|Government Reform? Yes|
Election Reform Is Another Thing
(graphic from Center for Public Integrity)
If IM 22 had stopped there, I'd be an enthusiastic supporter. But damn it, the folks who put this thing together had to go and throw in a poison pill that has nothing to do with government reform. On that basis, they can include me out. Why? Because I think publicly financed elections are a way to force me to support candidates I don't like, which is baloney. How? Because it wants public financing of elections (see sections 42 through 62) via a "democracy credit fund" amounting to $12 million (with built in inflation adjustments) to be distributed to participating candidates. According to the measure, this is to "minimize corruption or the appearance of corruption in government; to promote broad, diverse, fair, and undistorted influence and participation by South Dakotans in state electoral politics; to better inform the public about candidates running for office; and to promote meaningful and open discussion of political issues in the context of electoral politics."
Noble goals, indeed. Fulfillability is another matter. That neither the measure nor its supporters address the issue of how much extra strain it puts on a state budget that is already scrambling to cover
Not Going There With IM 22