In Missouri there are no limits on campaign contributions.

A bill to limit campaign contributions was introduced yesterday by Representative Jill Schupp (D):

SECOND REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 1955

97TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES SCHUPP (Sponsor), MCNEIL, ENGLUND, MCCANN BEATTY, WALTON GRAY, NORR AND KELLY (45) (Co-sponsors).

4932L.03I    D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To amend chapter 130, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to campaign contributions.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:

           Section A. Chapter 130, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 130.032, to read as follows:

           130.032. 1. In addition to the limitations imposed under section 130.031, the amount of contributions made by or accepted from any person other than the candidate in any one election shall not exceed the following:

           (1) To elect an individual to the office of governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, state treasurer, state auditor, or attorney general, five thousand dollars;

           (2) To elect an individual to the office of state senator, one thousand five hundred dollars;

           (3) To elect an individual to the office of state representative, seven hundred fifty dollars;

           (4) To elect an individual to any other office, including judicial office, if the population of the electoral district, ward, or other unit according to the latest decennial census does not exceed fifty thousand, seven hundred fifty dollars;

           (5) To elect an individual to any other office, including judicial office, if the population of the electoral district, ward, or other unit according to the latest decennial census is more than fifty thousand but does not exceed one hundred fifty thousand, one thousand five hundred dollars; and

           (6) To elect an individual to any other office, including judicial office, if the population of the electoral district, ward, or other unit according to the latest decennial census is greater than one hundred fifty thousand, five thousand dollars.

           2. For purposes of this subsection, “base year amount” shall be the contribution limits prescribed in this section on January 1, 2015. Such limits shall be increased on the first day of January in each even-numbered year by multiplying the base year amount by the cumulative consumer price index, as defined in section 104.010 and rounded to the nearest twenty-five dollar amount, for all years since January 1, 2015.

           3. Every committee established under this chapter shall be subject to the limits prescribed in subsection 1 of this section. The provisions of this subsection shall not limit the amount of contributions that may be accumulated by a candidate committee and used for expenditures to further the nomination or election of the candidate who controls such candidate committee.

           4. Contributions from persons under fourteen years of age shall be considered made by the parents or guardians of such person and shall be attributed toward any contribution limits prescribed in this chapter. Where the contributor under fourteen years of age has two custodial parents or guardians, fifty percent of the contribution shall be attributed to each parent or guardian, and where such contributor has one custodial parent or guardian, all such contributions shall be attributed to the custodial parent or guardian.

           5. Contributions received and expenditures made before January 1, 2015, shall be reported as a separate account and under the laws in effect at the time such contributions are received or expenditures made. Contributions received and expenditures made after January 1, 2015, shall be reported under the provisions of this chapter as a separate account from the other separate account described in this subsection. The account reported under the prior law shall be retained as a separate account and any remaining funds in such account may be used under this chapter.

           6. Any committee that accepts or gives contributions other than those allowed shall be subject to a surcharge of one thousand dollars plus an amount equal to the contribution per nonallowable contribution, to be paid to the ethics commission and which shall be transferred to the director of revenue, upon notification of such nonallowable contribution by the ethics commission, and after the candidate has had ten business days after receipt of notice to return the contribution to the contributor. The candidate and the candidate committee treasurer or deputy treasurer owing a surcharge shall be personally liable for the payment of the surcharge or may pay such surcharge only from campaign funds existing on the date of the receipt of notice. Such surcharge shall constitute a debt to the state enforceable under, but not limited to, the provisions of chapter 143.

[emphasis added]

It’s a step in the right direction.

The Red Lily, Anatole France

…For the poor it consists in sustaining and preserving the wealthy in their power and their laziness. The poor must work for this, in presence of the majestic quality of the law which prohibits the wealthy as well as the poor from sleeping under the bridges, from begging in the streets, and from stealing bread…

Here’s a modest proposal: limit campaign monetary contributions to eight times the hourly minimum wage. That is, a day’s wage for honest work – a “reasonable” amount available to every working adult in the state, no matter their economic status.

After that if you want to contribute more to a campaign using your individual sweat equity by going door to door, doing literature drops, walking in parades, stuffing envelopes, whatever, then go ahead and knock yourself out.  

The republican primary campaign for Governor in 2016 is going to be really, really interesting. There’ll be plenty of money involved.

Today, at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C141055 02/21/2014 HANAWAY FOR GOVERNOR Stephen Brauer 11250 Hunter Dr Bridgeton MO 63044 Requested Request 2/21/2014 $10,000.00

[emphasis added]

$10,000.00 appears to be the new standard.

Previously:

Hanaway’s Heavy Load (February 20, 2014)

Campaign Finance: Synchronicity! (February 17, 2014)

Campaign Finance: Catherine Hanaway (r) isn’t really an option?  (February 16, 2014)

Catherine Hanaway (r) is running for Governor in 2016  (February 8, 2014)

A bill, introduced on February 19, 2014:

SECOND REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 1925

97TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES ROSS (Sponsor), JONES (110), MARSHALL, RHOADS, HICKS, MILLER, KORMAN, RICHARDSON, DIEHL, ANDERSON, MOON, POGUE, BAHR, HURST, KEENEY, BLACK, FITZWATER, STREAM, MCGAUGH, CIERPIOT, CURTMAN, SCHIEBER, KELLY (45), DUGGER, ENTLICHER, BRATTIN, HAAHR, FITZPATRICK, FLANIGAN, ZERR, JONES (50) AND FREDERICK (Co-sponsors).

6072H.02I     D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To amend chapter 1, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to biometric analysis of digital images.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:

           Section A. Chapter 1, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 1.220, to read as follows:

           1.220. 1. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no state agency or department or any other political subdivision shall engage in, contract for, or cooperate with any other agency in the biometric analysis of any photographic or digital data.

           2. For the purposes of this section, “biometric analysis” shall include, but is not limited to, the analysis of biometric data as that term is defined in subsection 2 of section 302.189.

[emphasis in original]

“…Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no state agency or department or any other political subdivision shall engage in, contract for, or cooperate with any other agency in the biometric analysis of any photographic or digital data…” Think about that for a minute.

Maybe it has something to do with using microchips in our toasters to spy on us.

What’s with RSMo 302.189?:

Missouri Revised Statutes

Chapter 302

Drivers’ and Commercial Drivers’ Licenses

Section 302.189

Biometric data, prohibitions–definition.

302.189. 1. The department of revenue shall not use, collect, obtain, share, or retain biometric data nor shall the department use biometric technology, including, but not limited to, retinal scanning, facial recognition or fingerprint technology, to produce a driver’s license or nondriver’s license or to uniquely identify licensees or license applicants for whatever purpose. This section shall not apply to digital images nor licensee signatures required for the issuance of driver’s licenses and nondriver’s license pursuant to section 302.181.

2. As used in this section, the term “biometric data” or “biometric technology” includes, but is not limited to:

(1) Facial feature pattern characteristics;

(2) Voice data used for comparing live speech with a previously created speech model of a person’s voice;

(3) Iris recognition data containing color or texture patterns or codes;

(4) Retinal scans, reading through the pupil to measure blood vessels lining the retina;

(5) Fingerprints, palm prints, hand geometry, measuring of any and all characteristics of biometric information, including shape and length of fingertips or recording ridge pattern or fingertip characteristics;

(6) Eye spacing;

(7) Characteristic gait or walk;

(8) DNA; or

(9) Keystroke dynamics, measuring pressure applied to key pads or other digital receiving devices.

   (L. 2013 S.B. 252)

   Effective 7-01-13

[emphasis added]

Ah, yes, another product of the stellar 2013 legislative session.

“…Eye spacing…” Does it still count if you use a ruler? Just asking.

Your neighbors want to celebrate the holiday with a really big mortar. Because fireworks on the Fourth of July are inherently safe.

The 2013 session gave us this:

Missouri Revised Statutes

Chapter 9

Public Holidays

Section 9.015

Federal holidays, no ban or restriction on, when.

9.015. No state or local governmental entity, public building, public park, public school, or public setting or place shall ban or otherwise restrict the practice, mention, celebration, or discussion of any federal holiday.

   (L. 2013 H.B. 278)

   *Effective 10-11-13, see § 21.250. H.B. 278 was vetoed July 1, 2013. The veto was overridden on September 11, 2013.

[emphasis added]

No restrictions on “practice” there, eh?

A bill, introduced today:

SECOND REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 1943

97TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES WEBBER (Sponsor) AND BRATTIN (Co-sponsor).

6115L.02I    D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To repeal section 9.015, RSMo, and to enact in lieu thereof one new section relating to federal holidays.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:

           Section A. Section 9.015, RSMo, is repealed and one new section enacted in lieu thereof, to be known as section 9.015, to read as follows:

           9.015. No state or local governmental entity, public building, public park, public school, or public setting or place shall ban or otherwise restrict the practice, mention, celebration, or discussion of any federal holiday; except that, nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority to impose and enforce reasonable regulations related to the celebration of any federal holiday in order to protect the health and safety of the public.

[emphasis in original]

Previously:

HB 278: on the side of preening self-righteousness in the “War on Labor Day” (January 26, 2013)

Republicans like to tell stores about being “fiscal conservatives” who oppose irresponsible spending. They’ve managed in the process to impede economic growth while successfully fighting off efforts to cut that large segment of our irresponsible spending which takes the form of subsidies to highly profitable industries like Big Oil, Big Agriculture, and big what-have-you – which big entities often happen, in turn, to be very generous when it comes time to fund political campaigns.  

Nowhere, though does GOP hypocrisy show through more than in the recent budget and debt level negotiations. The Washington Post‘s Wonkblog today identifies the members of the exclusively Republican “default caucus,” made up of the 135 representatives and 17 senators who voted first for the omnibus spending bill, and then against raising the debt limit that would pay for it. They essentially decided that the United States should not pay the bills that they themselves had voted to run up. Try doing that at home, Mr. and Mrs. Average American. As Wonkblog’s Christopher Ingraham puts it, “the fact a significant faction in Congress can vote to run up debt, refuse to pay for it, and bill themselves as “fiscal conservatives” shows just how much that term has lost its meaning.”

I would suggest that a better label than “default caucus” for these lawmakers would be “deadbeat caucus.” That, after all, is what we call folks who don’t want to pay their bills. There are several members of the deadbeat caucus from Missouri:

Senator Roy Blunt (R)

Rep. Ann Wagner (R-2)

Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-3)

Rep. Vickky Hartzler (R-4)

Rep. Sam Graves (R-6)

You can click on the names of Representatives listed above that have links to go to their press releases designed to tell us why voting for the spending bill they later refused to fund was such a good idea – not that they mention anything about the relationship between the two votes. I think that they hope we won’t figure that one out. Sam Graves simply ignores his yea vote on the omnibus funding bill, but did issue a statement patting himself on the back for voting against the extension of the debt limit. His reason for the nay note? He somehow seems to think that the debt limit extension vote is the place to cut the spending he approved in the earlier vote. So what do  you think? Are they all dumb as posts? Or cynical panderers? Whatever else they are, they’re certainly willing to play fast and loose with the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government – along with our welfare.

Ingraham allows as how those folks who voted against both the spending bill and the debt limit hike necessary to accommodate it should at least be admired for their consistency. And they are consistent, but you might temper your admiration when you remember that it stems from a totally nutty and discredited conception of economics, to wit, austerian theories that these folks probably don’t even understand apart from platitudes abut the “free market” and the evils of “big government.” Nothing but extreme economic ignorance coupled with total irresponsibility could explain their willingness to risk the disastrous consequences of default on the debt. Consequently, in recognition of the harm they do to us all, I’d like to label these folks the “nutjob caucus.” (You’re probably all aware that many members of the deadbeat caucus are, on other occasions, only too happy to claim membership in the nutjob caucus.) In Missouri, the members of the budgetary nutjob caucus includes:

Rep. Billy Long (R-7)

Re. Jason Smith (R-8)

So what do we call congresspeople who swallowed some of the bitter pills in the omnibus bill (cuts to food stamps, anyone?) in the interest of breaking gridlock and staving off another expensive government shutdown, and then, like responsible adults, voted to extend the debt limit to pay for the spending they had just authorized? Real legislators – you know, the people who are doing the hard job of governing without temper  tantrums. And it also looks like this time around we call them Democrats – including Democratic Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, who didn’t vote on the omnibus spending bill for whatever reason – maybe a few of those bitter pills were just too bitter – but came through when it was time to raise the debt limit and honor the spending decisions that his colleagues, including many in the GOP delegation, had already made.  

Previously:

Campaign Finance: Paying the bills? (February 18, 2014)

Campaign Finance: expending political capital (November 16, 2013)

Today, at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C000960 02/19/2014 MO DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE Claire McCaskill 1941 Spring House Drive St Louis MO 63122 United States Senate United States Senator 2/19/2014 $50,000.00

[emphasis added]

It’s a trend.

A bill, introduced yesterday:

SECOND REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 1903

97TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE NEWMAN.

5337L.01I  D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To repeal section 571.070, RSMo, and to enact in lieu thereof two new sections relating to firearms, with a penalty provision.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:

           Section A. Section 571.070, RSMo, is repealed and two new sections enacted in lieu thereof, to be known as sections 571.070 and 571.071, to read as follows:

           571.070. 1. A person commits the crime of unlawful purchase, ownership, possession, or control of a firearm if such person knowingly purchases or owns a firearm or has any firearm in his or her possession or under his or her control and:

           (1) Such person has been convicted of a felony under the laws of this state, or of a crime under the laws of any state or of the United States which, if committed within this state, would be a felony; or

           (2) Such person is a fugitive from justice, is habitually in an intoxicated or drugged condition, or is currently adjudged mentally incompetent; or

           (3) Such person has, on or after August 28, 2014, been committed for a mental disorder to any hospital, or mental institution, unless such person can demonstrate that he or she is no longer prohibited from possessing a firearm under the provisions of section 571.071 or 571.092; or

           (4) Such person has, on or after August 28, 2014, been found not guilty by reason of insanity of a crime of violence, including any juvenile who has not been adjudicated delinquent by reason of insanity of a crime of violence; or

           (5) Such person has, on or after August 28, 2014, been found mentally incompetent to stand trial for a crime of violence, including any juvenile who has been found mentally incompetent to be adjudicated for a crime of violence; or

           (6) Such person has been the subject of an order of relinquishment issued by the circuit court under section 571.071, unless such person can demonstrate that he or she is no longer prohibited from purchasing, owning, possessing, or controlling a firearm under the provisions of section 571.071 or 571.092.

           2. As used in this section “crime of violence” means any crime which involves the threat or use of physical force.

           [2.] 3. Unlawful possession of a firearm is a class C felony.

           [3.] 4. The provisions of subdivision (1) of subsection 1 of this section shall not apply to the possession of an antique firearm.

          5. On or after August 28, 2014, any judge who:

           (1) Orders a person committed for a mental disorder;

           (2) Finds a person not guilty by reason of insanity for a crime of violence or finds a juvenile not delinquent by reason of insanity for a crime of violence; or

           (3) Finds a person mentally incompetent to stand trial for a crime of violence or finds a juvenile mentally incompetent to be adjudicated for a crime of violence;

Shall notify the appropriate law enforcement agency of the order or finding, order that law enforcement agency to investigate the person who is the subject of that order to determine if such person’s firearms should be relinquished, and order that law enforcement agency to enter that person’s name into the Missouri Uniform Law Enforcement System (MULES) as a person who is prohibited from purchasing, owning, possessing, or controlling a firearm.

           571.071. 1. Any person who on or after August 28, 2014, is prohibited from purchasing, owning, possessing, or controlling a firearm under subsection 1 of section 571.070 shall be investigated by the appropriate law enforcement agency to determine if such person’s firearms should be relinquished. If such agency determines that firearms should be relinquished, the law enforcement agency shall refer the matter to the attorney general’s office. The attorney general may, upon review of the matter, request an order from a circuit court prohibiting the purchase, ownership, possession, or control of a firearm and the relinquishment of any firearms.

           2. The attorney general shall have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent’s firearms should be relinquished because the respondent is dangerous to self or others. The respondent shall have the right to present evidence and be heard in any such proceedings. In the event the court makes such a finding, the court shall issue an order to the respondent to relinquish his or her firearms and such order shall be reported to the Missouri Uniform Law Enforcement System (MULES) for purposes of establishing that such person is a person prohibited from the purchase, ownership, possession or control of firearms.

           3. The court may include in any order that such person shall relinquish to a law enforcement officer any firearms purchased, owned, possessed, or controlled by such person. Alternatively, the court may, in its discretion, allow such person to voluntarily relinquish to a law enforcement officer any firearms purchased, owned, possessed, or controlled by such person. The court may also, in its discretion, direct any law enforcement agency to immediately search for and seize any firearms purchased, owned, possessed, or controlled by such person, upon a showing by the petitioner that such person purchased or has ownership, possession, or control of such firearms.

           4. Any person subject to an order of relinquishment under the provisions of this section may petition the court for an order to return the firearms ordered relinquished under the procedures established under section 571.092.

           5. If the basis for relinquishment is removed by the court, any firearms taken from the person shall be restored in a timely fashion.

           6. Any person aggrieved by a decision of the court under the provisions of this section may appeal such decision to the supreme court of Missouri.

           7. The attorney general shall work with local law enforcement agencies and the department of mental health to develop appropriate internal policies and regulations to ensure that personnel who process such procedures under the provisions of this section are trained on appropriate mental health risk- assessment procedures and also are trained to look for histories of violence.

[[emphasis in original]

That would be reasonable. The NRA won’t allow the republican controlled Missouri General Assembly to even consider it.

Previously:

Trouble in right wingnut paradise? (February 15, 2014)

Yesterday a bill was introduced to change  the date of the Missouri presidential primary:

SECOND REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 1902

97TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE DUGGER.

6114H.01I     ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To repeal sections 115.123 and 115.755, RSMo, and to enact in lieu thereof two new sections relating to the presidential primary election date.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:

[….]

2. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection 1 of this section, an election for a presidential primary held pursuant to sections 115.755 to 115.785 shall be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in [February] April of each presidential election year.

[….]

[emphasis in original]

And I was so looking forward to seeing Rick Santorum (r) in Missouri in February of 2016.

Today, at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

CONTRIBUTION OF MORE THAN $5,000.00 RECEIVEDBY ANY COMMITTEE FROM ANY

SINGLE DONOR – TO BE FILED WITHIN 48 HOURS OF RECEIVING THE CONTRIBUTION

MEC ID: C000960

MO DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE [pdf] 2/18/2014

Democratic Victory Committee

P.O. Box 1754

Jefferson City, MO 65102 2/18/2014

$100,330.38

MONETARY

Missouri Senate Democratic Campaign

Committee

P.O. Box 7319

Columbia, MO 65205

2/18/2014

$98,147.66

MONETARY

[emphasis added]

Odd numbers.