PIERRE - Supporters of a ballot measure that would ban government-funded lobbying have filed a lawsuit alleging the Brown County Commission acted illegally in August when it passed a resolution opposing the ballot measure.

The lawsuit asks a judge to declare that the Brown County Commission and the South Dakota Association of County Commissioners, which also opposes the ballot measure, broke a law that bars governments from spending money to influence elections.

"It does not matter whether the expenditures related to the resolution amounted to $1 or $10,000. The expenditure of any public funds, including public sector resources, is prohibited for electioneering activities," the lawsuit says.

Attorney General Larry Long said Wednesday he continues to believe that South Dakota law allows state and local government boards and commissions to take positions on ballot measures.

Long has advised boards and commissions to follow the state law, which prohibits spending public funds to support or oppose ballot measures. But a board vote to support or oppose a ballot measure is not a violation of state law, he said.

"If you look at the meeting and the vote and the adoption of the resolution, we didn't find any evidence there was any expenditure of public funds," Long said.

The only extra spending might have been publishing the resolution as part of the commission's meeting minutes, but another state law requires the publication of those minutes, Long said. The commission should not get into trouble under one law for complying with another, he said.

The county has 30 days to respond to the lawsuit, which means the legal dispute will not be resolved before the Nov. 4 election. Brown County State's Attorney Kimberly Dorsett told the Aberdeen American News that while the commission cannot endorse a political candidate, it can express its views on a ballot measure commissioners believe would hurt their ability to represent citizens.

The lawyer who filed the lawsuit, Stephen Wesolick of Rapid City, said the lawsuit is important because the courts need to determine what government agencies are allowed to do under the law. "We need some clarification on what counties and municipalities can and cannot do."

"When someone's rights have been violated, and I believe my client's rights have been violated, it's important to get the issued resolved," Wesolick said.

The current law, passed in 2007 as part of a major rewrite of campaign finance laws, prohibits any state or local government agency from using public funds to influence an election. But it also makes clear that it does not limit the freedom of speech of any government officer or employee. And it specifies that governments can present factual information to educate voters on a ballot question.

At issue in the November election is Initiated Measure 10, which would ban the use of government money for lobbying, prevent holders of some no-bid contracts and their families from contributing to candidate campaigns, and require details of some state contracts to be placed on the Internet.

The ballot measure is opposed by a wide array of organizations, government associations and other groups, who argue it would amount to a gag law. Supporters contend the proposed law would lead to open and clean government.

The lawsuit argues that the Brown County Commission not only violated the law banning the use of public funds to influence an election but also exceeded its legal authority when it passed the resolution opposing Initiated Measure 10.

In addition, the South Dakota Association of County Commissioners has violated the law by using tax dollars to urge county commissions to pass resolutions like the one approved by the Brown County Commission, the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Charles Pride, a Brown County resident who has complained about the county commission's opposition to the ballot measure.

The commission's resolution means that Pride "has in effect been compelled to finance the expression of views with which he disagrees, clearly an infringement of his First Amendment rights," the lawsuit says.

Members of the county commission used taxpayer dollars in their attempt to influence the vote on Initiated Measure 10, the lawsuit says.

"And they were engaging in overt electioneering activities to takes sides in an election to bestow an unfair advantage to the opposition campaign. They have abused their official power to perpetuate themselves and their positions and have improperly distorted the democratic electoral process as a result," the suit says.