South Dakota Revision of State Campaign Finance and Lobbying Laws, Initiated Measure 22 (2016)

South Dakota Measure 22
Election date November 8, 2016
Topic Campaign finance
Status Approved/Repealed
Type State statute	Origin Citizens

2016 measures
November 8
Constitutional Amendment R a
Constitutional Amendment S a
Constitutional Amendment T d
Constitutional Amendment U d
Constitutional Amendment V d
Referred Law 19 d
Referred Law 20 d
Initiated Measure 21 a
Initiated Measure 22 a
Initiated Measure 23 d
Polls
Voter guides
Campaign finance
Signature costs

The Revision of State Campaign Finance and Lobbying Laws, also known as Initiated Measure 22, was on the November 8, 2016, ballot in South Dakota as an initiated state statute. The measure was approved. On February 2, 2017, the governor signed a bill to repeal Measure 22.

A "yes" vote was a vote in favor of revising state campaign finance and lobbying laws and creating a publicly funded campaign finance program and an ethics commission.

A "no" vote was a vote against revising state campaign finance and lobbying laws and creating a publicly funded campaign finance program and an ethics commission.

Supporters referred to the measure as the South Dakota Accountability and Anti-Corruption Act.

Election results

Measure 22
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		180,634	51.63%
No		169,199	48.37%

Election results from South Dakota Secretary of State

Aftermath

Legislation

House Bill 1069 was introduced into the state legislature on January 20, 2017. The bill was designed to declare a legislative emergency and repeal Initiated Measure 22. A legislative emergency requires a two-thirds vote in both chambers of the legislature. Since the bill was passed with an emergency clause, citizens are not allowed to initiate a veto referendum campaign to overturn House Bill 1069.

On January 23, 2017, the House State Affairs Committee voted ten-to-three to send the bill to the South Dakota House of Representatives. The 10 votes in favor of repeal came from Republicans. Representatives Julie Bartling (D-21), Spencer Hawley (D-7), and David Lust (R-34) were the three votes against the bill. Rep. Hawley said he wanted to see the ballot initiative amended, not repealed. He stated, "The answer is to fix it. We need to respect the intent of the voters." House Majority Leader Lee Qualm (R-21) supports the initiative's repeal, saying, "I firmly believe we need to get rid of this, start over. It's better to throw it all out, start over so it's something done by South Dakotans for South Dakotans and not from anybody else." The house of representatives voted on the bill on January 24, 2017. The bill was approved, with 54 representatives voting in favor of and 13 voting against repealing Measure 22.

On January 25, 2017, the Senate State Affairs Committee approved the bill, voting seven-to-two to send the bill to the South Dakota Senate. The following day, Senate Majority Leader Blake Curd (R) called for delaying debate on the legislation until February 1. A majority of senators agreed to the delay. Sen. Curd said, "This is not ripe yet. It's not ready for prime time yet. Plus isn't this what the people have been asking for, slow the process down? So it's a multi-modal decision." The senate took up the bill on February 1, 2017, voting 27-to-8 to repeal the ballot initiative.

Gov. Dennis Daugaard (R) signed the bill to repeal Measure 22 on February 2, 2017.

South Dakota is one of 12 states with an initiative process that does not have a restriction on when or how legislators can repeal or amend citizen-approved initiatives.

Lawsuit

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Constitutionality of the measure; whether the measure violates free speech and the single-subject rule
Court: South Dakota Sixth Judicial Circuit
Ruling: This court ruling was precluded by legislation to repeal Measure 22
Plaintiff(s): R. Blake Curd, Jim Stalzer, Mark Willadsen, Jim Bolin, Gary Cammack, Justin Cronin, Bob Ewing, Brock Greenfield, Terri Haverly, Phil Jensen, Ryan Maher, Al Novstrup, Ernie Otten, Larry Tidemann, Jim White, John Wilk, David Anderson, Kent Peterson, Lana Greenfield, G. Mark Mickelson, Timothy Johns, Lee Qualm, Deb Peters, Deb Soholt, Carol Stalzer, Betty Otten, Cindy Elifrits Peterson, and South Dakota Family Heritage Alliance Action, Inc.	Defendant(s): South Dakota and Attorney General Marty Jackley

  Source: South Dakota Sixth Judicial Circuit Court

On November 23, 2016, 25 Republican state legislators and other individuals filed litigation challenging Measure 22 in the South Dakota Sixth Judicial Circuit. State Circuit Court Judge Mark Barnett heard arguments for the case on December 8, 2016, and issued a preliminary injunction, putting the measure's provisions on hold temporarily. Despite the lawsuit citing specific provisions of the measure, Judge Barnett ruled that the entirety of the measure should be put on hold.

Legislative alteration context

See also: Legislative alterations of ballot initiatives and Legislative alteration rules

From 2010 through 2018, 97 initiated state statutes and two initiated ordinances in D.C. were approved by voters. Of these 99 total initiatives from 2010 through 2018, 28 were repealed or amended as of April 2019. The states with the most total cases of legislative alterations of initiatives approved since 2010 were Maine—with four initiatives altered out of eight approved—and Colorado and Oregon—each with three initiatives altered out of five approved. Among initiatives approved from 2010 through 2018, marijuana was the topic that drew the most legislative alterations, with eight initiatives. Other topics addressed by legislatively altered initiatives included elections and campaigns, term limits, education, business regulation, law enforcement, minimum wage, taxes, and gambling.

The rate of legislative alteration was 13 percentage points higher for initiatives approved in 2016 and 2018 than initiatives approved from 2010 through 2015.

Legislative alteration rates
Year span	# approved	# altered	Alteration rate
2010 - 2023	152	30	19.74%
2016 - 2018	56	20	35.71%
2010 - 2015	43	9	20.9%

Click here for information about all legislative alterations of initiatives approved since 2010.

Text of measure

Ballot question

The question that appeared on the ballot was as follows:

“

A vote "Yes" is for revising State campaign finance and lobbying laws. A vote "No" is against the measure.

”

Ballot summary

The proposed summary title was:

“

This measure extensively revises State campaign finance laws. It requires additional disclosures and increased reporting. It lowers contribution amounts to political action committees; political parties; and candidates for statewide, legislative, or county office. It also imposes limits on contributions from candidate campaign committees, political action committees, and political parties. The measure creates a publicly funded campaign finance program for statewide and legislative candidates who choose to participate and agree to limits on campaign contributions and expenditures. Under the program, two $50 'credits' are issued to each registered voter, who assigns them to participating candidates. The credits are redeemed from the program, which is funded by an annual State general-fund appropriation of $9 per registered voter. The program fund may not exceed $12 million at any time. The measure creates an appointed ethics commission to administer the credit program and to enforce campaign finance and lobbying laws. The measure prohibits certain State officials and high-level employees from lobbying until two years after leaving State government. It also places limitations on lobbyists' gifts to certain state officials and staff members. If approved, the measure may be challenged in court on constitutional grounds.

”

Attorney General explanation

The Attorney General explanation for this measure was as follows:

“

This measure extensively revises State campaign finance laws. It requires additional disclosures and increased reporting. It lowers contribution amounts to political action committees; political parties; and candidates for statewide, legislative, or county office. It also imposes limits on contributions from candidate campaign committees, political action committees, and political parties. The measure creates a publicly funded campaign finance program for statewide and legislative candidates who choose to participate and agree to limits on campaign contributions and expenditures. Under the program, two $50 “credits” are issued to each registered voter, who assigns them to participating candidates. The credits are redeemed from the program, which is funded by an annual State general-fund appropriation of $9 per registered voter. The program fund may not exceed $12 million at any time. The measure creates an appointed ethics commission to administer the credit program and to enforce campaign finance and lobbying laws. The measure prohibits certain State officials and high-level employees from lobbying until two years after leaving State government. It also places limitations on lobbyists’ gifts to certain state officials and staff members. If approved, the measure may be challenged in court on constitutional grounds. Legislative Research Council’s Prison/Jail Population Cost Estimate Statement: The penalties in this Act are administrative misdemeanors, with one class 5 felony. Their purpose is to enforce compliance with the provisions to which they adhere. These crimes are presently in statute, and past violations of these statutes show minimal charges and even fewer convictions. It is the opinion of the Legislative Research Council that the nature of these laws encourages regular compliance. When an offense is prosecuted, it will not likely result in a jail sentence. Hence, the impact on jail populations is likely negligible. A vote “Yes” is for revising State campaign finance and lobbying laws. A vote “No” is against the measure.

”

Full text

The full text of the measure can be found here.

Support

South Dakotans for Integrity led the support campaign for Measure 22.

South Dakotans for Integrity co-chairs

• Don Frankenfeld, small business owner and former Republican South Dakota senator
• Darrell Solberg, small business owner and former Democratic South Dakota senator

Supporters

• Our Revolution
• Represent.Us
• Rick Weiland, former Democratic U.S. senate candidate
• Rep. Patrick Kirschman (D-15)

Arguments in favor

Official arguments

The official argument in favor of this measure as listed in the "South Dakota 2016 Ballot Question Pamphlet" was as follows:

“

Vote YES on Initiated Measure 22, the South Dakota Government Accountability and Anti-Corruption Act. South Dakotans pride ourselves on being good, ethical citizens. We expect the same from our government. Under current law, South Dakota is the only state in America where lobbyists can give unlimited gifts to politicians. IM-22 ends unlimited lobbyist gifts. A recent study found corruption in government costs every South Dakotan about $1,300 per year. IM-22 eliminates this “corruption tax”: IM-22 increases penalties for violations of campaign finance and lobbying laws. IM-22 requires more transparency, so we know who’s buying influence in politics. IM-22 toughens ethics law enforcement to investigate lobbyists and state officials for violations. South Dakota needs this Anti-Corruption Act to stop big-money lobbyists from having more control than everyday citizens over our elected officials. IM-22 lets you control $100 of your own tax money, so you can support candidates who best represent your beliefs and values — or tell government not to spend it. It’s that simple. It’s your choice. Special interest lobbyists oppose IM-22 because they benefit from a rigged political system and don’t want it changed. IM-22 was put on the ballot by more than 20,000 South Dakotans, including South Dakotans for Integrity, a group of conservatives, progressives, small business owners, veterans, retirees, and everyday South Dakotans who believe freedom and selfgovernance are the foundations of our democracy. We need to restore a government of, by and for the people, not government for the highest bidder. We can’t fix every problem in politics, but IM-22 is a step in the right direction. While Washington remains gridlocked, South Dakota can lead the nation in government integrity by voting YES on IM-22. Vote YES on IM-22. South Dakota won’t be bought. Don Frankenfeld, South Dakota economist and Republican Co-chair, South Dakotans for Integrity

”

Individual arguments

South Dakotans for Integrity listed the following arguments in support of Measure 22 on its campaign website:

“

IM-22 stops secret, unlimited gifts from lobbyists to politicians. IM-22 requires more transparency, so we know who’s buying influence in South Dakota. IM-22 toughens ethics law enforcement to investigate lobbyists and politicians for breaking the rules.

”

Opposition

Defeat22.com led the opposition campaign for Measure 22.

Opponents

Partners

Defeat22.com listed the following partners on its campaign website:

• South Dakota Retailers
• South Dakota Farm Bureau
• Americans for Prosperity South Dakota chapter
• Family Heritage Alliance Action
• Concerned Women for America of South Dakota
• South Dakota Chamber of Commerce & Industry
• South Dakota Association of Cooperatives
• Western Dakota Families
• The Associated General Contractors of South Dakota Highway-Heavy-Utilities Chapter
• Minnehaha Republicans
• Land Improvement Contractors of America South Dakota Chapter
• The Associated General Contractors of South Dakota Building Chapter
• Sioux Falls Area Chamber of Commerce
• South Dakota Grain & Feed Association
• South Dakota Agri-Business Association
• South Dakota Cattlemen's Association
• South Dakota Republican Party
• Yankton County Republicans

Arguments agaist

Official arguments

The official argument against this measure as listed in the "South Dakota 2016 Ballot Question Pamphlet" was as follows:

“

Vote “NO” to defeat public financing of elections and to stop millions of your tax dollars from going into the political slush funds of politicians and those seeking public office. The 34 page initiative is bad public policy and should be defeated. Defeat initiated measure 22 because it: (1) forces South Dakota taxpayers to earmark millions of tax dollars to subsidize political campaign activity and causes they may not support; (2) diverts public funds that could be spent on other core priorities such as education, transportation or public safety, or returned to taxpayers in the form of lower taxes or fees; (3) compromises the constitutional rights of SD citizens to support the causes of their choice by stripping away individuals' right to privacy; and (4) exposes SD residents to harassment and intimidation while imposing a chilling effect on speech and political dialogue. Vote “NO” to defeat Initiated Measure 22. Larry Rhoden Defeat22.com

”

Individual arguments

• Defeat22.com listed the following arguments in opposition to Measure 22 on its website:

“

Forcing us to fund political TV ads and intrusive automated calls Funding even more wasteful government spending Taking away tax dollars from funding our roads, bridges, and schools Forces you to add your name to a government database Opens you to harassment for making voluntary donations to charitable causes.

”

• Ben Lee, director of Americans for Prosperity South Dakota, argued that Measure 22's inclusion of "democracy credits" was flawed, saying the following:

“

What they have written is so nonsensical and flawed. It's worse than trying to watch a penguin fly [...] Look, if this thing passes ... I'm going to have 100 friends that are going to give me their democracy credits, and we're going to have a public rally in the park. And there's going to be a lot of beer.

”

Reports and analyses

Fiscal impact statement

The following is the Legislative Research Council's fiscal impact statement:

“

The penalties in this Act are administrative misdemeanors, with one class 5 felony. Their purpose is to enforce compliance with the provisions to which they adhere. These crimes are presently in statute, and past violations of these statutes show minimal charges and even fewer convictions. It is the opinion of the LRC that the nature of these laws encourages regular compliance. When an offense is prosecuted, it will not likely result in a jail sentence. Hence, the impact on jail populations is likely negligible.

”

Campaign finance

Total campaign contributions:
Support:	$1,834,653.16
Opposition:	$669,613.66

As of February 8, 2017, the campaign in support of Measure 22 featured two ballot question committees that received a total of $1,834,653.16 in contributions.

These contributions consisted of $1,655,709.83 in cash donations and $178,943.33 in in-kind donations. The support campaign spent $1,831,789.45.

As of February 8, 2017, the opposition campaign featured one ballot question committee, Defeat22.com, that recevied $669,613.66.

The top donor in support of Measure 22, Represent Us, provided 57 percent of the campaign's total funds. Represent Us contributed $1,052,998.88 in cash and in-kind donations.

Support

Cash donations

The following ballot question committees registered to support Measure 22. The chart below shows cash donations and expenditures current as of February 8, 2017. For a summary of in-kind donations, click here.

Committee	Amount raised	Amount spent
South Dakotans for Ethics Reform	$228,250.00	$228,250.00
South Dakotans for Integrity	$1,427,459.83	$1,424,596.12
Total	$1,655,709.83	$1,652,846.12

In-kind donations

As of February 8, 2017, the ballot question committees registered to support this initiative received in-kind donations in the amount of $178,943.33. The top in-kind donor, Represent Us, provided $149,365.68 in in-kind services.

Top donors

The following were the top five donors in support of Measure 22:

Donor	Cash	In-kind	Total
Represent.Us	$903,633.20	$149,365.68	$1,052,998.88
Every Voice	$50,000.00	$0.00	$50,000.00
TakeItBack.Org	$0.00	$29,384.79	$29,384.79
The Us Campaign	$1,000.00	$0.00	$1,000.00
Mayday PAC	$1,000.00	$0.00	$1,000.00

Opposition

Cash donations

The following ballot question committee was registered to oppose Measure 22. The chart below shows cash donations and expenditures current as of February 8, 2017.

Committee	Amount raised	Amount spent
Defeat22.com	$609,625.60	$587,567.31
Total	$609,625.60	$587,567.31

In-kind donations

As of February 8, 2017, Defeat22.com received in-kind donations in the amount of $59,988.06. The sole in-kind donor was Americans for Prosperity.

Top donors

The following were the top donors in opposition to Measure 22:

Donor	Cash	In-kind	Total
Americans for Prosperity	$590,000.00	$59,988.06	$649,988.06
SD Retailers Association PAC	$5,000.00	$0.00	$5,000.00

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in South Dakota

The required number of valid signatures is tied to the number of votes cast for the office of the governor of South Dakota in the most recent gubernatorial election. Since the initiative is proposed for 2016, the number of required signatures reflected the votes cast in the 2014 gubernatorial election.

Supporters needed to collect 13,870 signatures by the November 9, 2015, deadline. The sponsor of the petition confirmed that 25,216 signatures were submitted. On January 6, 2016, the secretary of state's office certified the measure for the ballot.

Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired Take It Back to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $6,125.00 was spent to collect the 13,870 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $0.44.

State profile

Demographic data for South Dakota
	South Dakota	U.S.
Total population:	857,919	316,515,021
Land area (sq mi):	75,811	3,531,905
Race and ethnicity**
White:	85%	73.6%
Black/African American:	1.6%	12.6%
Asian:	1.2%	5.1%
Native American:	8.6%	0.8%
Pacific Islander:	0%	0.2%
Two or more:	2.6%	3%
Hispanic/Latino:	3.3%	17.1%
Education
High school graduation rate:	90.9%	86.7%
College graduation rate:	27%	29.8%
Income
Median household income:	$50,957	$53,889
Persons below poverty level:	15.3%	11.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015) Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in South Dakota. **Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here.

Presidential voting pattern

See also: Presidential voting trends in South Dakota

South Dakota voted Republican in all six presidential elections between 2000 and 2020.

Pivot Counties (2016)

Ballotpedia identified 206 counties that voted for Donald Trump (R) in 2016 after voting for Barack Obama (D) in 2008 and 2012. Collectively, Trump won these Pivot Counties by more than 580,000 votes. Of these 206 counties, five are located in South Dakota, accounting for 2.43 percent of the total pivot counties.

Pivot Counties (2020)

In 2020, Ballotpedia re-examined the 206 Pivot Counties to view their voting patterns following that year's presidential election. Ballotpedia defined those won by Trump won as Retained Pivot Counties and those won by Joe Biden (D) as Boomerang Pivot Counties. Nationwide, there were 181 Retained Pivot Counties and 25 Boomerang Pivot Counties. South Dakota had four Retained Pivot Counties and one Boomerang Pivot County, accounting for 2.21 and 4.00 percent of all Retained and Boomerang Pivot Counties, respectively.

More South Dakota coverage on Ballotpedia

• Elections in South Dakota
• United States congressional delegations from South Dakota
• Public policy in South Dakota
• Influencers in South Dakota
• South Dakota fact checks
• More...

See also

Suggest a link

• 2016 ballot measures
• South Dakota 2016 ballot measures

External links

• Initiative petition
• Attorney general's statement
• Fiscal Impact statement
• South Dakota 2016 Ballot Question Pamphlet

Support

• South Dakotans for Integrity website
• South Dakotans for Integrity Facebook
• South Dakotans for Integrity Twitter

Opposition

• Defeat22.com website
• Defeat22.com Facebook
• Defeat22.com Twitter

Sponsor contact information

• Don Frankenfeld - 1307 38th Street, Rapid City, SD 57702
• Rick Weiland - 1109 South Phillips Ave, Sioux Falls, SD 57105