15
60

[–] 0011011000111001 15 points 60 points (+75|-15) ago 

Fake News.

CNN used as source.

Repubs most likely didn't say anything like that.

Fuck CNN, use a better source.

2
38

[–] gazillions 2 points 38 points (+40|-2) ago 

I accidentally clicked on it too. I feel like I should wash my mouth out or something.

2
10

[–] 0011011000111001 2 points 10 points (+12|-2) ago 

Hold me :(

[–] [deleted] 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
2

[–] prairie 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Deleting the cnn.com cookies is washing your mouth out.

0
21

[–] Broc_Lia 0 points 21 points (+21|-0) ago 

Even from reading that obviously biased article, I can tell that law isn't all it appears to be.

0
10

[–] Caesarkid1 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

...and created so-called "Democracy vouchers" for registered voters to steer toward their preferred candidates....

Politician food stamps? Taxpayer funded campaign contributions? THE FUCK?

0
13

[–] freedumbz 0 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago 

The measure was retarded. It relied on "democracy credits" and the name to pass. Read the text, it's really bad and they were justified in repealing it.

0
4

[–] Caesarkid1 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

But why read when somebody on the internet made a really neat looking cartoon and said that the bill was written by top scholars from both parties to stand up to any scrutiny?

1
5

[–] rumpleshinsplint 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

Just bc they are red doesnt mean they arent pieces of shit.

15
49

[–] magnora [S] 15 points 49 points (+64|-15) ago 

The law that was passed by the public and undercut by the state government was the respresent.us legislation talked about here:

"Corruption is Legal in America"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig

"How to fix America's Corrupt political system"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhe286ky-9A

They finally got it through in this one state, and then the government pulls the rug out from under the people. This is simply unacceptable in what is supposedly a democracy or a representative republic.

5
49

[–] cousineerie 5 points 49 points (+54|-5) ago 

This is why, fundamentally, things will never change for the better until it all comes crumbling down.

7
8

[–] IhAzBacon 7 points 8 points (+15|-7) ago 

This is why, fundamentally, things will never change for the better until it all comes crumbling down.

This.

There will be a second coming.

2
8

[–] 8772879? 2 points 8 points (+10|-2) ago 

Well, for progress to be made, people have to side with progresses (regardless to party status (and I don't mean choosing just between R's and D's)). Unfortunately, so many people in this country are single issue voters or party loyalists. Let's see if SD kicks out all those guys that voted for the repeal of their law. I doubt it.

1
4

[–] Thisismyvoatusername 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

#BTFSTTG

1
1

[–] Subtenko 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

thats the plan big boooooieeee

4
17

[–] crashing_this_thread 4 points 17 points (+21|-4) ago 

You have the second amendment for these occasions, don't you? This cannot stand.

2
3

[–] magnora [S] 2 points 3 points (+5|-2) ago 

Today someone told me about the Battle of Athens: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtrsk1HmOKU

1
1

[–] Tzitzimitl 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

its been tried multiple times, the second is only effective as an offensive measure if the public is not retarded.

2
-1

[–] freedumbz 2 points -1 points (+1|-2) ago 

This bill did nothing to stop or address corruption, and had more to do with reinforcing it. You sound like you WANT a group of state appointed cronies to give out state money to campaign for office to their friends.

1
10

[–] freedumbz 1 points 10 points (+11|-1) ago 

Read the bill you literal fucking retard. A group of cronies giving state money to any political candidate they like is a fucking retarded idea.

3
8

[–] Outlier00 3 points 8 points (+11|-3) ago 

I fear no real change will ever come about in this nation without great bloodshed.

4
1

[–] magnora [S] 4 points 1 points (+5|-4) ago 

Maybe, maybe not. But it's true that "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable." There's not many legitimate avenues for change remaining, those in power have seen to that... there's still a few things left to try

4
45

[–] Broc_Lia 4 points 45 points (+49|-4) ago 

The measure, which passed with more than 51% backing in November,

That's pretty narrow.

would have created an independent ethics commission,

"Independent" and "government body" are oxymorons. That sounds like a whole heap of BS disguised by the reasonable measures.

limited lobbyist gifts to lawmakers, banned officials from joining lobbying firms for two years after leaving office

All sound fine to me

and created so-called "Democracy vouchers" for registered voters to steer toward their preferred candidates.

What in the name of hell does any of that mean?

All in all, I think there's more to it than is in the article. First off, it's CNN, who I wouldn't trust to tell the truth about a pickup basketball game. Second of all, they're screaming about the koch brothers again whilst carefully ignoring Soros.

1
13

[–] TheDude2 1 points 13 points (+14|-1) ago 

http://www.seattle.gov/democracyvoucher/about-the-program

Apparently, liberals are using tax money to fund campaigns. This is some real bullshit.

3
6

[–] Aldo 3 points 6 points (+9|-3) ago 

Its better than our current system where only those who have friends with money can run and win, then they're expected to turn around and represent the people? Time and time again they only represent their donors.

0
9

[–] tribblepuncher 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

An "independent ethics commission" sounds an awful lot like something likely to be unelected and probably loaded down in favor of a particular political perspective. I haven't looked at the article in detail, but that just smells fishy right there.

3
0

[–] Aldo 3 points 0 points (+3|-3) ago 

Independent usually means non-politicians and either non-partisan or filled 50-50 with Rs and Ds

0
6

[–] Joker68 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

/Thread

0
4

[–] freedumbz 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Democracy credits are taxpayer dollars (fifty per credit) assigned to any candidate that is approved by an ethics committee that is run by the state for the purpose of campaigning. Great idea, right?

0
3

[–] Broc_Lia 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

That sounds exactly like the kind of bullshit I'd expect the party of the Clintons to come up with

0
32

[–] 1HepCat 0 points 32 points (+32|-0) ago 

Some more detailed arguments against the measure:

"An individual running for office would not be able to self fund their campaign." Campbell said, "That besides being unconstitutional, is absolutely insane. Along with that, IM 22 asks you and us to allow state government out of the general fund to fund campaigns, also insane."

http://www.kotatv.com/content/news/Campbell-calls-IM-22-unconstitutional-and-insane-411445755.html

IM22, an extraordinarily lengthy document, was challenged in the Sixth Judicial Circuit Court, and Judge Mark Barnett placed a preliminary injunction, finding IM22 likely unconstitutional “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

it would basically set up a fourth branch of government made up of unelected commissioners who would have authority to repeal any law passed by the South Dakota Legislature.

Legislators take an oath not to accept bribes. The punishment for accepting a bribe is a Class 4 felony (1939 law). IM22 makes bribery a Class 1 misdemeanor – a lesser sentence.

https://concernedwomen.org/urgent-support-the-repeal-of-south-dakotas-initiated-measure-22/

0
5

[–] Professor_de_la_Paz 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

This should be the top comnent.

4
3

[–] magnora [S] 4 points 3 points (+7|-4) ago  (edited ago)

I mean, of course the established government is going to hate it. They're all corrupt.

"Under this law almost all high-ranking officials would become criminals" pretty much says it all. They can't allow that, that breaks their entire game!

0
2

[–] 1HepCat 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I'm definitely sympathetic to the people's desire for responsive government. I agree the quote you cite is a weak argument. Presumably, the high ranking officials would be protected by the Constitutional provisions against ex post facto laws unless they continue the forward-going illegal behavior. Then again, given the examples I've provided, I agree that the measure doesn't appear to pass Constitutional muster.

Anyway, since most outlets reporting the emergency repeal are very left leaning, I figured better arguments from the repeal side were probably available elsewhere and I think I found some decent ones.

With all of that said, I hope the SD legislature is able to pass some of the more sensible provisions that they claim to support.

0
3

[–] Cantilever 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Great counterpoint

0
13

[–] derram 0 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago 

https://archive.is/RnkvU | https://vgy.me/mpistz.png :

South Dakota GOP repeals voter-approved anti-corruption law - CNNPolitics.com

'Curd, his colleagues and a lobbying group filed suit against the law last year in a South Dakota circuit court. '

'"It was an attempt to fundamentally transform the South Dakota citizen legislature," he said. '

'"The state motto in South Dakota is 'Under God, The People Rule.' The fight against corruption will not end until elected leaders abide by that principle."'

'On Tuesday night, less than 24 hours before the vote, demonstrators from Represent South Dakota projected the words "Respect Our Vote" onto the state capitol. ', "State Republicans' decision to effectively overturn the referendum results also comes on the heels of a controversial attempt by House Republicans in Washington to gut an independent ethics watchdog."

This has been an automated message.

1
12

[–] freedumbz 1 points 12 points (+13|-1) ago 

This article is trash, and OP is a fucking faggot.

I remember this being on the ballot in November, and I voted no. Do you know why? Two reasons. One, it was way too long and convoluted to be anything useful to the common man. Two, it was fucking retarded. It cut in ways that were un-necessary (state legislators under this law can not attend a charity dinner meant to raise money for kids with disease. I am not kidding.) Or just plain dumb (the state paying out "democracy credits" which was literally the state paying for anyone's political campaign..) It was cancerous, wasteful, and stupid. All it did was generate ignorant slander aimed at the GOP when it was inevitably repealed (for fun, ctrl+f "Democracy Credit" and tell me this wasn't meant to get people to vote for "free" shit).

But I'm going to keep this short and sweet. Here's the part that affects the voters the most - the part where the state has to pay out... a lot.

To start, let's read this pile of garbled text: https://sdsos.gov/elections-voting/assets/InitiatedMeasure22.pdf http://dakotafreepress.com/projects/election-2016/ballot-measures/initiated-measure-22-anti-corruption-act/initiated-measure-22-south-dakota-government-accountability-and-anti-corruption-act/

NOTE - please ignore all AG explanations on all ballots. They are always biased and retarded. Read the fucking text. Also, if you actually read it, see you in a while.

Now, let's look at this part:

Section 3. Terms used in this Act mean:

(1) “Commission,” the ethics commission established by sections 32 to 41, inclusive, of this Act;

(2) “Democracy credit,” a credit valued at fifty dollars, issued by the commission to a South Dakota resident voter under the Program established by sections 43 to 62, inclusive, of this Act, that can be, through proper assignment, used to make a contribution to a participating candidate;

(3) “Participating candidate,” a candidate for statewide or legislative office who is certified by the ethics commission as qualified to be assigned and redeem democracy credits, pursuant to sections 51 to 54, inclusive, of this Act;

(4) “Program,” the South Dakota democracy credit Program established by sections 43 to 62, inclusive, of this Act;

(5) “Qualified contribution,” a contribution made by a natural person resident of the state that is not, in the aggregate, in excess of two hundred and fifty dollars to a candidate for legislative office or in excess of five hundred dollars to a candidate for statewide office; and

(6) “Registered representative,” a volunteer who is permitted to solicit and collect democracy credits on behalf of a specific participating candidate because the volunteer has, pursuant to section 56 of this Act, properly filed with the commission to affirm understanding of the regulations and penalties associated with the Program.

We have a group of people who say "this is a good guy" and give him state money to run a campaign. This can't go wrong at all! Even with the "checks and balances" you have an inherently shit system to start with.

SD legislator and Governor were 110% justified in repealing this.

1
1

[–] vastrightwing 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

Ok, so the people voted for a law (maybe a stupid one) but their representatives decide to undo it. Sounds like tyranny to me.

And politicians never write bad law, like ObamaCare, for example.

1
-1

[–] willofthewarrior 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

Situations like this are why US government is set up as a democratic republic, not pure democracy.

1
11

[–] Cantilever 1 points 11 points (+12|-1) ago  (edited ago)

This could be a Trojan horse. When money leaves politics, the only instrument of influence will be corporate-censored social media and MSM.

Take a look at the donor list pushing the reforms. www.represent.us/donor-list

Rockerfellers, rothschilds, and Soros groups all major donors.

2
4

[–] magnora [S] 2 points 4 points (+6|-2) ago  (edited ago)

Oh wow. This changes things. I'm going to need to digest this information

4
-2

[–] Aldo 4 points -2 points (+2|-4) ago 

SCARY! SOROS! I'd rather be beholden to oil, telecom, and King Trump!

4
10

[–] bloodguard 4 points 10 points (+14|-4) ago 

The sad thing is they'll probably send these same corrupt criminals back into office next election. People just need to make it a consistent policy to vote against all incumbents. Forever.

0
1

[–] Wonder_Boy 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

"I hate congress and politicians!" casts vote for incumbent

4
-2

[–] magnora [S] 4 points -2 points (+2|-4) ago 

Incumbents should be labeled as such on the ballot. Then people who are anti-incumbent can easily do so.

load more comments ▼ (28 remaining)