• About
  • The Poetry of Protest

Show Me Progress

~ covering government and politics in Missouri – since 2007

Show Me Progress

Monthly Archives: July 2008

Will Bond Give the Cash Back?

31 Thursday Jul 2008

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Kit Bond, Ted Stevens



Ted Stevens, indicted for concealing more than $250,000 in gifts from an oil services company, liked to spread his own largesse around, especially to fellow Republicans who sided with him on key projects.

Kit Bond is one such recipient of Stevens’ cash, with over $20,000 in donations from Stevens’ PAC. So will he give it back?

My guess is no, but he could surprise me.

Brown Campaign Responds to Misleading Negative Attacks of Newman in 73rd State Rep. Race

31 Thursday Jul 2008

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

In recent weeks, Stacey Newman has been hitting Steve Brown in negative – and sometimes, outright false – mailers.

The Brown campaign sent an email to supporters recently, that addresses her negative attacks.  I’ve posted a chunk of that email below.  

******************************************

to: Supporters

from: Brown Campaign

Newman’s Cartoon Sideshow

While we have been working to unite the community, my competitor has been trying to distract voters with a cartoon sideshow.  I don’t think most people are buying it, but I want you to know the truth about these attacks so that you can help us dispel the misleading and sometimes outright false characterizations Stacey Newman is putting forward.

For those of you who haven’t seen Stacey’ attack mailers, you can find copies of them on her attack website – http://www.truthaboutbrown.com  

But don’t be fooled by the site’s title, there is little on the site or in Stacey’s negative campaign that is true about me.  If you haven’t seen Newman’s negative attacks, take a look.  It is strange and amazing how much time, energy, and money she has dedicated to transforming me from a lifelong community member who has been in and around public service for decades into a (heavy-set!) 1950s-style cartoon jerk who daydreams about swooping into the 73rd district to steal an election.

One important note on this subject: I have heard from many of you that you do not like these kinds of negative personal attacks from anyone.  Don’t worry.  We will not be responding in kind.  I continue to dedicate my time, energy, and resources to a hard-working, grassroots, issues-based campaign.  If you have any questions about these negative attacks, please call me at (314) 725-4866.  I am more than happy to speak about Newman’s false allegations with anyone.  

In most moments – because the attacks are so blatantly false – I don’t take them too personally.  But then again, I hate the idea that anyone would believe the things she is saying about me.  So, below, one of our campaign aides has catalogued all the mistruths and inaccuracies of this cartoon campaign against me.

-Steve Brown

…

from: Campaign Aide

Here is an outline of Newman’s negative attacks, explanations of how they are false or misleading, and some information that you might use should you find yourself in a conversation with someone who has been misled by Newman’s campaign.

1) In her first hit piece –  entitled “Keep on Movin'” – Newman suggests that Steve Brown is a carpetbagger who moved to the 73rd District so that he could run in this very election. Truth is, Steve moved BACK into this district over 5 years ago to raise a family.  The idea that someone would move into a district over five years in advance of an election is kind of silly.  But Newman’s charge is especially ridiculous considering that (while she is a Kansas native and long-time Illinois resident who only became interested in government relatively recently) Steve is a St. Louis County native who went to grade school and spent over 18 years of his life in the boundaries of the 73rd.  And he has lived over 30 years in the county.  All but his college years and a few years working for St. Louis area Congress Members Dick Gephardt and Joan Kelly Horn have been spent in St. Louis County.

2) In her second negative mail piece, Newman attacks Steve for accepting money from legislative committees. Newman refers to this as “Hid[ing] the Money.”  To be completely honest, Newman does have a bit of a point here.  Steve has accepted money from legislative committees.  To be clear, Steve has violated no law or standard of ethical conduct set out by the Missouri Ethics Commission.  Funny thing, though about Newman’s attack… She has done the same thing! (along with the vast majority of Democratic candidates running in the last few election cycles). Her latest finance report shows that she accepted money (in the very way for which she chides Steve) from the 15th Senate District Committee (controlled by one of her supporters), which had received money from the 24th Senatorial Committee (also controlled by one of her supporters). That 24th Committee has not yet filed their reports (in violation of MEC rules), so it is hard to tell who the money actually came from.  (At least Steve’s fundraising documents were completely transparent.)  Pot, meet Kettle.

3) Stacey’s third mailer – which is entirely false – says that Steve “gave himself the title of “Missouri Attorney General’s Deputy Chief Counsel'” for campaign purposes.

This is a clear falsehood as has been demonstrated on The Arch City Chronicle’s blog postings of July 23rd, 24th, and 29th which show Steve’s business card and even Jay Nixon’s original memo promoting Steve to the position of “Deputy Chief Counsel” in the Attorney General’s office.  Newman’s campaign has tried to call their false accusation about Steve an “honest mistake,” but they have made no apologies about it, continue to level the charge on their attack website, and…

4) Newman’s 4th hit piece repeats all three charges above – including the one they know is blatantly false.  But probably the biggest lie of all – the one that is evoked over and over by Newman’s campaign – is also the lowest by far.  It is Newman’s claim that Steve is “really thinking about himself, not our community.”

What kind of thing is that to say about someone who has knocked on the door of every voter in this district multiple times to hear what they think and care about?  A person who has held town hall meetings, coffees, BBQs, sent out surveys, and genuinely listened to voters and their concerns for months?  A person who worked for the people of Missouri for ten years in the Attorney General’s office when he could have chosen a much more lucrative career as a private lawyer?    

This is offensive.  This is wrong.  

Stacey’s final line of (what we hope is) her last negative and divisive attack is “Shouldn’t we look out for our community?”

If anything is threatening the sense of community in the 73rd district, it is the negativity and lies of Newman’s campaign – a campaign that is bent on dividing the thousands of supporters, local elected officials, mayors, school board members, labor unions, environmental groups, public safety organizations, women’s groups, and decent people of this district who have been uniting with Steve to form a vision of how we can move forward on the issues that we all care about.

If you know someone who is supporting Newman because they believe any of her lies about Steve, please set them straight.  If they still want to vote for Newman that’s fine.  This is a matter of principle.  Steve has never been dishonest about his care for this district or his motives for running for State Representative and we hope you will convey that message to anyone who needs to hear it.

Thanks everybody!

************************

************************

There are also reports from voters that Newman’s campaigners (including her campaign manager) have been telling people in Maplewood that Newman is the only pro-choice candidate in the race.  ALSO NOT TRUE.

Despite all this, the Brown campaign says they are committed to staying positive.  

[poll id=”

32

“]

Barack Obama in Springfield

31 Thursday Jul 2008

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Barack Obama, economy, missouri, Springfield

Barack Obama in Springfield:

(Hat tip: The Turner Report)

McCain Gets Called Out On A Gimmick

31 Thursday Jul 2008

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

John McCain, MoveOn, offshore drilling

John McCain and other Republican “leaders” offer pretend solutions like offshore drilling to our energy problems. MoveOn calls ’em out with this ad:

Ouch!

31st Senate District – 8 day before primary election reports

31 Thursday Jul 2008

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

campaign finance, Chris Benjamin, David Pearce, Rex Rector

The candidates running for the open senate seat in the 31st District – David Pearce (r – advocate of automotive deer hunting), Rex Rector (r) and Chris Benjamin (D) –  filed their 8 day reports. There’s some interesting information in those lists of expenditures.

We’ve covered this race in previous posts:

31st Senate District – second quarter campaign finance reports

31st Senate District – first quarter campaign finance reports

Rex Rector (r) announces for the 31st District senate seat: the deerhunter’s worst nightmare

Let’s take a look at what David Perace (r) is spending money on, via the Missouri Ethics Commission:

Detailed Summary of Expenditures And Contributions Made

Committe[e]: PEARCE 08

Report[ ]Date: 7/28/2008

Capitol Consulting Jefferson City MO 07/04/2008 Fundraising $4,327.10

Rocket Group LLC Jefferson City MO 07/04/2008 Campaign Literature $1,379.11

Western Robidoux St. Joseph MO 07/04/2008 Campaign Literature $1,188.00

Callis & Assoc Sedalia MO 04/14/2008 Campaign Services $5,896.57

Thompson Communications Marshfield MO 07/08/2008 Radio Advertisement $18,980.48

Friendly Phones Bethany 07/21/2008 Information license $2,500.00

Western Robidoux St. Joseph MO 07/21/2008 Campaign Printing $801.97

Axiom Strategies Kansas City MO 07/20/2008 Campaign Mail $44,839.76

Thompson Communications Marshfield MO 07/21/2008 Radio Advertisement $18,806.60

[emphasis added]

Detailed Summary of Contributions And Loans Received

Committee: PEARCE 08

Report Date: 7/28/2008

Johnson County Republican Central Committee Warrensburg MO 07/23/2008 $6,725.00

What? No money from the Cass, Bates, or Vernon County republican committees?

Radio! Radio! Direct mail (everyone say “Hi!” to Jeff Roe)! Don’t tell us someone advised David Pearce to run radio ads in the expensive Kansas City market, whilst they took a 15% commission. Say it ain’t so.

Rex Rector (r) filed his 8 day report with the Missouri Ethics Commission on July 27th:

Detailed Summary of Expenditures And Contributions Made

Committe[e]: CITIZENS FOR REX RECTOR

Report[ ]Date: 7/26/2008

Lettercraft Printing & Graphics Summit, MO 07/11/2008 brochures $3,211.19

B&H Laser Toner and Ink Pleasant Hill, MO 07/07/2008 toner cartrages $583.92

Phoenix Office Pruducts KC, MO 07/22/2008 envelopes $106.59

Do you sense some mailings and a literature drop or two?

Chris Benjamin filed his 8 day report with the Missouri Ethics Commission on July 28th:

Detailed Summary of Expenditures And Contributions Made

Committe[e]: BENJAMIN FOR SENATE

Report[ ]Date: 7/28/2008

DAMAR PRINTING KCMO 7/02/2008 PRINTING $906.10

THE MARTING COMMUNICATION GROUP KCMO 7/11/2008 CONSULTING $1,500.00

MAJORITY STRATEGIES STL MO 7/15/2008 CONSULTING/FUNDRAISING $3,297.00

What? Oh, that’s right. Chris Benjamin didn’t have a primary opponent. Heh.

Koster's ex-wife on the rampage

31 Thursday Jul 2008

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Chris Koster, Koster's ex-wife, missouri

Chris Koster’s ex-wife has put up $200,000 for TV ads to inform the public about his sleazy campaign funding practices. The K.C. Star’s Prime Buzz has the tale, and I’ll let Kit Wagar give the details.

The ex-Mrs. lives in Arizona now, but from four states away is still nursing a grudge. And Koster thought he was only running against Donnelly and Harris.

I haven’t seen the ads, but I’ll bet they can’t keep up with the constant flow of revelations. For example, Rex Sinquefield, having given the maximum possible to Koster through his 100 PACs, is now airing radio ads for him, independent of Koster’s campaign. All Children Matter, the Sinquefield organization that backs vouchers, is also spending $19 thousand for mailings, not only for Koster but for other pro-voucher candidates.

Update: FiredUp! posted this ad:



 

Obama and McCain: Style and Substance

31 Thursday Jul 2008

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

Barack Obama, John McCain, missouri, Roy Blunt

On the occasion of Obama’s Wednesday swing through Missouri (Rolla, Springfield, and a bbq in Union where he’ll flip burgers for the first 200 people to claim the free tickets), Roy Blunt has words of praise for the presumptive Democratic nominee: “‘There’s no question Senator Obama is an exciting candidate, with a great delivery.'” Now wait for the “but”: BUT Obama “‘is not ready to be president.'”

Let me translate that last part for you, in case you’re not tuned in to the nuances of racist-speak: “we’re not ready for a black president. Heavens to Betsy, Blunt would deny any such accusation, and perhaps I’m oversensitive. After all, Obama has much less experience than John McCain. Much less. So much less that Blunt opines that Barack is “‘all style and no substance.'”

Blunt doesn’t mention McCain’s main appeal, which being that he’s a nice, safe, white male–not elegant or nuanced, maybe, but straightforward. He’s a maverick, chock full of what Blunt would call “substance”.

Eric Alterman’s article, “Loving John McCain”, in the June 19th issue of The Nation, lays the fact that Blunt can assume Americans believe that about McCain squarely at the door of the MSM:

As David Brock and Paul Waldman demonstrate in their book Free Ride, the words “maverick” and “McCain” appeared within ten words of each other 2,114 times in 2000, a practice that has continued to the present at roughly the same rate.

Not only has the mainstream media convinced most Americans that McCain is a straight shooter, they’ve also convinced the public that McCain is a centrist:

Indeed, the effects of past coverage can be discerned in the results of [a] survey released in May, by the Pew Research Center, which found that most voters described McCain as “a centrist whose views are fairly close to their own.” These voters might as well be visiting Casablanca for the waters. McCain calls himself a thoroughgoing conservative, and he’s got the statistics to prove it.

Why? Why have the media given McCain this free ride? Alterman quotes Tucker Carlson’s explanation:

“McCain ran an entire presidential campaign aimed primarily at journalists…. To a greater degree than any candidate in thirty years, McCain offered reporters the three things they want most: total access all the time, an endless stream of amusing quotes, and vast quantities of free booze.” Ryan Lizza, reporting for The New Yorker from the current Straight Talk, notes the dichotomy of McCain’s press-friendly campaign style and that of his opponents: “The Democratic candidates rarely speak to the traveling press. McCain not only packs his bus with reporters (whom he often greets with an affectionate ‘Hello, jerks!’) but talks until the room is filled with the awkward silence of journalists with no more questions.” Lizza also notes that the “chumminess” between the campaign and the reporters has almost no boundaries. Questions of strategy–even media manipulation–are discussed openly with reporters present, and “McCain’s senior advisers dine almost nightly with the people covering the candidate.”

They’re besotted by the man, falling victim to what Alterman calls the “never mind” syndrome.

  • Never mind that McCain thinks U.S. economic woes are purely psychological.
  • Never mind that McCain let his housing policy be shaped by a lobbyist.
  • Never mind that McCain helped Bush plug his plan to privatize Social Security.
  • Never mind that McCain approves of NAFTA.
  • Never mind that McCain would be “fine” to keep troops in Iraq for “a hundred years”.
  • Never mind that McCain defends Bush’s Iraq strategy.
  • Never mind that McCain thought Bush was right to veto the kids health insurance expansion.
  • Never mind that McCain, like Bush, opposed expanding the GI Bill.
  • Never mind that McCain would like to see Roe v. Wade overturned.

Here’s what’s odd about the MSM love affair with McCain: his own party members don’t share the enthusiasm. Granted it’s almost a compliment if Tom DeLay disapproves:

“There’s nothing redeeming about John McCain … he’s a hypocrite.”

But the senators McCain has worked with somehow have gotten the opposite opinion from the press about McCain’s likeability:

“He is a vicious person. Nearly all the Republican Senators endorsed Bush because they knew McCain from serving with him in the Senate. They so disliked him that they wouldn’t support him. They have been on the hard end of his behavior.” –Former Representative Charles LeBoutillier, R-NY

“John was very rough in the sandbox. Everybody has a McCain story. If you work in the Senate for a while, you have a McCain story. He hasn’t built up a lot of goodwill.” –Former Senator Santorum, R-PA

“I don’t like McCain. I don’t like him at all.” –Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-CO

“What has struck me about McCain is that everybody underestimated the ability of his advisers and him to hypnotize the national media, because most of us in the media in Arizona thought of him as a guy who had a terrible temper, occasionally had a foul mouth, a guy who whined and pouted unless he got his way. McCain has a temper that is bombastic, volatile, and purple-faced. Sometimes he gets out of control. Do you want somebody sitting in the White House with that kind of temper?” –Pat Murphy, former editor of the Arizona Republic, and a former friend of McCain

McCain seems to have successfully hidden this side of himself from the media who travel with him, but it frightens the brethren in his own party:

“The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me.” –Senator Thad Cochran, R-MS

“I decided I didn’t want this guy anywhere near a trigger.” –Senator Pete Domenici, R-NM

“His temper would place this country at risk in international affairs, and the world perhaps in danger. In my mind, that should disqualify him.” –Former Senator Bob Smith, R-NH

“What happens if he gets angry in crisis in the presidency? It’s difficult enough to be a negotiator, but it’s almost impossible when you’re the type of guy who’s so angry at anybody who doesn’t do what he wants. It’s the president’s job to negotiate and stay calm. I just don’t see that he has that quality.” –Former Arizona GOP Chairman John Hinz

And the coup de grace:

“John McCain (as President) will make Cheney look like Gandhi.” —Patrick Buchanan on NBC Today show, Feb 6, 2008.

And may I add, Mr. Blunt, that, no matter how inexperienced Obama may be, compared to McCain?–he’ll look like a combination of Gandhi and Solomon.  

Voter Registration Drive Registers Millionth Voter!

30 Wednesday Jul 2008

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

( – promoted by Clark)

Those who read our diaries know Project Vote as the organization that fights voter suppression and helps election protection efforts. What you may not know is that in addition to being on the frontlines in the fight for voter rights, Project Vote is also the largest voter registration organization in the United States.

Since 2003 over one-third of all registration applications submitted through voter registration drives in the U.S. have come through Project Vote. In 2003-04 we submitted 1.13 million applications, in 2006 just over 547,000, and by Friday we will collect our 1,000,000th registration for 2007-08. Half of our registrants are under 30, and almost all of them are African-Americans or Latinos. One-third of them have never registered before in their lives.

With one month left in the drive we have 270,000 more registrations to collect and you can help!

Project Vote is proud of our achievements. No voter registration organization in U. S. history has been able to help register over a million low-income people for two presidential election cycles in a row. This success is a testament to our field partners, our state of the art project management system, and the generosity and commitment of our to donors.

But our work is not yet finished. Our goal for the 2007-2008 election was 1.27 million voters, so we still have 270,000 more applications to collect in states such as Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. We are now one short month away from the end of our program and we need everyone’s help to finish the job.

In at least five states nationwide Project Vote will help register more voters than made up the margin of victory in the last presidential election: no matter how our registrants choose to vote, these last few votes will matter in a real and powerful way.

Rest assured that in addition to our record-breaking voter registration effort, our Elections Administration program will continue through Election Day to make sure our applicants and similarly situated applicants get on the voter rolls, can vote, and have their vote counted. In fact, we’ve been hard at work fighting voter purges in the South in recent days.

If you would like to reach out to Project Vote, you can contact us at 800-546-8683, 202-546-4173, or via e-mail at researchdirector@projectvote.org

Imbalanced Political Coverage in the Post-Dispatch

30 Wednesday Jul 2008

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 4 Comments

( – promoted by Clark)

Following up on dissonentdissodent’s claim that the msm won’t cover negative stories about Rodney Hubbard and Hotflash’s story about the Hubbard/Roos controvery, I’d like to lay out in a little detail why I find the Post-Dispatch’s lack of coverage of this story disturbing.  Basically, I worry that the different standards the Post-Dispatch applies towards coverage of different candidates makes it far too easy for the political agendas of reporters to change the rules of the elections.  Follow me below the flip and I’ll explain why.

On July 17, reporter Jake Wagman posted a story about State Rep. Jamilah Nasheed on the Post-Dispatch’s blog “Poltical Fix”.  The story was an allegation, via a press release, that Nasheed had “bullied and intimidated” and even “physically threatened” workers for her primary opponent Kim Gardner.   Nasheed agreed that she had a heated discussion with Garner supporters she encountered but denied making any threats or using intimidation tactics.  And that was where the story ended.

In my opinion, this was merely a case of she said/she said.  Here is what I wrote in the comment section:

We live in a digital age. Gardner or anyone else who makes accusations like this need to provide evidence for this kind of claim. I personally don’t think “Political Fix” should even post stuff like this because it would so easy to manufacture a story.

At the time, I was thinking that it’s not a good journalistic practice to just print stories from press releases, even if you get quotes from the other side, because we all know that false stories can stick in people’s memories and this would make it far too easy for candidates to make up stories in press releases and expect them to be printed.  As long as you have a situation like this, where there is no way for the accused party to prove their innocence, it seems like it is (from a purely self-interested perspective) always in the interest of a campaign to make up false stories that will find their way to public attention.   But of course, it’s even worse when the standards are applied unevenly, and only one candidate can count on having press releases printed while others can not.  Throw in the fact that Wagman claims that “some would say” that Nasheed is an “agitator”, and you have a situation where’s its really easy for a reporter’s political biases to put restrictions on what some candidates but not others can do.

Anyway, the story is not really over.  A few days later, Wagman, perhaps in the interest of “balance”, put up a new post of one of Nasheed’s press releases claiming that Gardner supporters had tampered with some of her signs.  Now I thought again the language was a bit biased against Nasheed; the title of this post was “Nasheed, accused of bullying, says her signs were roughed-up,” whereas the title of the previous post was “Rough stuff? Rival accuses Nasheed of harassing workers.”  Both seem to me to cast a bad light on Nasheed, but I realize this is nitpicking.  The more important point for me is that this story again is a printing of a press release that basically can not be verified.  Did a Gardner supporter damage the sign?   I’m pretty sure I’ll never know, but that didn’t stop Wagman from printing the story.

OK, so now to the point.  In Hotflash’s article, Hubbard accuses Jim Roos of stealing and defacing Hubbard’s political signs.  Roos replied that Hubbard signs were put up at stores and service stations without getting the owners’ permission, in some cases taking advantage of foreign born owners.  Thus, apparently, Roos is claiming that he merely was taking down (and defacing) signs that the owners already didn’t want.

So is this case like the other two stories about the Nasheed/Gardner controversy?  Kinda, but not really.  Because in this case, unlike the other two, there actually are facts of the matter to be investigated!  Yet this case is the one that the Post-Dispatch decides not to report on!  In both of the other cases, we were left really with a story of two conflicting opinions, with no real way for reporters to decide who was telling the truth.  But in this case, all the reporters need to do is to follow up with Roos and actually go talk to the business owners whose Hubbard signs were removed.  After they get statements from them, the reporters can then check with the Hubbard campaign to see if there are some other stores that perhaps Roos did not show them that now are missing signs.  It really would be a fairly simple investigation, and one that speaks volumes about the credibility of either a candidate running for an important local office or about a prominent community activist.

What bothers me then, is that by reporting on the Nasheed/Gardner dispute, but not the Hubbard/Roos dispute, even though the latter but not the former case actually had facts to investigate, the Post-Dispatch makes it all too easy for the political biases of reporters to affect the elections.  If a reporter has a bias against one political candidate (and I am saying if) and covers unsubstantiated press releases against that candidate, or if a reporter shows favoritism towards a candidate and doesn’t print unsubstantiated press releases about that candidate, then the rules are effectively different for the different candidates.  One candidate will be able to use a dirtier style of politics than the other, because one but not the other can get away with it.  Thus, a reporters biases can pretty easily give an advantage to candidates the reporter likes.  

In my opinion, the Hubbard Roos controversy should have been reported on because there are relevant facts to the matter.  And the Nasheed/Gardner stories should not have been covered because there was no way of substantiating the charges.  But a second best option would be to at least apply an equal standard: if you’re going to print the press releases of one candidate about sign damage & response, then you should do the same for other candidates.  The Post-Dispatch, in my mind, got their reporting priorities exactly wrong in these cases, and I hope they can apply their attention more evenhandedly in the future.  

since St. Louis' MSM won't cover it…

29 Tuesday Jul 2008

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

The Fix and other blogs have recieved this, but are continuing their blackout of any negative press about Rodney.

For Immediate Release

Robin Wright-Jones for State Senate

Contact: Glenn Burleigh 314.258.4149

Sinquefield Digs Deeper for His Candidate, Rodney Hubbard

Sinquefield puts his mouth where his money is – does this signal panic in the Hubbard Campaign?

This weekend 5th district voters received a mailer from “Public Charter Schools for Missouri – East”, which voters are led to believe is actually an association of charter schools.  In actuality “Public Charter Schools for Missouri – East” is one of the 100 Political Action Committees set up by anti-public schools millionaire Rex Sinquefield.  

Over the last several months, Sinquefield has been taking heat for setting up 100 PAC’s in what many consider an attempt to circumvent the voter imposed contribution limits in this primary.  “Public Charter Schools for Missouri – East” had previously given the maximum it could to Mr. Hubbard’s campaign, but has now spent thousands  more dollars on a mailing meant to highlight Hubbard and Sinquefield’s desire to defund, then dismantle the St. Louis Public Schools.

“Having already spent thousands of dollars on funding my opponent’s campaign, and now spending even more in effort outside the campaign seems to signal some concerns that Sinquefield has about his investment in Rodney Hubbard,” said Wright-Jones campaign manager, Glenn Burleigh.

Hubbard disdain for the voter imposed campaign contribution limits was evident when he joined Republicans on voting to eliminate them, twice.  These limitations were placed on contributions by a statewide ballot measure, which passed overwhelmingly, designed to protect voters from the extreme influence of money in Jefferson City.  

“Campaign contributions were imposed by Missouri voters to limit the power of wealthy individuals and corporations, yet Mr. Hubbard believes that the wealthy should be able to spend as much money buying influence over our government as possible.    Mr. Hubbard constantly talks about effectively representing his constituents, but time after time votes against his constituent’s wishes and needs,” said Wright-Jones.

Rep. Wright-Jones has worked in both the St. Louis Public and Archdiocese school districts, and has been a leader in the fight against Mr. Sinquefield’s campaign to destroy Missouri’s public schools.  Rep. Wright-Jones also joins the vast majority of her Democratic colleagues in supporting the voter imposed campaign contributions limits.

###

← Older posts

Subscribe

  • Entries (RSS)
  • Comments (RSS)

Archives

  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007

Categories

  • campaign finance
  • Claire McCaskill
  • Congress
  • Democratic Party News
  • Eric Schmitt
  • Healthcare
  • Hillary Clinton
  • Interview
  • Jason Smith
  • Josh Hawley
  • Mark Alford
  • media criticism
  • meta
  • Missouri General Assembly
  • Missouri Governor
  • Missouri House
  • Missouri Senate
  • Resist
  • Roy Blunt
  • social media
  • Standing Rock
  • Town Hall
  • Uncategorized
  • US Senate

Meta

  • Log in

Blogroll

  • Balloon Juice
  • Crooks and Liars
  • Digby
  • I Spy With My Little Eye
  • Lawyers, Guns, and Money
  • No More Mister Nice Blog
  • The Great Orange Satan
  • Washington Monthly
  • Yael Abouhalkah

Donate to Show Me Progress via PayPal

Your modest support helps keep the lights on. Click on the button:

Blog Stats

  • 773,082 hits

Powered by WordPress.com.

 

Loading Comments...