Entries Tagged 'Measure 10' ↓

Gee, I wonder what’s going on here . . .

From the Gargoyle Leader;

Members of the Legislature’s Government Operations and Audit Committee asked whether the Department of Tourism and State Development should ask for proposals from other advertising firms.

Talk about a day late and a ($25 million) dollars short.

As for the no-bid to L & S, all you have to do is look at at Rounds for Governor campaign financials, thousands of dollars in donations from the owners of L & S. Who needs an investigation with something an eight-grader could figure out. The legislators should change state law, if they are so concerned about it, wait, that would mean they couldn’t pay back their campaign contributors either.

More dicking around instead of just getting it on.

Why did Measure 10 fail?

Though I voted YES on 10 I knew this measure was doomed from the beginning. It was too long and only should have included the following;

          Eliminate State NO-BID contracts (which is actually Federal Contract standards)

          Create a state contractor website

          Don’t use taxpayer money for lobbying

I think this would have simplified the Measure. Though I do agree we need to punish people who give campaign contributions and expect no-bid contracts in return, I think that it could have been excluded from the IM10.

I think there is only a couple of major reasons the IM10 fell on it’s face;

          The vote NO people ran a very deceptive ad campaign ironically funded by lobbyists, politicians and our tax dollars (funneled through the municipal league). The very people that IM10 was trying to eliminate was fighting it tooth and nail. It was no surprise they never actually encouraged people to READ the measure, because people would have seen right through the bullshit.


          The other major reason was the Vote Yes side was made up of extremist conservatives like SDCAC, Sibby and Bob Ellis that constantly hammered home that Unions and Liberals are evil, which I found ironic since some of my most liberal pro-union friends voted Yes on IM10. In other words they should have built a consensus instead just assuming that they could carry a majority with just the neo-con vote. The VYFL people found out how well that worked out. I think liberals, moderates and conservatives alike saw something in IM10 they liked. Trying to label the Vote NO people as a bunch of ‘liberals’ couldn’t be farther from the truth. The vote No side consisted of professional politicians (from both sides) and lobbyists.


          And one more thing, the TV adversting on the Vote Yes side was awful. Who was the old lady from Spearfish telling me to Vote Yes? They must have used the same producer/director that Sandy Jerstad used in her porno shop / medi-cade ads.


In the future if this Measure ever resurfaces I think they need to use the KISS theory when writing it, Keep it Simple Stupid.

Debates on Measure 10 & 11

Will be re-broadcast on SD Public TV tommorrow (Sunday) at 1 PM.

Highlights from the debates are when Dr.(?) Backcracker Allen Unruh puts on his best Bill O’ Reilly of Abortion impression and Dena from Yes on 10 winks at us, and her opponent, ironically has to admit he is a paid lobbyist. (Surprised he isn’t working for the McLame campaign.)

Why the rich get richer; campaign contributions

I’ve known about this story for awhile, (I did the above toon in July) actually I was told about it this summer, and to tell you the truth, no surprise.

South Dakota’s tourism department awarded about $25 million in no-bid contracts to Sioux Falls advertising agency Lawrence and Schiller in recent years, while members of the firm were contributing to state politicians and a former state Office of Tourism director became employed there. But officials with the state and Lawrence and Schiller scoffed at the idea that the firm’s political contributions are related to the awarding of contracts.

They scoffed! At who? The taxpayer’s making their wallets fat?

“We’ve had great success with them,” he said, noting that visitor sales have been going up each year and are expected to top $1 billion.

Benda said the no-bid contracts ensure a consistent branding and marketing strategy to promote South Dakota to potential tourists. Allowing other agencies to bid each year could cause upheaval in that strategy, he said. 

And how do you know you wouldn’t have the same amount of success with another agency that was cheaper if you don’t put it out for bid. L & S is one of the most expensive agencies in the state, but they don’t win all the advertising awards.

Officials with Lawrence and Schiller donated more than $16,500 to political candidates from 2002 to 2006, records show. Most of that money went to Gov. Mike Rounds, and Breard notes that many donations weren’t made until after Lawrence and Schiller started working for tourism in 2003.

Mike Rounds is involved with this somehow?! GET OUT! He is one of our cleanest and most honest governor’s in state history . . . ahem.

You may or may not know I’ve locked horns with one of Lawrence & Schiller’s founders, Paul Schiller in the past. He has been up to this kind of crap for a very long time. While sitting on the board of the Washington Pavilion, L & S did work for the Pavilion (some donated, some not). Yes, a pretty obvious conflict of interest. In fact, Paul used to participate in art exhibits at the Pavilion while sitting on the board. Finally this year (with little fanfare) the Pavilion changed their policies when it comes to conflict of interest. Though I haven’t read the full language, it is pretty simple, you can’t participate in exhibits or provided services to the Pavilion while sitting on the board. Seems logical.

And as for Billie Jo, she has gotten everything in life by being politically connected. How do go from being out of college, to being Minnehaha Treasurer, to being head of SD Tourism to having the state’s leading ad agency create a position for you? Think about it.

Maybe the chickens are finally coming home to roost.

IM 10 may be closer then we think

I have thought that the No on 10 advertisments have been very effective (and misleading) and they may be leading the fight. But these new poll numbers have me thinking something I was hoping the commercials would register with average South Dakota workers; The people pushing No on 10; politicians, lawyers, lobbyist groups and beaucrats. Most South Dakotans hate special interest money in politics, they also hate our tax dollars being paid out to overpriced companies in no-bid contracts. IM 10 winning may be the big surprise on November 5th afterall.


Poll: Ban on tax-funded lobbying holds double-digit lead

NEA officials’ million-dollar “big lie” campaign didn’t work, backers say


SIOUX FALLS, S.D. — An Oct. 18th poll of 500 likely voters found that 50 percent plan to vote in favor of Initiated Measure 10, a proposed ban on taxpayer-funded lobbying, while 36 percent plan to vote against it, the campaign committee supporting a “yes” vote on the proposal said Tuesday.

The official ballot description of Measure 10 authored by the Secretary of State 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.

Dena Espenscheid, East River coordinator of South Dakotans for Open and Clean Government, said her group “is confident that when voters read what Measure 10 actually says, two things will happen. They’ll discover that NEA unions officials’ million-dollar ad campaign against Measure 10 is a lie, and they’ll vote ‘yes’ to stop politicians from using our tax dollars to lobby for things such as gun control and higher taxes, as they have in the past.”

“This poll indicates that’s what’s happening as people begin to actually read the proposal for themselves and ignore NEA union officials’ million-dollar ‘big lie’ campaign,” Espenscheid said. “It’s all the more encouraging since the poll was taken after over a month of NEA officials’ “big lie” TV ads had run, but before our TV ads really began.”

“South Dakotans aren’t stupid,” she said. “Any middle school student can tell you the U.S. Constitution guarantees every American’s free speech rights, and that no state law or ballot measure can possibly change that. So when people see NEA union officials’ melodramatic TV ads claiming that a ballot proposal will ‘make free speech a crime,’ they know that’s a lie.”

The telephone survey of 500 likely voters was conducted Oct. 18th by Pulse Opinion Research, an independent public opinion research firm which uses automated polling methodology and procedures licensed from Rasmussen Reports.

The poll used the actual language that will appear on the ballot to describe Measure 10, as follows:

“Another initiative that will be on the ballot is called Initiated Measure 10. This initiative would prohibit tax revenues from being used for lobbying or campaigning, prohibit governmental bodies from lobbying, prohibit government contractors from making campaign contributions, prohibit government contracts when the contractor employs a legislator or legislative staff member, and would require contracts with government contractors to be published. If the election were held today would you vote for or against Initiated Measure 10?”

In response, 50 percent said they would vote for it, 36 percent said they would vote against it, and 14 percent said they were not sure.

The poll also tested which elements of the ballot measure most motivate voter support, by asking the following:

“Im going to read you a short list of statements about Initiated Measure 10, the initiative that would prohibit governments from lobbying and government contractors from making campaign contributions. For each statement let me know whether it would make you more or less likely to vote for Initiated Measure 10, or would it have no impact on how you vote.”

* “First, the politicians, lobbyists, and government contractors who oppose Measure 10 are using tax dollars to pay for their campaign, and Measure 10 would prohibit politicians from spending tax dollars for lobbying or political campaigns.”

In response, 52 percent said they would be more likely to vote “yes” for Measure 10, while 20 percent said they would be less likely and 29 percent said it would have no impact or they weren’t sure.

* “Just as federal law already does regarding federal government contracts and campaigns, Measure 10 will prohibit state and local government contractors and their families from making campaign contributions to the politicians who award those government contracts.”

In response, 46 percent said they would be more likely to vote “yes” for Measure 10, while 27 percent said they would be less likely and 28 percent said it would have no impact on their vote, or they weren’t sure.

The poll had a 4.5 percent margin of error.

Espenscheid said the YES on 10 campaign “believes our support has grown even stronger in the ten days since this poll, especially after voters learned that the ‘big lie’ campaign against Measure 10 ispaid for almost entirely by out-of-state money from liberal NEA union bosses in Washington, D.C., whose left-wing political agenda is hostile to the values of South Dakota families.”

Exceptions? Yeah Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.

More here on the objection.

Measure 10 Editorial

This was published in the Argus Leader,

Specifically, voting “yes” on 10 will:


  • Stop politicians from handing out government contracts in exchange for campaign money.
  • Stop term-limited politicians and retiring bureaucrats from trading their political influence for high-paying jobs after leaving office. 


  • Require that relationships between elected officials and government contractors be made transparent by publishing detailed contract information on the Internet.
  • Vote Yes on 10 – Explained

    I think this video helps to explain the intent of Measure 10.

    Gee, I wonder what Ad Agency in the South part of Sioux Falls they are talking about? It can’t be the place I’m thinking about? Can it? The founder is such an ETHICAL guy I find it hard to believe . . . ahem.

    Initiated Measures 10 and 11 – What do they mean?

    Tuesday, September 23, 2008

    Mitchell, SD

    AFP (American Freedom Press) reporter Soney Soakies hit the street in front of the world famous Corn Palace in Mitchell, South Dakota to see if voters knew what Measure’s 10 and 11 meant. The reactions were mixed.

    Charlene Wipfers visiting Mitchell from Dimock had this to say after she was asked if she knew the definitions. “I think 10 is the one that makes it illegal for politicians from either political party to come to your door and try to gag you with their bulls**t and 11 would allow extremist crazies to come to our state, raise money from secret donors and try to pass outrageous, unconstitutional laws.”

    Not quite, but Tim Tinynickel from Mt. Vernon got a little warmer then Charlene did on Measure 11.

    “I think Measure 11 would make abortions illegal accept for exceptions.”

    Soakies, “That’s correct! Do you know what those exceptions are?”

    Tinynickel, “Strippers, cocktail waitresses and NASCAR fans?”

    Karle Nassenbergerer from Huron had this to say when asked, “Ten is an even number and eleven is an odd number (chuckle).”

    I think Karle had a little too much of the purple corn to eat off of the Palace.

    Maybelline Longerstockings only wanted to comment on Measure 10. “I saw the TV ad recently and it seems if it passes school teachers wouldn’t be allowed to talk dirty to their husbands anymore in bed.”

    We were also lucky enough to catch a first time voter, 18 year old Hunter Johnson, who plans on voting November fourth. His answer was very refreshing and he seemed to have a firm grasp of the issues. “I’m voting on 10 before 11.”

    Kristal Waterhorse from Lake Andes said she didn’t plan to vote. “Doesn’t matter what I vote on 10 or 11, Whitey always wins in the end.”

    Joseph VanDussenwienarschitnel seemed to be confused by the question. He answered, “McCain, Dykstra and Lien.”

    We reminded him these were initiatives and not candidates and read the measures to him. He replied “I don’t even think Dykstra can have an abortion. Can he? McCain was gagged in Nam, I’m voting NO on that one.”

    As you can see, there is still a learning curve out there on Measures 10 and 11, at least here in Kernel country there is.

    Vote No on 10 bologna sandwich

    by Stacey Steinhagen

    Sioux Falls, South Dakota
    September 19, 2008

    With the election a matter With the election a matter of weeks away, debate is brewing about Initiated Measure 10. The measure would restrict political donations by people with some state contracts, ban government-funded lobbying, and require the government to create a website listing all state contracts.

    Supporters say it prohibits taxpayer funded lobbying while others argue it tramples their freedom of speech. A recent 30 second ad, sponsored by the group opposing measure 10, is being challenged by those supporting the measure. KDLT’s Stacy Steinhagen checks the facts.

    Miller public school teacher Ellen Iverson is the subject of the ad. In it Iverson calls initiated measure 10 a gag law.

    Ellen Iverson says “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.”

    Iverson’s husband is Hand County Commissioner Jim Iverson. Those who have a problem with measure ten say that in her role as a public employee in the Miller School District she cannot lobby, even to her husband.

    David Owen, who is the president of the South Dakota Chamber of Commerce, says “Even as an unpaid person exercising her individual rights, she can’t be representing somebody, she can’t be directed by them. I can’t figure out how somebody could have the same agenda as the school board or school administrator or somebody else and not look like they’ve been directed.”

    But the group South Dakotans for Open and Clean Government–in vocal support of measure ten—have two problems with the ad. One: it never names Iverson’s husband or the fact that he’s a county commissioner, which is true. And second: the measure’s proponents say language in the measure in no way restricts hers or any government employee’s constitutionally-guaranteed right as a citizen to discuss anything she wants with her school board members, her legislators and, of course, her own husband.

    Dena Espenscheid, SE Regional Coordinator for the Yes on 10 Campaign, says, “Unless the school board is paying her to talk to her husband, she’s not breaking the law. But when the school board walks up to her and says here’s some money go talk to your husband, that’s a problem because your tax dollars should never be paying for lobbyists or political campaigns…We’re not saying public employees can’t go out and lobby and campaign. We’re just saying that they need to do it on their own time on with their own money.”

    In the attorney general’s description of the initiative, it says if passed the measure will likely be tied up in court since it involves constitutional issues.

    In fact, the measure specifically says a public employee acting in an uncompensated personal capacity is exempt.




    While Augustana government Professor Brent Lerseth says the initiative is fairly clear he does says one question needs to be addressed for voters about a teacher’s right to speak.Lerseth says, “Does she have to be very careful not to mention she’s a teacher when she’s talking about political issues?”

    Lerseth says it will be interesting to see future ads on Initiated Measure 10, and see if voters can get a grasp of it and decide for themselves before the issue is staring them down inside the polls.