Opponents running "big lie" campaign, ad says
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. -- The campaign supporting a 'yes' vote on Initiated Measure 10 this week aired its first television ad, criticizing a system that allows politicians to give no-bid government contracts to campaign donors and tax dollars to groups that lobby for gun control, higher taxes, and government power to condemn private property for more tax-lucrative private development projects. The ad also said opponents have resorted to a "big lie" campaign to defeat the proposal.
The Secretary of State's official ballot description of Initiated Measure 10 reads as follows: “An initiative to prohibit tax revenues from being used for lobbying or campaigning, to prohibit governmental bodies from lobbying, to prohibit government contractors from making campaign contributions, to prohibit government contracts when the contractor employs a legislator or legislative staff member, and to require contracts with government contractors to be published.”
Sam Kephart, state co-chair of South Dakotans for Open and Clean Government and a candidate for the U.S. Senate in this year's Republican primary election, said the citizens group "can't compete with a million-dollar campaign financed at least in part by our tax dollars, so we're putting out the truth and putting our faith in the people."
Sam Kephart, state co-chair of South Dakotans for Open and Clean Government and a candidate for the U.S. Senate in this year's Republican primary election, said the citizens group "can't compete with a million-dollar campaign financed at least in part by our tax dollars, so we're putting out the truth and putting our faith in the people."
"Our new ad exposes the fact that the tax-subsidized coalition of politicians, lobbyists, and government contractors who oppose this common sense ethics reform are acting out of financial self-interest," Kephart said. "Some politicians want to keep giving our tax dollars to groups that lobby against South Dakota values, and maintain a system where they can keep rewarding their campaign donors with no-bid government contracts, and vice versa."
The new 30-second ad reads as follows:
"Fed up with politicians, lobbyists, government contractors getting rich off your tax dollars? YES on 10 stops politicians from giving campaign donors no-bid government contracts that drive up the cost to taxpayers. YES on 10 stops politicians from giving tax dollars to groups that lobby for gun control, higher taxes, and letting government condemn our property for wealthy developers. That's why they’re spending nearly a million dollars -- including tax dollars -- on their Big Lie campaign. You can stop them. Vote Yes on 10."
Watch the ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xh3IIgVtpF8
---------------------
Documentation of Ad Content
"YES ON 10 STOPS POLITICIANS FROM GIVING CAMPAIGN DONORS NO-BID GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS THAT DRIVE UP COST TO TAXPAYERS."
Watch this video exposing "Pay to Play" contracts:
"YES ON 10 STOPS POLITICIANS FROM GIVING TAX DOLLARS TO GROUPS THAT LOBBY FOR GUN CONTROL..."
Every county in South Dakota is a dues-paying member of the tax-funded National Association of Counties, a lobbying organization in Washington, D.C. Each county uses local tax dollars to pay its annual dues. http://www.naco.org/Template.cfm?Section=Find_a_County&Template=/cffiles/counties/state.cfm&statecode=sd
NACo’s tax-funded lobbyists endorse federal gun control legislation: "NACo supports the requirement of a reasonable waiting period for the purchase of a handgun to allow for a records check, where possible, to ensure that the purchaser is not ineligible under existing federal law to possess a handgun.” -- The American County Platform and Resolutions 08-09 http://www.naco.org/Template.cfm?Section=American_County_Platform&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=27952
Similarly, the South Dakota Municipal League -- funded by dues paid with city residents' tax dollars -- is in turn a dues-paying member of the National League of Cities, another Washington, D.C. lobbying group:http://www.nlc.org/state_municipal_leagues/2203.aspx
As are the individual cities of Brookings, Ft. Pierre, Rapid City, and Watertown, which also use tax dollars to pay their annual NLC dues: http://www.nlc.org/inside_nlc/membership/membership_rosters/413.aspx
NLC's tax-funded lobbyists endorse federal gun control legislation: “The National League of Cities calls upon the U.S. Congress and Administration to assist municipalities across the nation in combating crime by taking the following actions: reinstate the ban on semi-automatic assault type weapon sales to civilians.” -- NLC Resolution 2008-49, Nov. 2007 http://www.nlc.org/ASSETS/141A038B920A40FF8D56D35E01AB4271/PSCP%20Resolutions.pdf
"HIGHER TAXES..."
- The tax-funded South Dakota Association of County Commissioners earlier this year spent tax dollars to launch a petition drive to increase taxes on alcohol by $2.56 a gallon. http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2008/01/23/news/local/doc4792bf0cb07ec919302792.txt
The ballot campaign committee for the "Time for a Dime" tax hike initiative -- which failed to gather enough signatures to appear on the ballot -- was run from the SDACC's offices, and Sully County Commissioner Bill Floyd served as its treasurer. http://dakotawarcollege.com/archives/3593
Floyd is also treasurer for the "No on 10" ballot campaign committee.
- In 2006, the tax-funded SDACC contributed over $45,000 to the "No on 8" ballot campaign committee, which campaigned against an initiative to repeal the tax on cell phone users.
- In 2004, the tax-funded South Dakota Municipal League campaigned against a ballot measure to repeal the sales tax on food. "A ballot initiative is currently being circulated to completely repeal the sales tax on food. This would cost the state’s municipalities $18 million, and the state $42 million in revenue each year. The South Dakota Municipal League (SDML) opposes the measure to eliminate the sales tax on food and has gone on record to take any steps possible to defeat it." http://www.cityofyankton.org/tools/CommissionMinutes/2004/040126cm.pdf
- Similarly, last legislative session in Pierre, privately-funded farm and ranch groups supported legislation to assess farm and ranch property at its “agricultural production” value, not what its higher “market value” would be if sold to a developer for expensive homes or shopping. The latter valuation would, of course, increase property taxes on farm and ranch families.
The tax-funded Associated School Boards of South Dakota – another lobbying group funded by local school districts' tax dollars – lobbied against that legislation. “Dick Tiezsen, a lobbyist representing ASBSD, was the only opponent of the legislation,” ASBSD's Feb. 6, 2008 online newsletter reported. (ASBSD's online newsletter archives has recently been removed)
Minutes of Senate Taxation Committee denoting Tiezsen as an "opponent" of HB 1006, the companion bill to HB 1005: http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2008/Minutes/minSTA02060745.htm
It's patently unfair when privately funded organizations must compete in Pierre or on the ballot against tax-funded lobbying organizations which are subsidized by the private groups' members' own tax dollars.
"...AND LETTING GOVERNMENT CONDEMN OUR PROPERTY FOR WEALTHY DEVELOPERS."
In 2007, Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin introduced legislation to protect private property from being condemned by local governments for private commercial real estate development projects that would increase government's property tax revenues. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.00926:
South Dakota farm and ranch groups -- funded by their members' privately-funded dues money -- lobbied for the bill. One such group said in a news release: “We applaud the leadership Rep. Herseth Sandlin has exhibited by introducing H.R. 926, the 'Strengthening Ownership of Private Property Act’ of 2007. (Our) policy supports efforts by Congress to rectify the potentially negative impacts of the 2005 Kelo v. the City of New London court ruling that upheld state and local eminent domain authority to seize private property for commercial economic development purposes." http://www.sdcattlemen.org/CMDocs/SouthDakota/H%20R%20%20926.doc
But the tax-funded National Association of Counties – to which every county in South Dakota sends annual dues paid with local tax dollars -- lobbied against Herseth Sandlin’s private property rights legislation. http://www.naco.org/Template.cfm?Section=Find_a_County&Template=/cffiles/counties/state.cfm&statecode=sd
“Jim Philipps, spokesman for the National Association of Counties, said, ‘NACO is opposed to any effort by Congress to preempt state and local land use authorities.’" (BNA, June 7, 2007)
The National Association of Townships and Towns, also funded by tax dollars South Dakota towns and townships use to pay their membership dues -- http://www.natat.org/useful_links.html -- also lobbied against protecting your private property rights. (NATaT newsletter, June 2007) http://www.natat.org/publications/washington_report/2007_5.pdf
"THAT'S WHY THEY'RE SPENDING NEARLY A MILLION DOLLARS..."
- According to the advertising departments of Sioux Falls and Rapid City television stations, opponents of Measure 10 have already purchased nearly $800,000 in television ads alone.
Add to that:
- the formal "No on 10" campaign's thus-far unreported expenditures on printed material, staff, and all other items other than TV ads.
- staff time and funds expended by taxpayer-funded lobbying groups such as the Municipal League that oppose Measure 10 because it will prohibit the use of tax dollars for lobbying.
- staff time and funds expended by groups representing government contractors who oppose Measure 10 because it will prohibit them from giving campaign contributions to the politicians who award their contracts.
"...INCLUDING TAX DOLLARS..."
- Dozens of elected officials statewide have illegally used taxpayer-financed time, staff, office resources, and web sites to officially adopt and publicize resolutions which put entities of government formally on record expressly urging citizens to "vote no" on Measure 10.
- Such electioneering at taxpayers' expense is a clear violation of state law and the First Amendment free speech rights of taxpayers who support the proposal, according to the state Attorney General's office. (Attorney General's Official Opinion 88-28, Expenditure of Public Funds on Election Issues:
"...ON THEIR BIG LIE CAMPAIGN."
- In one "No on 10" TV ad, a public school teacher falsely claims: "I won't be able to visit with our school board members, our legislators. I won't even be able to visit with my husband about county issues." http://www.voteno.org/media.htm
- In another "No on 10" TV ad, a fireman falsely claims: "Initiated Measure 10 means (firemen) can't even just go visit with their local senator or representative." http://www.voteno.org/media.htm
Such statements are demonstrably false.
Measure 10 will prohibit politicians from giving our tax dollars to groups which engage in lobbying or partisan political campaigns, but it will not -- and under Constitutionally-guaranteed free speech rights, could not -- prohibit a school teacher, fireman or any other citizen from talking to his or her elected officials. Or spouses.
Initiated Measure 10. Section 3. The provisions of this section do not limit public officials in the performance of their constitutional duties, and do not apply to: ...(4) A public employee acting in an uncompensated personal capacity, undirected in any manner by, and who does not purport to represent the interests of, a public employer." http://www.cleanupsd.com/content.asp?pl=2&contentid=2
As news professionals at KDLT-TV, Sioux Falls, confirmed in a fact-check response to the No on 10 television ads: "In fact, the measure specifically says a public employee acting in an uncompensated personal capacity is exempt." http://www.southdacola.com/blog/2008/09/vote-no-on-10-bologna-sandwich/
Similarly, the Capital Journal reported: "Opponents of the law...argu(e) it would ban children, cousins, in-laws and step-parents from even talking to legislators or city council members. Supporters...say this measure would only prohibit funneling banned (government contractors' campaign) contributions through relatives. The language of the measure would appear to support (Measure 10 supporters') argument." http://www.capjournal.com/articles/2008/09/18/news/doc48d1e4fde05c9056718843.txt#blogcomments
Since Measure 10 supporters, the plain language of the proposal, and even objective news professionals confirm that opponents' characterization of the proposal is not factual -- a point repeatedly communicated to opponents, without effect -- we conclude that opponents knowingly continue to lie to South Dakota voters about Measure 10.