IM10 Robo-Calls Targeting by Party

a little love for the War College, if you please...

I just got a robo-call from the supporters of Initiated Measure 10. In the recording, Dick Butler identified himself as the former Democratic state treasurer, then urged me to vote yes on IM10 in order to stop Republicans from using taxpayer dollars for lobbying and other nefarious purposes (well, nefarious is my word, not theirs).

Funny, I didn't know IM10 was a partisan measure. Clever target marketing, kids. But somehow, I just don't think the South Dakota Conservative Action Council, the main backers of IM10, view Republicans as their main target...

...or maybe they really are targeting Republicans... the ones who won't give them cushy jobs in Pierre.

If any of my Republican friends have received a call from Sam Kephart telling them to vote yes on IM10 to stop Democrats from spending taxpayer dollars on beer and cigarettes, let me know!

Madville Times Voters Guide: Vote No on All Three Initiated Measures

Hey! I know a lot of your have already filled out your ballots (my parents both have, so there's no more arguing with my dad, just teasing him about President Obama). But I'm ready to offer the official Madville Times Voters Guide for 2008!

First, let's tackle the initiatives. You can review the attorney general explanations and argument for and against in this PDF file from the state. I'll also link to each measure's text below.

Initiated Measure 9: Vote No. Almost every analysis of this law you read says it bans short selling, a stock market game about which I will confess my ignorance. I was surprised to see former attorney general Mark Meierhenry fronting the movement to pass IM9. He notes that IM9 doesn't mention short selling. It just helps enforce federal law in South Dakota. A former attorney general can't be wrong... can he?

Well, from what I hear, there is some disagreement among the lawyers on the interpretation of this law. However, I would suggest that if there already is federal law (and the Securities Exchange Commission) to govern this stock practice, a state law on the issue is unnecessary... and the Supreme Court will find it unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause. Wall Street could use a good whacking, but South Dakota won't deliver that whacking with IM9.

Initiated Measure 10: Vote No. I hate going with the crowd, but everybody and their ugly sister is giving this measure the thumbs down. Republicans and Democrats, Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO... even the Madison City Commission and the Madison Central School Board stuck their necks out to say IM10 is bad.

And so will I. Initiated Measure 10 sounds good: It promises to hold elected officials accountable, prevent them from using public resources for private gain, limit lobbyists... heck, they even throw in a version of Tom Coburn and Barack Obama's Google for Government.

But we already have a law that restricts using public funds to influence elections. The Governor has already inaugurated a website to put government records online. All IM10 really adds is a chilling effect on public speech by any elected official or public employee. The "public resources" clause in IM10 will silence student political groups on our public university campuses. It will probably prohibit Madison High School from hosting candidate forums (fora!) like the one I participated in last April and the big one coming up tomorrow night (heavyweights Parsley vs. Olson! Fargen and Lange vs. Stricherz and Johnson tag team match! County Commission battle royale! Be there!).

IM10 starts with a noble goal and creates a legal mess. Plus, I'm taking a big slurp of Pat Powers's Kool-Aid and wondering why the folks who put IM10 on the ballot, a group committed to openness in politics, won't tell us who's funding their campaign. IM10 smells of hypocrisy of shadowy monkey business.

Initiated Measure 11: Vote No. Again. We already voted a similar abortion ban down in 2006. This retread abortion ban comes from folks who appear to derive their sense of self-worth by perpetually standing on the street corners and going before KELO's cameras to proclaim their righteousness.

Readers of this blog have already seen my extensive arguments against IM11 and similar anti-woman, anti-Constitution, anti-reality legislation. To summarize:

• Abortion bans don't stop abortions.
• IM11 enshrines bad science into law.
• IM11 makes women second-class citizens.
• IM11 is fundamentally misogynist.
• Pregnancy is nobody's business but the mother's.
  
• IM11 subjects women to greater health risks.
  

The supporters of IM11 prove with their own law that abortion is not murder: IM11 treats abortion as a lesser felony rather than imposing murder penalties on those perpetrating what IM11 would declare a crime. Here, the local fundagelicals agree with the local liberals: IM11 is a bad law.

We're all pro-life. But being pro-life is about providing health care and education, promoting peace, and a million things more than bloviating about abortion every election. Vote No on IM11.

Susan Pisani, Initiated Measure 10 Campaigner, Pretends She's the Godfather

What is it this week about right-wing nutbars from Southern California spouting off in e-mails to South Dakota bloggers?

I've been letting Pat Powers carry the water on Initiated Measure 10 (the Madville Times 2008 Voters Guide on all the issues and candidates is coming later this month). He's been doing a fine job covering the numerous problems with this proposed law since summer. There are some good aspects to the law, so I'm not quite ready to cast a final decision...

...but the feeble intimidation tactics of Susan Pisani, travel agent, Orange County transplant to Spearfish, and now West River IM10 campaign coordinator, are making me think I'll shed no tears if IM10 disappears in November. Powers posts this afternoon an e-mail he received from Pisani. In response to a post in which he questioned her loyalty to the state GOP, Pisani wrote the following:

I have all the local and state candidates’ signs on my front lawn as well as their bumper stickers on my car. On another note, why don’t you have a Dykstra or Lien bumper sticker next to your McCain stickers? And, why don’t you have any yard signs? I guess that is a personal choice and not how the State and Local Republican parties encourage members to participate. So we all have freedom of choice, which is why we all fight the fight. By the way, cute Corgi.

As Powers notes, Pisani is not a next-door neighbor with easy access to this information about Powers's yard, vehicle, and dog. It's not exactly the sort of public record one can Google. Powers draws the conclusion that Pisani must have sources paying particularly close attention to his house, and that Pisani's text is intended to intimidate.

More importantly, Powers makes this observation about the connection between such campaign tactics and the intent of the law those campaigners wish to pass:

The thing is, we should not be shocked. Initiated Measure 10 is all about intimidation. If passed, it will use threats of legal action to prevent the expression of free speech. If the AG won't prosecute, it uses threats of bypassing him in the process [Pat Powers, "Yes on 10 Campaign Uses Stalker Tactics to Try to Intimidate Opponent!" South Dakota War College, 2009.10.01].

Powers is referring to Section 8 of IM10: read it for yourself, see what you think.

Oh well. At best, Pisani is just playing tough, fantasizing she's a big-city mafiosa, come to show us small-towners who they do things downtown. But her words also demonstrate a lack of judgment that reflects poorly on the ballot measure she's trying to support.

p.s.: Pisani also thinks that's she's "following in Sarah Palin's footsteps." Yeah, have fun walking toward that cliff, Susan. (And memo to Susan: "blazed the trail" with that online government checkbook idea? Palin got the idea from Obama.)

City of Madison Considers Opposition to Open and Clean Government

Read that headline again. Believe it or not, I'm not trying to make Madison's City Commission look bad. I'm just highlighting the trickery politicians engage in as they name their laws.

"Open and Clean Government Act"—that's what the supporters of Initiated Measure 10 (IM10) want us to call their proposal. Like "No Child Left Behind," the supporters' name for IM10 is meant to stave off debate. Argue against IM10, pass a resolution against it (as the Madison City Commission will likely do Monday night), and supporters can say something like my headline about you: "Did you hear so-and-so is against Open and Clean Government?"

Therefore, as the election approaches, an editorial note: I will try to refer to this measure by the neutral name "Initiated Measure 10," not the propagandizing name promulgated by its supporters.

Now I'm actually not ready cast my vote one way or the other on IM10. The law appears to have good intentions, and it includes a provision for creating a searchable online database of all state government contracts. However, I've heard some strong arguments from friends against the consequences of the law (stifling of free speech, restriction of political activity by any state employee, including myself). So I have some reading and thinking to do before I make up my mind.

The City of Madison isn't waiting, though. On the agenda for Monday's meeting [PDF alert!] is Resolution 2683, stating our city commission's official opposition to IM10. As a public service, I'll spare you the need to download the city's clunky PDF file and take you directly to page 31 of the agenda packet. Of course, you can also obtain the text from the South Dakota Municipal League, which drafted the reoslution and is urging all member councils to adopt it:

RESOLUTION NO. 2683

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF MADISON

WHEREAS, Initiated Measure would prohibit any city from paying dues to any association that lobbies;

WHEREAS, it is far more efficient and cost effective to join together with our fellow cities through the SD Municipal League for coordinated communication with the Legislature than to have each city stand alone;

WHEREAS, the costs to the taxpayers of having each city monitor, report, and travel to Pierre to participate in the Legislative Session would be much greater than any dues to the SD Municipal League;

WHEREAS, coordinated communication with Legislators leads to more efficiency in the Legislative process and has saved millions of dollars in taxpayer funds;

WHEREAS, restricting the ability of South Dakotans to support candidates and communicate with their elected public officials is a violation of their right to freedom of speech;

WHEREAS, the measure will be challenged in court and will most likely be foudn to be unconstitutional, costing millions of dollars in taxpayer money;

WHEREAS, Initiated Measure #10 does not limit State government-paid lobbyists, out-of-state lobbyists, or corporate lobbyists, but only stifles coordinated voices for local control;

WHEREAS, the City of Madison finds municipal officials throughout South Dakota are dedicated, honest and ethical people with the best interests of their cities in mind and that cities take great pride in providing open, honest government to our citizens;

WHEREAS, the thousands and thousands of South Dakotans who do business with the State, Cities, Counties, and other governmental entities should not be penalized for providing such services;

WHEREAS, civic groups who work to better their community, and often require local funding to provide their services should not be prohibited from communicating their needs to local public servants;

WHEREAS, the forces supporting Initiated Measure #10 will not reveal the source of their funding, leaving the reasonable assumption that out of state special interests are once again attempting to hijack the South Dakota ballot and abuse our initiative process;

THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED that the Board of Commissioners of the City of madison strongly opposes Initiated Measure #10 and urges the citizens of South Dakota to vote "NO" on the measure.

The clause about our "dedicated, honest and ethical" elected officials doesn't strike me as the strongest argument to make. "Keep an eye on us" is a much better mantra for government than "Trust us."

The arguments about wasting tax dollars and the unchecked power of out-of-state and corporate lobbyists do deserve some attention. If this law results in increased costs for local government and more power for big money, then maybe it needs to be reworked before we accept it.

Of course, if the likelihood of an expensive court challenge is reason to oppose a law, then I hope our city commissioners will follow up with a similar resolution to oppose the unconstitutional IM11 (but don't hold your breath).