The Senate Local Government Committee last week quite sensibly killed Senate Bill 33, Secretary of State Jason Gant's latest effort to suppress Indian voting. But now journalist Bob Mercer wants to resurrect it, out of concern that anonymous donors to Indian voting rights group Four Directions may be influencing South Dakota elections by funding satellite voting stations:
Committee members asked good questions, including who are the sources of Four Directions’ money. The answer was tribes outside South Dakota. They weren’t specifically identified, and there wasn’t an answer regarding the amounts.
...Resurrecting SB 32 [sic] and amending it to require public reporting of all contributions received by an election-administration organization and all payments made by such an organization would be an important step in bringing public transparency to this election-influencing activity [Bob Mercer, "Unknown Sources That Pay for Polling Places," Pure Pierre Politics, 2014.01.27].
Mercer tries to conflate Four Directions' subsidization of satellite voting stations with campaign finance law. But SDCL 12-27, the campaign finance chapter, applies to contributions "made by a person, organization, political committee, or political party to expressly advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate or the placement of a ballot question on the ballot or the adoption or defeat of any ballot question." Four Directions does not use the contributions in question to buy ads for candidates or ballot issues. Four Directions hands the money in question to local governments who in turn hire staff to supervise early voting at satellite stations in remote, underserved communities. Those communities happen to be home to a lot of tribal folks who tend to vote Democratic. But those voting stations offer all citizens in the communities served the opportunity to vote for the candidates and issues of their choosing. That activity is perfectly legal, and no one needs to answer for that activity under campaign finance law.
Four Directions' intent is very different from the vote-influencing intent made explicit by SB 33 backer and Gant-sycophant Pat Powers:
Of course, the only answer if this legislation isn’t passed would for Republican related interests such as the NRA or other large organization to form their own 501c4, and to put polling places in Republican majority districts [Pat Powers, "Mercer: Resurrect SB 32 [sic] and Require Reporting," Dakota War College, 2014.01.27].
The GOP isn't worried about campaign finance transparency or voting access. They are worried about the fortunes of their political favorites and obtaining every marginal advantage they can over voters who don't heel to their command.
Recall the principles Four Directions has proposed for setting up satellite voting centers with the Help America Vote Act money that Secretary Gant has thus far refused to use to help American Indians vote:
We propose that if for all three factors if American Indians living on Reservations are 50% less likely to have a motor vehicle than Anglos, have 50% more individuals below the poverty line than Anglos, and live, on average, 50% farther than Anglos from the existing county seat, then HAVA funds should be made available to fund a satellite office for the full election period and be open for the same hours and dates as the county courthouse in that county [Bret Healy, Four Directions memo to Secretary of State Jason Gant and 2014 HAVA Task Force, 2013.12.17].
Show me an isolated South Dakota community where folks of any race suffer similar disadvantages of vehicle access, poverty, and distance, and I will happily support using HAVA money or private donations to fund satellite voting stations for them, without asking for which candidate or party those disadvantaged folks plan to vote.
Don't let Mercer or Powers fool you: Senate Bill 33 wasn't about blocking anonymous campaign contributions. It was about keeping Indians from voting.
Update 11:15 CST: On Saturday, Powers noted that an outfit called the Government Integrity Fund is spending money to influence South Dakota voters to pick Marion Michael Rounds for Senate. Powers seems unconcerned that the Government Integrity Fund's FEC reports give us no clue who their donors are. Again, secrets for me but not for D's....
Nothing wrong with transparency even if motive for it is not particularly correct or even honest. Perhaps a "compromise" Democrats should push for is greater campaign transparency and reporting in same bill as legislation requiring disclosure of money aimed at influencing elections via increased voting by groups more aligned with the Democratic Party or Republican Party.
Influencing voting rates up or down to benefit either party is an attempt to influence elections and legislatures. It is disingenuous to claim otherwise even if methods vary and some are more virtuous than others.
Bill Clay's NRA example is embarrassing, I think, even to Republicans. Fat, white, pasty-thighed, economically smug whiteys with guns don't need any more political empowerment in South Dakota than they already have.
They don't need a right wing hero like Bull Connor to show up with bridgades of uniformed thugs and fire hoses and police dogs to keep Native People down on the rez. Just keep them isolated. Keep them from gaining access to polls and ballots in neighborning counties because their courthouse is shut down.
I doubt Four Directions has anything to hide if it revealed who contributed every dollar to empower Native People on isolated reservation communities to vote. But they have no reason to kowtow to a bigot's parlor game in State Affairs. If there was universal full disclosure of campaign-related committees, that would be fair, but you better talk first to the Koch Brothers and see how cooperative they can be. They're the big dogs with the One Percent's bucks to control elections. Four Directions is an extremely small organization with minimal finances. The only line they've crossed in South Dakota is their intention to stop the obstruction of Native American votes. If those votes were predominantly Republican, nobody would have introduced SB 33.
It seems that a good investigative reporter could simply find the funding source for Four Directions and the dollar amounts. Have Four Directions refused to provide this information to Gant's office?
If I were to speculate, my guess would be that Tribes in heavy populated area with successful gaming operations are providing financial support to fight this bigoted legislation, but to provide voter access.
That said, sometimes campaigns need to go back to basics.
Four Directions needs to identify where voters live and whether they have access to polling places.
Of course voter registration is critical and must be done within the law and on time. Counties in and around the reservations have a way of purging registrations and you could end up dead or living elsewhere.
The most important part of the voter campaign is to get people to the polls. A volunteer effort to provide transportation to those that don't have it is essential.
Cars, pickups, vans, four wheelers are all needed for this effort, I've seen very successful massive efforts of this type on the reservation.
Regardless of these efforts, it's obvious the state will always be at war with the tribes to strip away their right to vote.
http://www.propublica.org/article/dark-money-group-told-IRS-wouldnt-be-political-spent-million-on-ads
They spent money on ads in Ohio in 2012 for one candidate and against two Dems. They fibbed to the IRS as well.
Mercer had to go after the Natives to keep being the fair and balanced image he has of himself. He went after the Benda story and the EB-5, in his mind, he had to go after someone or something in the blue corner. Going after the Natives is always good chum to the republicans. That can be the only explanation as this story is pretty weak.
Jerry,
You just maybe right about Mercer having to do an attack on Indians to satisfy some Republicans. After all he has been pretty hard on them with the GOED/EB-5/NBP Scandal.
Just as I was learning to respect Mercer and give him some credibility, he pulls this nonsense. Powers mus be pleased.
In defense of Mercer, and in light of what has been transpiring over the past few decades, I believe that he only seeks to have everything disclosed that is possible about who is spending money to have an effect upon those in charge of government. While this Bill is clearly intended to attack the Indian vote, as Douglas Wiken stated above, this is a golden opportunity for the Democratic representatives to push for more openness in other areas as well. Remember, the best disinfectant is sunlight!
I'll cut Mr. Mercer some slack. Heck, I am for full disclosure of all monies that are pumped into the political process.
I just don't remember, or have the time to to do the research to see his consistency on the subject on transparency of funding in the election process.
Mr. Mercer. Maybe it would be good of you to lead a charge on transparency of funding in elections.
If Kristi, Mike, Tim, Stace or DD accept money to influence our elections, then we should know who is buying our votes.
Might not be a federal mandate, but that's never stopped us from setting our own standard. (Look at low teacher pay...we can even make the effort to make that look good.)
The dark money can still give to candidates legally, but reporters like Mercer can paint it with the Scarlet Letter.
Bob, go get em. Hold any and all monies coming into SD elections to a higher level of transparency! The press is the only one that has that power.
Come to think of money and the influence on elections.
Does anyone have a list of the people South Dakotans who donate the max every election? Those are the money trees that are shook to fund the direction and policy of the state.
To steal a line from Rachel Maddow, those are the people who make this the Check Republic.
And Mr. Mercer...I'm guessing that these people have a far greater influence and threat to South Dakota democracy than 4 winds could ever have in their wildest dreams.
And no...I'm not saying we legislate the amount that individuals can give to candidates. (Although it would be good to set a maximum limit to allow average citizens to be a part of the democratic process.)
I'm saying it would make for interesting reporting to see who is buying our elections and just what percentage of South Dakotans donate/buy our politicians at the maximum allowable.
I think that would be a great story for a reporter covering South Dakota politics.
Bring in a brand inspector and start flipping up saddle skirts to see who owns whichever politician you chance to meet. You find a single unbranded maverick,feel free to slap your "OWN" brand on the critter.(pun intended)
Doug is right. If you are for disclosure, you should be for disclosure. I am.
Four Directions' cards are already on the table. I await ALEC's.
Mercer and newspapers may not have been loud and clear on election funding transparency, but Mercer and papers have been quite consistent in pressing for general open government and transparency and election funding transparency probably falls into similar category.
That Four Seasons has indicated funding source is not really relevant. Such disclosure must be mandatory for all and not voluntary or it is nearly meaningless.
Cory, There is only a house of cards from ALEC. This is about as hollow of a grassroots foundation as you can get, the very worst money can buy. The republican party has already been rebranded and will soon be renamed as the Koch party. Their new motto will not be in Latin, it will be in big bloated letters "Things go better with Koch".
Good one Jerry!
Someone's been making pipeline promises.