Whether it's in the form of ballot issues or PAC's, special interests had a huge influence in the 2006 elections. In some cases, the amount of money put into the elections by special interests far exceeded that put into the process by the political parties.
Traditionally, parties sat as the base of political power in South Dakota politics. Has some of that power now been usurped by special interests?
Special interests, in many ways, have usurped political parties in South Dakota. This is not entirely a bad thing.
Even with a strong state Republican Party, Rightwing special interests have organized and been successful in the state. The various Right to Life groups used their money, influence, and volunteers to elect a pro-life legislature that did not reflect the will of South Dakotans on abortion. while a liberal like me condemns their results, I also appreciate the effort--it was a long term strategy that paid off for their side. And that is one of the lessons.
It is a lesson that the S.D. Campaign for Healthy Families learned in opposing Referred Law 6, the abortion ban. Again, while ostensibly a "Democratic" issue, the group was able to put together a coalition of Democrats, Republicans, independents, and even pro-life supporters who thought the measure was too extreme. Again, this was not something that could be accomplished through the parties' surrogates.
And what has been started by SDCFHF will likely be continued. Expect to see an organization like the S.D. Family Policy Council form from Lefty groups involved in the abortion fight.
Special interests can also form an an ad hoc basis where parties cannot. While both the state Democratic and Republican Parties opposed Amendment E (J.A.I.L. for judges) this fall, it was a coalition of the bar, businesses, and Democrats and Republicans who worked together to defeat the amendment. The No on E group had more flexibility than if it had been run through surrogates of the two state parties.
On the Left, while the state Democratic Party has made small strides in becoming more effective and will likely make additional strides under a new chairperson like Jack Billion, Progressive activists know it is a swamp that needs more than a draining. Special interest
groups like Grassroots South Dakota and the to be formed Progressive group noted above can react more quickly than the state party.
With no money limits (yet) on ballot issue groups, expect that these special interests will continue to have increasing power in the future. The state legislature and the governor should now be on notice that unless they do the will of the people, South Dakotans will use special interest groups to put forth what they think the government ought to be doing. Rather than with the state's political parties, whether special interests will continue to have such influence--and perhaps more influence than political parties--is up to our elected leaders in Pierre.
Whether you think this migration of power to the special interests, like most things in life, depends up whether you've been successful with your agenda or not.
Have special interests have overtaken political parties as a base of political power in South Dakota? I don't think so, but as opposed to short term committees, we need to be very wary on special interests setting up for the long haul.
In most cases, special interests are formed on an ad hoc basis for a temporary need. It's rare to see a special interest committee formed that can sustain an agenda on a long term basis. Contrast that with political parties who have been able to remain self-sustaining from years based on national and grassroot support.
We've seen them gain a lot of attention lately because of the money they've commanded. But if you look at it on a long term basis, it's just a drop in the bucket over the traditional party route.
Normally, because of the short term duration of these committees we let them be very loud during the election, and then we breathe a sigh of relief when it's done. Like warriors returning from war, they all go home. For the most part, you might see a few familiar players on the stage as special interest campaigns come and go, but there's little continuity and longevity.
(Just so you don't misconstrue what I'm saying, I'd note that this has nothing to do with the financial rules they need to follow. I think they need to be stronger for EVERYONE.)It's when we see someone setting up shop for an extended period, that we should look with a discerning eye because it could be a concern for the electorate at large.
Many times in the past, I've railed on and on about a special interest PAC or two in particular because of the way they've wielded large donations over not just one, but a series of several election cycles. Why do I complain ad nauseum about that precedent? Because I think it's dangerous.
When one person or one group has hundreds of thousands of dollars (or more) at their command with no restriction, and wields it for the direct purpose of promoting people or things at the ballot box, it gives them singular clout, and makes politicians particularly beholding to them.
You might be saying "Sure, but isn't that what political parties do?" Again, yes, and no.
Made up of a very broad base of the electorate, parties weed out the acceptable from the unacceptable through political primaries. In effect, they're sanctioned by the state ("State" as in our government) because they make the process of choosing leaders simpler. In effect, they're an important consideration in vetting candidates to choose those who we reasonably think are competent enough to do the job. (and no, it's an imperfect process, but it's better than nothing).
When special interests get involved in that process, there's no prior vetting. They just open their checkbook to get the issue (or whomever) they want.
And isn't it a better consideration for elected officials to owe allegiance to many over owing much of it to one? Isn't it better for an issue to be supported by many, rather than a few?
My final response? Don't worry too much about the temporary special interests who get alot of the attention. They're here and gone. Worry about those with small memberships and an agenda.
