South Dakota Republicans on Thursday repealed a historic anti-corruption law approved by voters in a statewide referendum on Election Day. The measure, which passed with more than 51% backing in November, would have created an independent ethics commission, limited lobbyist gifts to lawmakers, banned officials from joining lobbying firms for two years after leaving office and created so-called "Democracy vouchers" for registered voters to steer toward their preferred candidates. But state GOP lawmakers said they didn't think voters knew what they were doing. Gov. Dennis Daugaard, a Republican, signed the repeal bill on Thursday night. In a budget address delivered after the November referendum, he claimed the public had been "hoodwinked by scam artists who grossly misrepresented these proposed measures." Republican legislators pushed the bill using an "emergency" clause that allows for the reversal to take effect immediately and now prevents voters from initiating a new referendum campaign in response. http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/02/politics/south-dakota-corruption-bill-republican-repeal/
Typical Republicans. They always think they're smarter than the people they represent. Which is probably true since those were the people dumb enough to put these clowns in office in the first place......
Unless the governor claims the voters were hoodwinked by scam artists who ran grossly misrepresented candidates.
What the fuck happened to the GOP..... Oregon can thank the Republican party for a lot of the things that make our state great, but that was a different time.
Interesting--aren't a lot of those provisions similar to those proposed by Trump in relation to the "drain the swamp" swath of his campaign platform?
From a less biased source, both sides portrayed. http://www.argusleader.com/story/ne...e-strikes-voter-approved-ethics-law/97333962/ Supporters of the repeal effort said Initiated Measure 22 was constitutionally murky and should be repealed and replaced with pieces that more clearly reflect the will of the voters. Opponents said repealing the measure could call into question the value of voter-approved initiatives and without a replacement, there was no guarantee that voters' will would be fulfilled. ... Republican lawmakers, who've come under scrutiny as they tried to rapidly roll-back the ethics law, said they plan to replace the law with a patchwork of bills aimed at addressing lobbying gift limits, establishing a government accountability board and revising campaign finance limits. Many took a chance Wednesday to tell voters about the proposals they hope to bring. "Every legislator in here is committed to replacing the good parts of IM-22," said Sen. Al Novstrup, R-Aberdeen. And others took time Wednesday to lash back at the IM-22 campaign that painted them as corrupt, self-dealing politicians. "I've not known anybody to accept a bribe, I've not known anybody to offer a bribe. In South Dakota, while we're not infallible, that has never been a concern," said Sen. Brock Greenfield, R-Clark. "There are no gold watches, there are no bags of cash."
And... http://www.jurist.org/paperchase/20...repeal-voter-approved-anti-corruption-law.php Before House Bill 1069 was approved, the law was already enjoined from taking effect because voter-initiated laws are barred from appropriating money.
I'm all for better ethics rules and enforcement, but I'm interested in why certain rules or bills or laws are opposed, that are painted as ideal. And this article is old news.
