign?

All of these things happened in South Dakota in the past two years.

No one was investigated or prosecuted. Evidently none of this was illegal.

The South Dakota Supreme Court has never been presented with a case involving the state constitution’s provisions regarding bribery of a legislator or considered any case involving the state laws regarding bribery, unlawful influence, improper influence, compelling action, compelling inaction, or solicitation of a legislator.

I wonder if "improper influence" and "compelling action" also applies to the governor's office? More on that later.

Mercer then details the problem from a constitutional point of view:

The reason for this seemingly unblemished record of legislator integrity might be the words of the constitution itself. Consider the oath legislators take, when they promise:

“… I have not knowingly or intentionally paid or contributed anything, or made any promise in the nature of a bribe, to directly or indirectly influence any vote at the election at which I was chosen to fill said office, and have not accepted, nor will I accept or receive directly or indirectly, any money, pass, or any other valuable thing, from any corporation, company or person, for any vote or influence I may give or withhold on any bill or resolution, or appropriation, or for any other official act.”

Then there’s this second section from the same Article III, regarding the Legislature, in the constitution:

“Any person who shall give, demand, offer, directly or indirectly, any money, testimonial, privilege or personal advantage, thing of value to any executive or judicial officer or member of the Legislature, to influence him in the performance of any of his official or public duties, shall be guilty of bribery and shall be punished in such manner as shall be provided by law.

The catch, of course, is proving that someone “directly or indirectly” gave something or made an offer or made a demand in an attempt to influence.

What our Legislature does is look the other way. So does our secretary of state, whose office oversees campaign finance regulations.

And unless someone takes an official complaint to law enforcement, the state attorney general isn’t going to open an investigation. The trails aren’t hard to find, however.

What can I say but WOW! And remember South Dakota recently was rated 2nd for the higherst risk of corruption. Mercer ends with the PAC loophole:

A person can give $10,000 apiece to as many PACs as he or she so chooses.

At least four of the six candidates for governor in 2010 benefited greatly from these loopholes: Democrat Scott Heidepriem, and Republicans Gordon Howie, Dave Knudson and, to a limited extent, Dennis Daugaard.

So did the two candidates for secretary of state, Democrat Ben Nesselhuf and Jason Gant.

And we could start naming legislators but for fear that someone would be left off the list. One legislator received a single $10,000 contribution that paid for about 40 percent of her campaign.

No one introduced legislation in the 2011 or 2012 sessions to do anything about any of it.

This is the way our Legislature is.

So who could that unnamed legislator be? Deb Peters did received $10,000 form the Warner Pac. Sharon Warner is the contact for the Warner PAC. Sharon Warner is on the board and Vice Treasurer of Equality South Dakota. Equality South Dakota was looking for Republican Primary Candidates for 2010:

It may be the first time someone or a group has run want ads for a political candidate.  Well, at least in KOTA Territory.

Starting Sunday, one of South Dakota's largest political action committees is running want ads in local newspapers, for republicans willing to mount a primary challenge in legislative elections.

What makes it even more unique: the Equality South Dakota Political Action Committee is the group putting out the ad.  The group supports and promotes equal rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

It's a community conservatives have tended to snub in the past.  But, Don Frankenfeld, the vice chair of the group, says he knows there are republicans who support gay rights.

"I think it's a traditional republican principle to provide for tolerance and fairness," Frankenfeld said.

The SDGOP platform says:

7.5 The South Dakota Republican Party believes that marriage is the union of one man and one woman and must never be redefined to include civil unions of same-sex couples, or groups of individuals. To defend the sanctity of marriage, we support the passage of the Federal Marriage Amendment and appropriate South Dakota laws.

The Warner PAC was not too successful in finding Republican candidates. The only Republican receiving Warner Pac money was the $10,000 going to Deb Peters. The Equality South Dakota PAC did a little better. They gave $6,000, in a losing effort, to Casey Murschel, $500 to Joni Cutler, and $1,500 to Deb Peters.

Daugaard's corporate socialism giving the SDGOP a black eye as state is sued by South Dakota businesses

This was on the front page of Friday's Argus Leader:

A $5 million contract that Gov. Dennis Daugaard’s office signed with a national employee recruiting firm earlier this year violates the state and U.S. constitutions as well as state and federal laws, according to a lawsuit filed this week in Pierre.

The lawsuit, brought by three Sioux Falls staffing companies, alleges that the governor’s office “lacked the constitutional authority to enter into a contract” that gave one company an exclusive franchise within private industry.

“Under the contract, the state not only channels private business to use Manpower, but also pays $49,000 a month for that privilege,” according to the complaint. “The inevitable effect is to competitively cripple employee recruiting firms within and without South Dakota who get no monthly operating subsidy and who are unable to compete with the fixed below-market pricing of the fee schedule.”

Daugaard announced his plan to hire Manpower during his State of the State address in January. His plan called for Manpower to recruit 1,000 skilled out-of-state workers in four areas: financial services, information technology, engineering and manufacturing. The Legislature eventually approved $5 million for the project, and the contract with Manpower became effective Monday.

But the contract is unfair to other recruiting firms, the lawsuit says. Employers are compelled to partner with Manpower to hire out-of-state workers in those high-demand areas.

The lawsuit alleges that the contract was illegal for a number of reasons:

■ The governor’s office didn’t have the authority to sign it;

■ the state constitution prohibits the state from granting a “special or exclusive franchise;”

■ the contract impedes on Congress’ authority to regulate interstate commerce;

■ and it violates state and federal antitrust laws by attempting to confer a “de facto monopoly” to Manpower.

And because the contract was to provide a service for the private sector and not the state, the lawsuit argues that the state broke competitive bidding laws.

Steve Sanford, the lawyer for the plaintiffs, said the Legislature has told the governor’s office to “go forth and be innovative” to create jobs and wealth in the state. “The question is, where is the boundary of power?” Sanford said. “We don’t think being innovative means you can anoint a private company to be the sole provider of services in a private, competitive market.”

Sanford compared it to the governor’s office deciding that every business should have a pickup truck paid for by the state, but only if it is bought from one dealer chosen by the state.

Daugaard's plan also violated the SDGOP platform:

The South Dakota Republican Party recognizes the free enterprise system and the work ethic of our people as the foundation of our economic success and security.

 

2.6 The South Dakota Republican Party believes government should not have an unfair advantage in competition with private enterprise.

 I covered this issue earlier. Here was the vote on the Hunhoff Amendment to remove the funding:

Here are the representatives who supported the Hunhoff amendment:

Yeas:
Blake; Dennert; Feickert; Feinstein; Gibson; Hansen (Jon); Hawley; Hubbel; Hunhoff (Bernie); Iron Cloud III; Jones; Killer; Kirschman; Kloucek; Kopp; Liss; Lucas; Nelson (Stace); Russell; Schrempp; Sigdestad; Steele; Street; Tornow; Venner; Wismer

It was brought to my attention that the governor's office and the House leadership was putting huge pressure on the members to pass the extra spending. Here are the fiscally irresponsible members who voted against the amendment:

Nays:
Abdallah; Bolin; Boomgarden; Brunner; Carson; Conzet; Cronin; Deelstra; Dryden; Fargen; Gosch; Haggar; Hickey; Hoffman; Hunt; Jensen; Kirkeby; Lust; Magstadt; Miller; Moser; Munsterman; Novstrup (David); Olson (Betty); Perry; Romkema; Rozum; Schaefer; Scott; Sly; Solum; Tulson; Turbiville; Van Gerpen; Vanneman; Verchio; White; Wick; Willadsen; Wink; Speaker Rausch

So we have alleged violations of state and federal constitutions and obvious violations of conservative principle on free competitive markets found in the SDGOP platform. This state needs legislators who will stand on principle and stand up to the governor when he is wrong. That would also fit the constitutional principle of separation of powers.

Mercer ties Deb Peters and Val Rausch to ALEC

Interesting column by Bob Mercer this morning:

The national campaign to politically discredit the American Legislative Exchange Council and the many businesses that financially support ALEC hasn’t swept into South Dakota yet, despite our Legislature being such a stronghold for lawmakers who are ALEC members.

The shooting death of Trayvon Martin in Florida is fueling the current backlash against ALEC for its role in promoting legislation known as a “stand your ground” law.

A special Internet site alecexposed.org sprung up to show the broad range of legislation that ALEC through its lawmaker members has spread into state capitols across the nation.

The website highlights the string of corporations that have separated from ALEC sponsorship in recent weeks, such as Wendy’s, McDonald’s, Intuit, Kraft, Coca Cola and Pepsi.

The site also shows a variety of other anti-ALEC reports in the past decade from groups such as People for the American Way, Common Cause, Greenpeace, Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, Defenders of Wildlife and the Natural Resources Defense Council.

So we have two sides of the power struggle for control over the one-world government. Mercer details how the two sides shape up in South Dakota:

How strong is ALEC on our Capitol’s third and fourth floors where the Legislature meets? There was a piece of legislation in 2009 that put the issue square before South Dakota’s lawmakers.

The sponsor was then-Sen. Dan Ahlers, a Democrat from Dell Rapids. He led a list of 27 other Democrats and three Republicans who put their names on Senate Bill 142.

It sought to limit lawmakers’ paid travel, restrict their collection of honorarium or stipends from outside groups for travel, require them to publicly report those benefits, and specifically prohibit the Legislature’s Executive Board from authorizing the payment of state dues or other expenditures to the American Legislative Exchange Council.

The hearing on the bill attracted two legislators who spoke against it. They were Rep. Deb Peters, R-Hartford, and Rep. Val Rausch, R-Big Stone City. Also testifying against it was lobbyist Dennis Duncan of Parker.

The Senate committee on state affairs subsequently voted 6-3, split along Republican and Democratic lines, to kill the legislation.

The three Republcians who sponsored SB142 was Rep. Brock Greenfield, Rep. Tim Rounds, and Sen. Rus Olson, who helped kill the bill in committee.

The BIll was, "An Act to  place certain limitations on legislative travel, expenses, and reimbursement." It was Section 3 that would have banned payemts for ALEC.

Mercer goes on to explain what happened in the 2012 session:

Being a target didn’t cause ALEC to hide.

In the 2012 session, there was a wine and cheese reception sponsored by ALEC on Jan. 17 for legislators and state officials. It was one of more than 100 such breakfasts, lunches, dinners and receptions held by groups, associations, organizations and others listed on the 2012 legislative session’s social calendar.

On that same Tuesday of the ALEC social there were eight other similar types of events that ran from before sunrise to midnight.
...

There aren’t any requirements in state law that legislators publicly report any of the free food, beverages or possibly gifts they might receive at these social gatherings.

This is the way our Legislature is.

Any day that the Legislature is in session you can freely overhear lawmakers conversing about which events they are going to attend that noon hour or after the day’s work or in the evening or the next morning.

One of the gripes you’ll occasionally catch is there just are too many events to attend in an evening.

The social calendar sometimes can even become a minor burden for legislators, when they believe they must attend events because people from their legislative districts will be attending.

This is how the line blurs: A free coffee mug, a free lunch, a free round of drinks, a free breakfast, a free supper, a free cab ride back to your motel, a free plane ticket, a free stay at a convention resort, a taxpayer-funded trip to a tourism destination where a convention is hosted.

This is the way our Legislature is.

NEXT WEEK: A further look at the questions for readers to consider, of what is courtesy vs. friendship vs. influence vs. bribery vs. a favor vs. good government vs. extortion.

Interesting questions far a state who ranked second in a recent survey for risk of corruption and lack of accountability. South Dakota received an "F" for legislative accountability. No wonder Steve Hickey and other legislators had a cow over the legislative scorecards (Note: Peters 31%, Rausch 35%) that were released after the 2011 legislative session.

South Dakota implemented Obamacare, Supreme Court ruling is moot point

The Supreme Court ruling affects the feds, but does it affect the states as South Dakota has already implemented Obamacare:

Variations in the way states have moved to implement the 2010 federal health-care law have taken on greater significance after last week’s Supreme Court hearings, whose tone heightened speculation that the statute would be overturned.

With the exception of Arizona, all of the states and the District of Columbia have amended their health insurance rules or practices to comply with mandates imposed by the law.

...

South Dakota lawmakers went a step further, including what one state official dubbed a “suicide clause” that automatically repeals the state law if the entire federal law is found unconstitutional.

But the practical effect of this provision could be limited, at best. That’s because South Dakota’s director of insurance issued state regulations implementing the federal provisions. These remain in force unless and until they are specifically revoked by either the director or the legislature.