You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

1
12

[–] freedumbz 1 point 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 All it did was generate ignorant slander aimed at the GOP when it was inevitably repealed (for fun, ctrl+f "Democracy Credit" and tell me this wasn't meant to get people to vote for "free" shit).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 point 1 point (+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 point -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

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