Some Dirt From The Ground

Secret Donations

The South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families has alleged that $750,000 in “secret donations” – from a single donor through a private corporation – to the Vote Yes for Life campaign violated state law. Representative Roger Hunt, the primary sponsor of the abortion ban bill, set up a corporation called Promising Future, Inc., and this corporation has made three contributions of $250,000 to Vote Yes For Life. Hunt will not divulge the identity of the donor, stating that he is legally justified. The Secretary of State is now investigating Hunt’s claim, and the Campaign for Healthy Families is asking the Attorney General to determine whether Hunt broke the law when he filed his campaign finance report. (For more information, read yesterday’s editorial in the Argus Leader.) The controversy is a hot topic among voters, and a quick poll by the Argus Leader showed that over 70% of those surveyed think Hunt should disclose the donor’s name. Our contact with voters confirmed that serious political fallout has resulted from the story. It has definitely added another dimension to the conversations we have with South Dakotans about the ban and the people who are promoting it.

Church Signs

Other news revolves around churches’ involvement with the abortion ban. Several have taken action on the issue, featuring it prominently during church services. Pro-choice churchgoers have told me that they feel frustrated about the way it has been presented. Churches’ actions are complicated by the fact that they are also the site of many polling places in the state. A large proportion of churches support the ban, and many churches around the state currently have “Vote Yes” signs prominently posted on their property. Before the election day, however, they will have to remove all signs from their property (or allow all signs to be posted). One church has become entangled in a dispute with the County Auditor in Rapid City because it refuses to remove its signs. As a result, the county election supervisor was forced to change the poll location. The supervisor was reluctant to do so, because changing the poll location at this stage might confuse or even deter some voters. She says it was necessary to provide voters with a neutral walk to the poll. This is just one example of the tension between various political and cultural forces affecting the events of election day and the outcome of the vote.