Post Reply South Dakota Lawmakers entirely corrupt.
51634 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M
Offline
Posted 1/23/17 , edited 1/23/17
.http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/south-dakota-gop-rushes-to-repeal-ethics-reforms-passed-by-voters/ar-AAm9Ppi?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=iehp

So yeah, in South Dakota a citizen backed measure was passed with a 52% vote that would seriously curb political corruption... so the Republican majority senate IMMEDIATELY set about repealing it, even though as said, 52% of the voters voted for it.... standard shit that Republicans have been doing, course the voters won't vote out the corrupt politicians who obviously don't give a flying fuck about their constituents.
mxdan 
10944 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / A Husk.
Offline
Posted 1/23/17 , edited 1/23/17
Can they do this? This seems to be an illegal conflict of interest. The Bill is simply making corruption harder. I mean the Koch Brothers are completely out of line by doing shit like this. How we allow them to weasel politics like this and influence things that ultimately benefit 'we the (fucking) people' is beyond me.

People should be in the streets rioting this. Hell, if they curb this and you are a SD resident you have every bit to get angry and instigate violent protest. This is the government making sure your wishes aren't heard directly.
37091 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 1/23/17
Don't be so sure that South Dakota's voters won't take action on this. After all, they did pass Measure 22, and they're not going to be happy that the state legislature is basically thumbing its nose at the ballot results and saying "That's nice you want to limit gifts and lobbyists' influence, set up public campaign financing, improve transparency and impose limits for corrupt campaign finance practices, and put a stopper in the revolving door between public office and lobbying firms, but seriously: fuck you" to their constituents.
mxdan 
10944 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / A Husk.
Offline
Posted 1/24/17 , edited 1/24/17

BlueOni wrote:

Don't be so sure that South Dakota's voters won't take action on this. After all, they did pass Measure 22, and they're not going to be happy that the state legislature is basically thumbing its nose at the ballot results and saying "That's nice you want to limit gifts and lobbyists' influence, set up public campaign financing, improve transparency and impose limits for corrupt campaign finance practices, and put a stopper in the revolving door between public office and lobbying firms, but seriously: fuck you" to their constituents.


Very true! I just more or less can't believe we still live in a time were people actively oppose oversight and ethical procedure. Like come on people. If that isn't a sign that there are people in opposition to public interest then I don't know what is.
11403 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Online
Posted 1/24/17
From out of the TPP straight into this.

As the metaphor goes: out of the shit pan and into the diarrhea.
27922 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 1/24/17
I don't think that state is turning blue (or even purple) for quite a while.

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/south-dakota
mxdan 
10944 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / A Husk.
Offline
Posted 1/24/17

MysticGon wrote:

I don't think that state is turning blue (or even purple) for quite a while.

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/south-dakota


And yet a majority of your state thinks that ethics is a positive thing. They voted for this. It isn't the job of a senate majority to inhibit state desires unless they violate some right.
27922 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 1/24/17

mxdan wrote:


MysticGon wrote:

I don't think that state is turning blue (or even purple) for quite a while.

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/south-dakota


And yet a majority of your state thinks that ethics is a positive thing. They voted for this. It isn't the job of a senate majority to inhibit state desires unless they violate some right.


You mean like Proposition 8?
mxdan 
10944 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / A Husk.
Offline
Posted 1/24/17

MysticGon wrote:


mxdan wrote:


MysticGon wrote:

I don't think that state is turning blue (or even purple) for quite a while.

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/south-dakota


And yet a majority of your state thinks that ethics is a positive thing. They voted for this. It isn't the job of a senate majority to inhibit state desires unless they violate some right.


You mean like Proposition 8?


Take note of the last five words in my last post to answer your question.
You must be logged in to post.