There’s so much material.
The 125th Legislative District includes the city of Butler in Bates County and the city of Nevada in Vernon County.
In January Barney Fisher had a thing or two to say when Chris Benjamin announced his run in the 31st Senate District (which includes the area of the 125th Legislative District):
…State Rep. Barney Fisher, R-District 125, accompanied Pearce on early visits to the area, lending his apparent support to Pearce’s campaign, and echoed Pearce’s surprise and “disappointment” at Benjamin’s party switch.
“My disappointment is borne out of my belief in concepts such as loyalty, trustworthiness and integrity. In the approximate five years that Mr. Benjamin was employed by the House Republican Campaign Committee and the Missouri House of Representatives Majority Staff, he was considered trustworthy. However, Mr. Benjamin violated the trust confidence and loyalty from his employers. This kind of party switch doesn’t happen presto-chango. Rather, Mr. Benjamin’s switch required deliberate, conscious thought over time, during which he continued to pretend he was something he was not and be paid for his charade,” Fisher said….
Barney Fisher has sponsored or co-sponsored some interesting bills.
In 2005, in the First Regular Session he co-sponsored HB 328, which had a very simple text:
Section A. Chapter 213, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 213.150, to read as follows: 213.150. No public institution or any entity that receives state funds shall adopt a discrimination policy that exceeds current federal protections against discrimination.
Somebody doesn’t like organized labor, either. In March 2006 Barney Fisher sponsored HB 1910:
…34.212. 1. The state, any agency of the state, or any instrumentality thereof shall not issue grants or enter into cooperative agreements for construction projects, a condition of which requires that bid specifications, project agreements, or other controlling documents pertaining to the grant or cooperative agreement contain any of the elements specified in section 34.209.
2. The state, any agency of the state, or any instrumentality thereof shall exercise such authority as may be required to preclude a grant recipient or party to a cooperative agreement from imposing any of the elements specified in section 34.209 in connection with any grant or cooperative agreement awarded or entered into. Nothing in sections 34.203 to 34.216 shall prohibit contractors or subcontractors from voluntarily entering into agreements described in section 34.209.
34.216. 1. For purposes of this section, the term “project labor agreement” shall be defined as a multi-employer, multi-union pre-hire agreement designed to systemize labor relations at a construction site that is required by the state or a political subdivision of the state as a condition of a bid specification for a construction project, thereby insuring that all contractors and subcontractors on a project comply with the terms of a union-only project labor agreement.
2. The state or a political subdivision of the state may enter into a union-only project labor agreement for the procurement of construction services, except as provided in section 34.209, on a project-by-project basis only on the condition that:
(1) The state or political subdivision must analyze the impact of a union-only project labor agreement and consider:
(a) Whether the union-only project labor agreement advances the interests of the public entity and its citizens;
(b) Whether the union-only project labor agreement is appropriate considering the complexity, size, cost impact, and need for efficiency on the project;
(c) Whether the union-only project labor agreement impacts the availability of a qualified work force; and
(d) Whether the scope of the union-only project labor agreement has a business justification for the project as bid;…
Let’s look at Barney Fisher’s campaign finance reports. Here’s the January 2008 report:
Detailed Summary of Committee Disclosure Report
Committe[e]: CITIZENS FOR BARNEY FISHER 2008
9. TOTAL ALL RECEIPTS THIS ELECTION(SUM 1B + 7A – 8A) $5,870.00
15. TOTAL EXPENDITURES THIS ELECTION (SUM 10B + 14A) $5,158.54
28. MONEY ON HAND AT THE CLOSE OF THIS REPORTING PERIOD (SUM 25 + 26 – 27) $711.46
Ruh-roh! Conservative fiscal management doesn’t appear to be his campaign’s strong suit…
Detailed Summary of Expenditures And Contributions Made
Committe[e]: CITIZENS FOR BARNEY FISHER 2008
Report[ ]Date: 1/15/2008
A. EXPENDITURES OF $100 OR LESS BY CATEGORY
Category Of Expenditures Amount Paid Or
Incurred This Period
parade supplies $100.00
parade supplies $24.30
B. ITEMIZED EXPENDITURES ALL OVER $100 AND ALL PAYMENTS TO CAMPAIGN WORKERS
metz bank nevada, mo 64772 11/01/2007 travel $200.00
walmart nevada, mo 64772 10/06/2007 parade supplies $125.00
Let’s take a look at the October 2007 report:
Detailed Summary of Contributions And Loans Received
Committee: CITIZENS FOR BARNEY FISHER 2008
Report Date: 10/15/2007
ron richards 2008 po box 1725 joplin, mo 64802 committee 7/17/2007 $2,500.00
106th legislative district republican committee 222 w columbia st farmington, mo 63640 committee 7/23/2007 $750.00
Citizens to Elect doug ervin 19800 ne 128th kearney, mo 64060 committee 8/16/2007 $325.00
missionaries for muschaney 10845 olive blvd ste 310 st louis, mo 63141 committee 8/31/3007 $325.00
citizens for bryan t pratt 1123 se eastridge dr blue springs, mo 64014 committee 9/1/2007 $325.00
mo insurance coalition PAC 220 madison st jefferson city, mo 65101 committee 9/12/2007 $325.00
Can’t you just feel the grassroots excitement?
Meanwhile, look who pled “hardship” to returning contributions over the campaign finance limits:
In respect to cases in which a candidate has requested the Commission to conduct a hearing pursuant to the provisions set forth by the Supreme Court of Missouri in Trout v. State of Missouri the Commission issued Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order in eleven cases.
The Orders provided that the candidates shall return to contributors the amount of any contribution received after July 19, 2007 which exceeded the statutory limits, which may not have already been voluntarily returned to said contributors. Also the Commission entered the following orders in any case, the effect of which the candidate shall not be required to refund contributions received before July 19, 2007 which exceed the statutory limits: that if the candidate has an opponent in either the primary or general election in 2008, then unless the candidate chooses to return the amount of excess contributions, the Commission will convene another hearing in these cases and allow any other candidate for the same office to intervene and present evidence and present argument on how to deal with level-playing field issues as set out in the Trout decision.
The action taken in each specific case is as follows:
…07A167 Barney Fisher The Candidate shall not be required to return the contribution in the amount of $2,175.00 received between January 1, 2007 and July 19, 2007 which would, but for the prospective application of Trout in this case, be required to be returned to contributor or paid as fees under Section 130.032.7, RSMo…
Oh! That $2,175.00. (For you republicans and their enablers who are budget challenged, that’s $2,500.00 minus the current $325.00 campaign contribution limit)
The order was entered on the same day that Carla Keough filed for the seat. No one else other than Barney Fisher had filed for the seat before then. Talk about fast action, eh?
Hardship? What hardship? Ah, no more parades.