I would think state law would have something to say about a candidate’s PAC raising money for themself as a candidate. But like most campaign and election laws lately, peeps just ignore them and hope they don’t get caught, and if so who cares? There have been several rumors circulating that the SOS is refusing to work with many county auditors and city clerks.
• Marshall Selberg has been illegally serving on the city council since at least February when he changed his voter registration, but could have lived in the property in NW district since he purchased it in October of 2022.
• A school board candidate filled out a form incorrectly, TWICE, and the School District was complicit in the act.
• Agendas get posted incorrectly or are hidden from our city clerk setting up a scenario where the city attorney is blocking the door of a public building preventing councilors from coming in.
So what are we going to do about this? Likely nothing. I still think if City Hall had it’s own food truck the media would cover this stuff better. At least they are not shooting dogs in gravel pits.
UPDATE: This is what State Law says about it;
SD 12-27-1 Definitions
(17) “Political action committee,” any person or entity that raises, collects or disburses contributions to influence the outcome of an election and who is not a candidate, public officer holder, candidate campaign committee, ballot question committee, or a political party.
Its at least in spirit not good when you have a PAC that is holding a fundraiser for a candidate in an elction, and the candidate is the same person who controls the PAC. You can donate $1,000 as an individual to a local candidate. But you can contribute $10,000 to a PAC. If a PAC independently gives a bunch of money to a candidate, that’s perfectly legal. But when you overtly seem to advertise that donating to the PAC is a donation to a specific candidate/campaign, it would appear you are just using the PAC as an end run around the campaign finance limits. Whenever I’ve discussed this with people, the interpretation always seemed to be it would be a big no-no if there was an explicit deal of donate to this PAC and they will send the donation over to a specific campaign, because then its just disguising the true donors, and its getting around the campaign finance limits. I suspect though based on the law, it would be a close call. In spirit, it definitely seems like a problem. Legally? Maybe.
I think you could argue if there is an explicit agreement that the donation to a given PAC at a fundraiser WILL be given to a specific campaign/candidate, it violates this:
12-27-12. Disguised contributions prohibited–Misdemeanor.
No person or entity (e.g. the PAC) may make a contribution in the name of another person or entity, make a contribution disguised as a gift, make a contribution in a fictitious name, make a contribution on behalf of another person or entity, or knowingly permit another to use that person’s or entity’s name to make a contribution. No candidate may knowingly accept a contribution disguised as a gift. A violation of this section is a Class 2 misdemeanor. A subsequent offense within a calendar year is a Class 1 misdemeanor.
In this case, it would be my opinion that overtly its being stated that you are donating to a PAC, and it would “make a contribution on behalf of another person”. Meaning, if I donate to this PAC, with a explicit agreement/understanding it is going to one of those campaigns, the PAC is violating the law by making the donation to the local county campaign, and its doing it on behalf of the person who donated to the PAC, because there was a overt agreement that any donation to the PAC at this event is going to a candidate. It has the effect of disguising the true contributors to the local campaigns, which is not supposed to be done, and again it circumvents the limits. Now, again, PACs can be used to donate larger sums, but there really should never be an explicit earmarking. In the real world does it happen behind the scenes – yes? Its usually not so overt though. I wouldn’t do it. I suspect it could violate the above, or at least creates a strong question that it will be.
Say, speaking of gravel pits (and the main interest of this Kippley* in serving on the Minnehaha County Commission, as a former employee for the Sweetman gravel/concrete/construction business, as well as having done work for Eastern and Ellis Railroad [owned by Knife River]) –
Does “Better Government” equate to “Bigger Gravel Pits”?
* not to be confused with the other Kippley, Dan’s son already serving on the Minnehaha County Commission.
* not to be confused with the other Kippley, Dan’s son already serving on the Minnehaha County Commission who is already doing the work necessary for his father’s contract employer.
What if you have all of your minor children donate to a mayoral candidate, is that against the law around here? #AllowanceTime
The most conservative group of members of the City Council, Greg, Pat, Marshal, are all term limited. For most true conservatives, this is a scary time cause the membership coming in at the end of May, is a liberal, progressive group of people that support expansion of government, and the surrendering of our freedoms. We need conservatives that stand for America First, do not support Sustainability programs, and take a stand against federal money being used at the local level.
Brook, We must get our heads out of our collective butts. There is nothing about the four remaining Council members who are “liberal” or “progressive”.
There is nothing in corporatism of our local government that is “liberal”. The closest historical political alignment we point to is fascism. Our “conservative” mayor is actually running the government following the principles of the 1920’s version of corporate welfare benefiting the rich and politically connected. What the government could not steal they forced out of business so the enterprise could be taken over by the political elite.
The mayor’s recent swimming pool / rec center / river line district proposals are prime examples.
Sioux Falls must get rid of the strong mayor form of government to reign in the ability to keep stealing our property taxes for their gain of power and money.