The State Senate is passing a bill that allows interested organizations like the South Dakota Chamber of Commerce and Farm Bureau to have an ongoing ballot question committee.
Senate Bill 128 allows those perpetual committees to donate to several other ballot question committees for and against an issue.
Critics say the bill reduces transparency.
With previous lengthy ballots during elections, and another anticipated one on the horizon… sometimes groups that focus on policy in South Dakota may have an interest in several questions up for vote.
And these groups have been around for several years… as opposed to a ballot question committee that forms for just one election cycle.
Senate Bill 128 allows those former groups, like the South Dakota Retailers Association to exist election cycle after election cycle, rather than terminating and then refiling again.
Republican State Senator Terri Haverly is the prime sponsor. She says the bill is in response to many issues that make the ballot each year that these organizations want a say in…
“This would allow them to continue it on for several years,” Haverly says. They could collect the money, they could address, oppose or support more than one ballot question and over different years. If they don’t’ have any activity though, much like a PAC, they have to file with the Secretary of State’s office, file all the necessary items.”
But critics worry the legislation could have unintended consequences and obscure where money comes and goes.
Democratic State Senator Billie Sutton says the bill lets these groups collect unlimited amounts to money to oppose or support a differing ballot question committee, whereas Political Action Committees have a cap on their ability to raise money.
He says that’s akin to opening up Pandora’s box.
“The problem with that is ballot question committees have unlimited contribution limits, whereas a PAC is limited to $10,000,” Sutton says. “So, I think we’re opening up a pretty big can of worms with that. In fact, I think that’s problematic.”
The bill passed with 27 yes votes and 8 no. It now heads to the House.