Prohibit the use of public funds for campaigning or other partisan activity, and to provide a penalty therefor.
House Bill 1158 would tighten South Dakota law governing the use of public money and public resources in political activity. It amends existing law to prohibit state and local public bodies, public officers, employees, contractors, and candidates from directly or indirectly using tax revenues or other public resources for campaign activity or other partisan activity. The bill specifically bars the use of public funds, facilities, equipment, supplies, trademarks, membership dues, and certain public communications to influence elections, ballot questions, or legislative activity.
The bill also adds a prohibition on candidates, political committees, and political parties accepting contributions from state or local governments, foreign governments, Indian tribes, or federal agencies. Violations would be criminal offenses, with a first offense classified as a Class 2 misdemeanor and a subsequent offense within a calendar year as a Class 1 misdemeanor. In addition, a person who knowingly receives prohibited contributions would owe restitution for the greater of the public cost or market value of the misused resources, and a knowing violation could be grounds for discharge from public employment.
HB1158 would expand and clarify South Dakota’s restrictions on the use of public resources for political purposes by broadening the list of prohibited activities and expressly covering more categories of public actors and resources. It would affect state agencies, political subdivisions, public employees, contractors, candidates, political committees, and political parties, while also creating restitution and employment consequences for violations. The bill preserves several exceptions for official governmental communications and constitutional duties, including legislative communications, constituent communications, requested informational appearances, uncompensated personal activity by public employees, and certain executive-branch review functions.
Based on the bill’s text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes, the measure appears to be framed as a government-ethics and anti-misuse proposal rather than a controversial policy expansion. Its stated purpose suggests support from those concerned about separating taxpayer resources from electioneering and partisan advocacy. At the same time, the detailed exceptions indicate an effort to avoid interfering with ordinary governmental communications and official duties, which may have been intended to address concerns about overbreadth.
The main points of contention are likely to center on how broadly “campaign” and “partisan activity” are defined, and whether the bill could chill legitimate government speech, constituent communications, or policy analysis by public officials and employees. Another likely issue is the scope of the ban on communications or analyses that could be seen as influencing legislation or ballot questions, since that language could be read broadly. Supporters would likely emphasize preventing taxpayer-funded political advocacy, while opponents may argue the bill risks sweeping in routine public information or official governmental functions despite the listed exemptions.