Here we go again, screwed, blued and tattooed by another genus of the rich folk:  hedge fund managers.  The top 25 managers earned … drum roll, please…14 billion dollars last year, that’s with a B.  But here’s the good part:  they only paid 15 percent tax on their earnings–whereas you and I pay 30-35 percent.  This hundreds of millions o’ bucks sleight of hand is accomplished by claiming that the earnings are capital gains instead of income.  Furthermore, these powerful people are spared the inconvenience of any of the Social Security taxes and Medicare taxes that the rest of us are burdened with.

Understand me.  I’m not saying they don’t pay FICA on all of that 14 billion.  They don’t pay any FICA.

Sweet.

This tax loophole should be closed, but Congress dithers. 

Let’s see.  I’m no math whiz, but I think that another 15 percent in taxes on $14 billion would come to $2.1 billion.  You could fix a few bridges with that kind of scratch.

On Monday, we introduced a new feature here at Show Me Progress, a question and answer series with the Democratic candidates for Attorney General. The deadline has passed, and the answers are in. I want to thank the candidates for responding politely and in a timely fashion.

The question was, “What would be the first issue you would tackle as Attorney General? Why and how?”

The answers, in the order received, are below the fold.

As promised, I’m putting up a link to the ActBlue pages of the candidates who responded according to the rules. Only Jeff Harris has an ActBlue page at this point, so he’s the only one that gets the link. If you like what Rep. Harris had to say, consider dropping him a few bucks here. When the others have an ActBlue page up, we’ll link to them.

Representative Jeff Harris (D-Columbia):

Thanks for the opportunity to respond to your survey.  I look forward to any feedback  your readers will give me.  As the House Democratic Leader, I have led the fight to stop the Blunt agenda, which has caused so much harm to so many Missourians.  I want to continue to fight for progressive values as your next Attorney General.  I have a detailed list of my policy positions at my website: http://www.electjeffharris.com/issues/.

I will make Internet safety and the protection of personal information a top priority, including establishing a statewide task force to fight Internet crimes against children.  As a soon-to-be parent, I am committed to protecting our youngest citizens from pedophiles who prowl the Internet.  Several Attorneys General have established these task forces to successfully coordinate and assist with investigations and provide training and assistance to law enforcement and prosecutors.  I will advocate for model legislation to protect our privacy and create a special unit in my office to combat cyber crimes and protect Missourians’ privacy.  For instance, at the University of Missouri, a number of student and employee Social Security numbers were compromised.  In addition, Missourians have a right to have their medical records protected from disclosure.

I welcome comment on any of my initiatives.  Please contact me at info@electjeffharris.com.  And, please support my progressive vision as we work to move our state forward.

Representative Margaret Donnelly (D-St. Louis):

I will strengthen the role of the attorney general’s office in protecting the public against the sale of unsafe products.

Almost every product we consume has materials produced in countries where oversight and regulatory controls fall far short of our expectations in this country. Clearly, the federal government has not effectively handled the problem. So the state must take a more active role.

Even before being elected as attorney general, I will sponsor legislation next session to enact the Missouri Children’s Product Safety Act.  The act would prohibit the sale of all unsafe children’s products, force companies to remove products from shelves, and empower the attorney general to enforce the law. Seven other states are effectively using similar laws to stop unsafe products from distribution and sale.

I will also offer a resolution that calls on Congress and the President to enact the Consumer Product Safety Modernization Act.  This act would increase product safety inspections, toughen enforcement and increase penalties for violations.

As attorney general, I will increase the efforts of the Consumer Protection Division in identifying and stopping unsafe products being sold in our state.  I will actively enforce Missouri’s Merchandising Practices Act to halt the sale of all unsafe products in Missouri.  This act currently empowers the attorney general to investigate and prosecute unlawful practices in trade and commerce.  I will introduce legislation next session to make clear that these unlawful practices include the sale of unsafe products.

Missouri must act because the federal government has failed.

The first response we received was actually a very polite reply from Chris Koster’s spokesperson, informing me that although he appreciates our website, he has not announced yet his intention to run for Attorney General, and as such, it would be inappropriate to participate in our Q & A series at this time.

What do you think? Who had the best answer, and why? Vote in our poll, and discuss in comments.

[poll id=”

2

“]

Our boy governor has a grown up grasp of political grandstanding, as he demonstrated in his O’Fallon speech Tuesday.

Obviously, he had taken a look at the latest Rasmussen poll, which had him three points behind Jay Nixon (46-43), and had zeroed in on the most obvious way to ingratiate himself with Missouri voters:  “74% of voters favor a state law making it illegal for businesses to hire illegal aliens.”

So Blunt promised to crack down on contractors hired by the state if they employ illegals. That’s crack down as in, conduct random onsite inspections of companies contracting with the state and, if the inspectors ask for documentation for workers that might be illegal, require the contractors to provide it within thirty days. 

Or else.  “Else” being:

“If the state uncovers illegal workers the first step will be to work through ICE and authorized state law enforcement to take appropriate action,” the release said. “Next, tax credits recipients may be subject to action by law and policy, including the five year ban from accessing any state programs as provided under current law.”

Blah-da-blah, blah-da-blah. Cover your mouth when you yawn. 

The governor calls it a “tough new strategy”–maybe even tough enough to undo the damage caused when the state got caught contracting with Sam’s Janitorial Services, a company which employed dozens of illegals with falsified documents.

But his tough talk would be more believable if he hadn’t opposed an amendment by House Democrats (on the economic development plan) to require that companies that hire illegals pay back any tax credits they’ve received.

Instead of Blunt’s “may be subject to action by law and policy” (what the?!), the Democrats provided a specific penalty.  And he shot them down.

I saw this article on Combest today.  While I don’t harbor any delusions that our chances of taking this seat are any better than, say, 10%, does this have any predictive value for the Ds recruitment prospects versus the Rs on a state-wide basis?  Does this indicate the level of interest/enthusiasm among grassroots Ds v. Rs?

I would contend that this is an indication of the relative strength of the Ds.  With the proper breeze at our backs, and the right candidates recruited and in place, perhaps we can pick up a few seats otherwise thought to be untouchable.

I would be interested to know everyone else’s perspective — what are you seeing on the ground in your part of the state?  Are we lining up good candidates for the State House seats?  Are people excited about the 2008 election?

Yesterday the Missouri Supreme Court followed up its earlier campaign finance ruling with an opinion stating that campaign contributions over the limit must be returned to contributors. Mostly.

The Kansas City Star published the following summary in today’s edition [tiny URL]:

The Missouri Supreme Court on Monday ordered candidates to refund any oversized campaign contributions they accepted this year unless they could show such refunds would create a serious hardship.

The court ordered the Missouri Ethics Commission to give any candidate a hearing to show why refunding the money would be overly burdensome….

Jack Cardetti, Communications Director for the Missouri Democratic Party, issued the following press release:

Statement on Campaign Finance Ruling
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, August Date, 2007

“Today’s ruling is a victory for those Missourians who believe elections should be fought on a level playing field,” said Jack Cardetti, Missouri Democratic Party spokesman. “The Supreme Court and the Ethics Commission agree that this ruling should be applied retroactively. In the one instance where the court had all the available information, it determined that James Trout did not have a hardship and therefore retroactivity must apply. Therefore the Ethics Commission can now order refunds of contributions in excess of the limits unless individual candidates can prove that enforcing retroactivity ‘would be a hardship.’

“It will be hard for Matt Blunt to argue that returning $350,000 from the Swift Boat benefactors creates a hardship,” Cardetti said.

“Candidates who have not yet decided to challenge an opponent, will now be able to without the fear that they must play by a completely separate set of rules,” Cardetti said. “Most importantly, today’s ruling is a step in the right direction for anyone who wants to loosen the grip of special interest money on Missouri politics.”

# # #

The Supreme Court opinion in James Trout, Appellant/Cross-Respondent, v. State of Missouri, et al., Respondents/Cross-Appellants. SC88476 starts [The document states: “This slip opinion is subject to modification until the Court has ruled on the parties’ motions for rehearing, if any, and will become final only after the Court issues its mandate.”]:

The campaign finance reform bill, H.B. 1900, became effective on January 1, 2007. James Trout filed suit challenging its constitutionality the following day. In its opinion of July 19, 2007, the Court found the removal of campaign limits could not be severed from the blackout provision that the trial court found to be unconstitutional. The Court invited interested parties to submit letter briefs as to the appropriate remedy, particularly whether the Court’s decision should be applied prospectively only…

The court tried to find a solution to the unfair advantage a candidate would have in garnering large contributions before the limits were reimposed over another candidate who had not yet started raising money or declared their candidacy after the limits were reimposed.

The law concerning whether a decision is given retroactive or prospective application is simple in theory. “An unconstitutional statute is no law and confers no rights. This is true from the date of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.” State ex rel. Miller v. O’Malley, 117 S.W.2d 319, 324 (Mo. banc 1938); see also Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 442 (1886).

That is, in general, the law is void from the day it was enacted, not the day the court found it invalid. If this does not create a hardship.

Moreover, no candidate’s campaign can be considered in a vacuum. It could create, rather than alleviate, hardship and injustice if only certain candidates who enjoyed periods of unlimited fundraising are granted prospective application of the Court’s July 19, 2007, opinion. Those candidates who have not yet or have only recently entered the field might have great difficulty matching the sums their opponents raised if they were subjected to campaign contribution limits that had not been applied to their opponents. It is well accepted that “virtually every means of communicating ideas in today’s mass society requires the expenditure of money. . . . The electorate’s increasing dependence on television, radio, and other mass media for news and information has made these expensive modes of communication indispensable instruments of effective political speech.” Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 19 (1976). Such an uneven playing field raises obvious equitable and constitutional concerns. See Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 802 (1983); see also Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 564 (1964) (“[f]ree and honest elections are the very foundation of our republican form of government”). In balancing these variables in an election case such as this, one must endeavor to avoid doing so in a way that creates a political advantage for one candidate over another by virtue of the decision.

In the case of this particular statute, the balancing of hardships and the determination whether retroactive application would work an injustice is further complicated by the fact that this Court’s July 19 decision does not preclude the legislature from again enacting legislation lifting limits on campaign contributions. The Court invalidated the statute at issue in this case solely because it could not be severed from the blackout period the trial court found to be unconstitutional, rather than because a bill lifting contribution limits is inherently unconstitutional. Nothing in the July 19 decision precludes the legislature from enacting, in general or special session, new legislation that constitutionally lifts campaign limits entirely. Alternatively, it could enact new legislation that effectively reaffirms that campaign limits are in place because of the lack of a blackout period. Indeed, it would not be precluded from adopting more novel approaches in an effort to even the playing field, such as by enacting much higher campaign contribution limits or by enacting legislation that would impose contribution limits on a candidate only at such time, if any, as that candidate had reached the same level of contributions over permissible contribution limits as had other candidates for that office prior to this Court’s July 19 ruling. The Missouri Constitution commits any such decision to the discretion of the legislative branch.

The court stated that the General Assembly can do away with campaign contribution limits, but because the “blackout” provision [forbidding contributions while the General Assembly was in session] in the law in question could not be separated from the lifting of those limits, the court struck down the entire mess.

The opinion places the process for determining “hardship” squarely in the lap of the Missouri Ethics Commission:

Finally, and of key importance, is the fact that it is not this Court, but the Missouri Ethics Commission, that must initiate any enforcement action to require disgorgement of campaign contributions as to those not before this Court….If a candidate believes that retroactive application of the decision would be a hardship in his or her particular circumstances because he or she acted in good faith and in reasonable reliance and retroactive application would work an injustice, that candidate must develop with specificity what those circumstances are to the Missouri Ethics Commission. In considering these factors in particular cases or classes of cases, however, the Commission must ensure that it not become a vehicle for creating an uneven playing field for a particular office; to do so would itself create an undue hardship for and injustice to the other candidates for that office.

The Kansas City Star article continues:

….Nixon’s office said the decision “clears the way for the ethics commission to order refunds of contributions in excess of limits.”

Bob Connor, the Ethics Commission’s executive director, said the agency’s attorneys would present their recommendations and analysis to the full commission on Thursday. The commission might adopt policies to comply with the court ruling, Connor said.

But Connor said the ruling appears to require the agency to conduct a case-by-case review of every candidate for office. The agency will have to weigh each hardship that is claimed on all the other candidates in a race, he said.

“If X says, ‘I have a hardship for these reasons,’?” the commission will have to consider it, Connor said. The commission will then determine how that affects every person in the same race….

There will be plenty of campaign finance fodder for us to wade through as the implementation of this ruling takes place. As always, follow the money.

Federal prosecutor, Catharine Hanaway, has been guilty of unseemly behavior in the Nathan Cooper case.  Like the man she’s pictured with at left, she appears to have misused her position.

Fired Up! points out that Republican representative, Nathan Cooper, who recently pleaded guilty to obtaining visas for illegal immigrants, was actually nailed by the feds back in November of 2005 but not publicly accused until last July.  His situation was kept under wraps for a couple of reasons, but those reasons expired last October.

It made sense to keep his arrest hush-hush until he could buy more visas from his supplier, thus strengthening the government’s case against her.  Fine.  And Cooper was involved in the Blunt fee office arrangement, so the prosecutor could be excused for waiting to reveal Cooper’s status until Bud Cummins had concluded his investigation last fall without bringing charges. 

That’s a nine month gap. 

Meanwhile, Cooper voted in the House for the entire 2007 legislative session and continued to raise money from unwitting contributors.  He distributed lots of that money to other Republicans, but none of it went to Matt Blunt.  Fired Up! wonders if Hanaway warned Blunt to avoid the tainted money.

Fired Up! asks:

Has [Hanaway] been carefully using her law enforcement office to do favors for and ingratiate herself to key Republican power players in return for soft commitments of support in her expected bid for Attorney General?

Seems like a reasonable question.

In 2006 Dr. Dean showed us how to win with brilliance and common-sense.  The 50 State Strategy was not only a stroke of genius, it was a return to our grass-roots and it was long over due.  In fact, I think we should co-opt it.  Call it a 114 County Strategy.

Ever since the Republicans took control of both chambers of the statehouse in the 2000 election, I have been constantly reminding people that Missouri is not reliably red, it is a swing state in the truest sense of the term.  We have elected seven presidents in my lifetime, three Democrats and four Republicans, and in every single one of those elections, Missouri has gone to the victor. 

And in this swing state, we have a true swing district…The Sixth. 

Since the post-civil war era drew to a close early in the 20th century and brought the curtain down on Democratic dominance, no party has dominated that district.  In fact, with the exception of the span of time from 1955 until the death of Jerry Litton, whose plane crashed hours after he won the Senate primary in August 1976, neither party has held the seat for 10 consecutive terms.  The Sixth historically tends to go back and forth every few years.  In fact, using history as an indicator, it is due to flip this election cycle.  Just in time, we have a real candidate who can beat Sam Graves and flip the federal representation to advantage Democrats.  (Right now, it is five-four to the Republicans, with one Senator from each party.)

The Sixth came into being in the first half of the 1850’s, which coincided with the rise of Kansas City and St. Joseph.  Since the district came into being, it has been represented by 27 different people, members of four different parties, and the average term of office has been just over five years.  Graves has been there seven, and the Sixth is due to flip.

Like I said, it’s a swing district in a swing state. 

I am backing Kay Barnes for Congress, and I am in this to win.  History and circumstance are on our side, but it is going to take more than that.  It is going to take organization.  It is going to take a presence.  A reintroduction, even.  We might start with “Hello, we are the Democrats.  Remember us?  We’re the people who brought you electricity and Medicare.”  In other words, the state organization needs to step up. 

The district takes in all or part of over 20% of the counties in the entire nine-district state.  Of those 26 counties, exactly one (Platte) has a Missouri Democratic Party affiliated organization, and it is part of the Kansas City metro area.  The Sixth is vast in area, and a whole lot of rural folks have been directly hurt by Republican policies, at both the state and federal level.  That isn’t just in the Sixth – that is the story in every rural county in the state. 

Here is what this daughter of the Sixth thinks the state party needs to do…

First, they need to get an office in every county in the state.  It can be as simple as a dedicated cell phone that a real person can answer or return calls from.  Someone who can pass out signs and answer questions and give out information. 

Second, start showing up everywhere – this goes for both the candidates and the state party.  Don’t just show up at the county fairs; show up at the town fairs as well.  Get the sports schedules and attend every homecoming  game in the district.  Show up for football games in Princeton and basketball games in Eagleville and softball tournaments in Gilman City.  Read the weekly papers and follow the fall church events.  Be at every Lord’s Acre Sale and Harvest Moon Bazaar that takes place between now and Election Day 2008. 

Concentrating on the metropolitan centers and ceding the rural areas to the Republican noise machine is not a winning strategy for Democrats, and it is frankly insulting to the people in those areas.  No, the population isn’t dense up there in the northern tier counties, but the people aren’t either.  Listen to their concerns and give them a fair hearing.  In other words, give them a reason to come back to their natural home in the Democratic Party, and I have confidence that they will. 

Most of the money is on Chertoff to replace Gonzales, but the names of two Missourians have also been floated:  Jim Talent and John Danforth.

They’re both long shots, of course, and picking someone as reasonable as Danforth would be completely out of character for Bush/Cheney.  It would just be too sensible a move.  Which reminds me of this Tom Tomorrow take on the neocons:

….or more.  Any evening this week from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m., you could help out in St. Charles, but you’ll be multitasking.

One hand is going to be holding a clipboard for collecting signatures in the petition drive to get an amendment on the ballot mandating hand-counted paper ballots in Missouri instead of computerized voting.

Another hand will be giving folks information about the special election in St. Charles next Tuesday for the state senate.  Republican Chuck Gross resigned from the senate.  Ed Applebaum, the Democrat, is facing a well funded Republican named Tom Dempsey.  Applebaum’s a good man and, by the by, could use your contribution.

The third hand will have voter registration cards.

No partisan rant will be required or even desired.  You’ll just be urging people to vote in an election where single digit turnout is expected, helping them register if need be, and asking for a petition signature.  That request for signatures will prove to be popular.  When several volunteers for Show Me the Vote went signature collecting recently at the St. Charles Festival of Little Hills, they got a seventy percent positive response from people they approached for signatures.  That’s as in 70% of the people were glad to sign.  A lot of Missourians would be happy to see the last of those computers at the voting precinct.

The reason you might need more than three hands, by the way, is that petition signers have to sign on a sheet for the county they reside in.  Just kidding about the hands.  You won’t need extras, of course.  Just put a sheet for each county on your clipboard.

Volunteering in St. Charles will enable you to kill three birds with one stone. 

If you’re interested in helping, call Judith Conoyer (636-946-8425).  And if you need a ride, call Pro-Vote.