Are are paid petition circulators bad for the system?
The Argus has an article today on Senators Dick Kelly's and B.J. Nesselfuf 's thoughts on paid petition circulators:
I'm going to be pollyanish here, and disagree with these gentlemen a bit. I don't like paid petition circulators. Why? I believe if something is important enough to place on the ballot, the groundswell of support should generate enough volunteer effort to accomplish it.
We managed to do it before people were paid for it. So why don't we just dump paid signatures?
And actually, I think it might stop much of the griping that citizens have over there being so many things on the ballot. Does anyone think JAIL would have been on the ballot if they hadn't paid out of state professionals to come in and gather signatures? That, and complaints about harassment of people to sign. If they aren't looked at as 2 bucks a head for someone doing it for the money, it's likely to be better received.
The Constitutional Review Commission looking at upping signature requirements is NOT the answer. In fact, I think it will just escalate the problem when it's looked at in light of signatures having a bounty attached to them. Because then there's going to be even more money involved and pressure to produce.
Dump the paid signatures, and we'll see fewer complaints about circulators, and maybe even fewer ballot issues to complain about.
A trend toward paid petition circulators has some legislators worried that South Dakota campaign-finance reports fail to tell citizens who is spending money to put issues on their ballots.
With almost a dozen issues tacked on to this November's ballot, most of which were added by petition, legislators see cause for concern.
Sen. Dick Kelly, R-Sioux Falls, said that he senses there's a trend toward more paid signature collectors. He doesn't object to that, but he wants the public to know what it costs and who pays the bill.Read it all here.
"I don't want to make it tougher to get things on the ballot, but I think we have a right to know who is paying for it," Kelly said. "We don't know that right now."
"Absolutely, we should require finance reports of people who are placing issues on our ballot," Nesselhuf said. "I don't have a problem with paying for signatures, as long as it's an open record so we know who is behind it."
Sen. Ben Nesselhuf, D-Vermillion, agrees but thinks the Legislature should consider a full package of changes in political reporting requirements.
I'm going to be pollyanish here, and disagree with these gentlemen a bit. I don't like paid petition circulators. Why? I believe if something is important enough to place on the ballot, the groundswell of support should generate enough volunteer effort to accomplish it.
We managed to do it before people were paid for it. So why don't we just dump paid signatures?
And actually, I think it might stop much of the griping that citizens have over there being so many things on the ballot. Does anyone think JAIL would have been on the ballot if they hadn't paid out of state professionals to come in and gather signatures? That, and complaints about harassment of people to sign. If they aren't looked at as 2 bucks a head for someone doing it for the money, it's likely to be better received.
The Constitutional Review Commission looking at upping signature requirements is NOT the answer. In fact, I think it will just escalate the problem when it's looked at in light of signatures having a bounty attached to them. Because then there's going to be even more money involved and pressure to produce.
Dump the paid signatures, and we'll see fewer complaints about circulators, and maybe even fewer ballot issues to complain about.
Comments
If I have a measure I wish to refer, are you proposing to prohibit my employees from being dispatched, while they are on the clock, to collect signatures?
Can they also be prohibited from being paid to solicit absentee ballots, place signs, or any of the other myriad things which people do to promote campaigns and candidates? Do we also prohibit them from collecting signatures to place people on ballots, or is it just issues?
That sounds a lot to me like prohibiting free speech. Of course, while this would tend to preserve the careers of those in power, it would do darn little to encourage participation in the process.
I think you should rethink your position.
(Politely lifted from the Springfield News Leader)
Springfield News Leader - Opinion Page
ozarks Opinions Published Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Editorial wrongly bashed ballot petitioner company
My name is Susan Johnson and I'm president of National Voter Outreach, the firm your paper headlined as "Sullying Missouri's ballot," describing my firm as "the new slimy underbelly of the American political system."
My first concern is educating readers about the signature gathering characterized by this publication as "swooping in," falcon-like, to conduct business.
My second concern was editors suggesting voters ask signature gatherers if they're registered to vote in Missouri, apparently unaware Missouri passed legislation requiring exactly that, which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down in Colorado's ACLF v. Meyer as in violation of the First Amendment, and therefore unenforceable.
Editors displayed greater concern about signature gatherers than issues — writing, "The act of paying petition gatherers is much less bothersome to us than who the gatherers are," implying those not from the Show-Me State shouldn't be here, although presumably, business from outside petitioners renting local hotel rooms, shopping and dining was welcomed.
Editors described petitioners carrying multiple petitions as bad. Restricting the number of petitions isn't merely un-American, it's ridiculous. People don't work two jobs for the joy of working. They're trying to make ends meet.
My firm recruits heavily at local colleges and senior citizen centers. We also hire locally after people refer their family and friends. Ironically, I also pay for advertising in the very newspapers which later impugn my firm and our business.
This paper didn't fact check before publishing a negative statement against my firm that appeared in Amy Blouin's column about Amendment 14. Blouin said we'd been sued several times for fraud. In fact, in one case, independent contractors affiliated with National Voter Outreach were named in a suit, later dismissed, but NVO has never been named as a defendant in any fraud action. National Voter Outreach enjoys a sterling reputation. In fact, our Web site, www.directdemocracy.com, educates on how to prevent petition fraud.
My fifth and most frightening concern is editorial sleight-of-hand. Railing against "special interests" slips from disingenuous to dangerous when not reporting harassment of petitioners. Some "special interest" groups include police departments which feel passage of certain measures might have an impact on their future salaries.
Last week, a St. Peters circulator wearing a business suit, working door-to-door from his list of registered voters, was handcuffed, told he was under arrest, put in the back of a police cruiser and detained for 15 minutes, before being released and instructed to leave town. An hour later at a mall parking lot in St. Charles, the exact same pattern was repeated, complete with threats as the police prevented this clean-cut family man from doing his job. Also last week, four more circulators were prevented from working while police decided they had the right to stop free political speech without a permit issued by the city. (They don't.) In O'Fallon, although given permission to circulate at a strip mall, police chased away petitioners after deciding written permission was needed.
Direct democracy through the initiative and referendum process is the truest sense of government by and for the people. Post-World War II, returning GIs bought homes in brand-new, planned communities. Suburbia and zoning ordinances were born. Eventually, our society became so mobile we no longer lived close to work and shops. Few realized the significance behind the loss of the old "town square" as a public meeting place. Reaching voters now requires we go where they are: strip malls, city streets and in front of grocery stores and large retail establishments.
However, if opposing forces, including the police, continue to prevent petitioners from accessing voters, measures voters need to decide won't even reach the ballot, and direct democracy dies. We encourage this publication to report all news, including police interference, and let Missouri voters decide the issues.
Is this what publicist's do? Someone paid to pay attention to Bloggers? Try updating your website. Try organizing so someone could actually read it.
Also... you are getting CRUSHED by the No on E campaign.
I hope, for their sake, the people that hired you structured your contract so there is some incentive to actually do your job and help these people...
I think you're wrong.
I think Bonnie is nuts!!
Remember, when it becomes illegal to get paid to help someone attain the ballot, only outlaws will give political advice.
Take for instance Napoli’s property tax assessment measure. Not one piece of legislation was brought forth to address these concerns. This is a huge issue in the Black Hills and if it passes will become a huge issue East River. Yet not one legislator had it in him or her to introduce legislation to address it?
Tobacco costs SD over $50 million a year in state Medicaid expenditures, that’s right over $50 million A YEAR, while spending $750,000 to prevent tobacco use. But this issue is also routinely swept under the rug.
If you get the legislature to actually pass substantive laws that are actually affecting people, not combating every sexual experience possible, then you’ll start to see fewer petitions because the citizen’s issues are at least being addressed.
I have seen myself a number of paid petitioners lying about the subject of the petition to attempt to gather signatures. The JAIL paid collectors were lying about the petition, one did so to me so its not just rumor. I also overheard a paid signature gatherer tell an elderly couple he was gathering signatures for a "pro life" measure. There was no pro life measure being circulated and this was before the abortion ban petition was filed. Who knows what those old people actually signed.
Read the damn petition before you sign!
Why would you sign your name, address, and county of registration to something you haven't read?
"Deception"? No. It's ignorance.
At 1:54 PM, Bonnie Russell said a whole bunch of stuff in favor of National Voter Outreach.
What Bonnie did not tell you is that National Voter Outreach is a Michigan/Nevada based company that IS PAYING BONNIE!
You can read the news accounts of her shilling for NVO here
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=%22bonnie%20russell%22%20and%20%22National%20Voter%20Outreach%22&sa=N&tab=wn
Oh wait Bonnie, you forgot to mention you are being paid to go after PP on behalf of NVO.
But that's ok, because you are ALSO being paid as we well know to go after PP on behalf of J.A.I.L/Amendment E.
You know, the guys from CALIFORNIA. Sure Bonnie pretends it is "South Dakota all the way" but keep in mind who their leadership is: CALIFORNIAN Ron Branson, CALIFORNIAN Bonnie Russell, CALIFORNIAN Gary Zerman, WASHINGTON STATER DAvid Estes.
They have Bill Stegmeier as a token South Dakota resident, but that's the only South Dakota thing about them. Those OPPOSING Amendment E are the ones who aretruly South Dakota all the way.
So, let's review Bonnie's trackrecord.
She works for one out of state company (NVO from Michigan/Nevada) to come out and attack anyone who opposes them in South Dakota, all the from the comfort of California.
And when she's not doing that, she's working for another out of state group (J.A.I.L./Amendment E) lead by people from California (Branson, Russell, Zerman) and Washington State (Estes) seeking to amend South Dakota's constitution.
And those who carry these petitions should be residents of the state they are collecting the signatures in. The reason for that should be obvious - it would make it harder for out of state interests to interfere in another state's business.
Stay home in sunny C and leave us alone, Bonnie!
If I told this idiot I work internationally, it just might send him over the top.
It's just stupid, Bonnie. Hell, you even have several spelling errors thoughout, including the names of the people you accuse of being government operatives.
It reaks of a lack of credibility. On your abilities, on your cause, and on the people who hired you.
Some one should explain to Bill Stegmeier that there's a difference between hiring someone who will do the job and hiring someone who is willing to do the job.
They claim that only paid lobbyists and special interests are opposing them. That's not true , but even if it were, at least those lobbyists are from SOUTH DAKOTA.
Bonnie on the other hand probably never set foot in SD and is being paid by out of state groups (National Voter Outreach) or pushing an out of state written and created agenda (J.A.I.L./Amendment E).
Bonnie: At least when PP here writes about something or someone he knows or worked for (and therefore took money from) in the past OR present he says that either at the start or somewhere in his post or statement.
YOU on the other hand posted an item from National Voter Outreach without mentioning that they are PAYING YOU to do so as their spokesperson.
And as for www.amendmente.com as someone else noted: it is incoherent, misspelled and rambling. Even more insulting, the people who are actually SOUTH DAKOTANS have their names misspelled.
Poor Bonnie wouldn't know who these people are however because she's not from SD. I'd take the words of South Dakotans as to what they need or don't over those from CALIFORNIA (Branson, Zerman, Russell) or WASHINGTON STATE (Estes) any day.