That’s it. There’s a general election in November. Act accordingly.

Great moments in political branding:

Jeff Mazur ‏@jmaz

Informing fellow #Mizzou X Lot tailgaters that #GrowMO blimp hovering above is part of dope legalization campaign. [….] 1:21 PM – 20 Sep 2014

Scott Charton ‏@ScottCharton

@jmaz One of Rex’s consultants Tweeted that he is piloting. Does that make Rex head of the Joint chiefs? 4:02 PM – 20 Sep 2014

Scott Howes ‏@tmsnbb

Pit stop in Cape [….] #GrowMO #Missouri should let the farmers grow hemp to make money 10:27 AM – 19 Sep 2014

Sean Nicholson ‏@ssnich

Real texts as #GrowMO blimp arrives in Jeff City: “Can’t read what is says…” “Looks like it is going to crash at any moment.” 3:59 PM – 19 Sep 2014

Sarah Nussbaum ‏@saratastic

I want to legalize marijuana as well! #GrowMo 4:48 PM – 20 Sep 2014

Heh.

The past few days, at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C031159 09/18/2014 MISSOURIANS FOR KOSTER UAW V CAP 8000 E. Jefferson Avenue Detroit MI 48214 9/16/2014 $25,000.00

C031159 09/20/2014 MISSOURIANS FOR KOSTER Tatlow Gump Faiella & Wheelan LLC 110 N. 5th Street Moberly MO 65270 9/18/2014 $10,000.00

C031159 09/20/2014 MISSOURIANS FOR KOSTER IUOE Local 513 Political & Educational Fund 3449 Hollenberg Drive Bridgeton MO 63044 9/18/2014 $25,000.00

[emphasis added]

Everybody’s awake.

Previously:

Campaign Finance: wachet auf (September 17, 2014)

When you spend your time in the General Assembly tilting at right wingnut windmills like Agenda 21, Sharia Law, and Nullification you don’t have a lot of time to tend to the nuts and bolts of grassroots campaign fundraising. And woe to you if you have an opponent in the general election.

Such is the fate of Representative Paul Curtman (r) in the 109th Legislaticve District:

C091246: Citizens To Elect Paul Curtman

Po Box 355 Committee Type: Candidate

Pacific Mo 63069 Party Affiliation: Republican

[….] Established Date: 10/09/2009

[….]

Information Reported On: 2014 – 30 Day After Primary Election-8/5/2014

Beginning Money on Hand $21,995.80

Monetary Receipts + $2,535.00

Monetary Expenditures – $2,102.27

Contributions Made – $825.00

Other Disbursements – $0.00

Subtotal     ($392.27)

Ending Money On Hand   $21,603.53

[emphasis added]

His opponent in the November general election is Barbara Bollmann (D):

C141207: Campaign For Barbara Bollmann

10 Dover Lane Committee Type: Candidate

Villa Ridge Mo 63089-2001 Party Affiliation: Democrat

[….] Established Date: 04/09/2014

[….]

Information Reported On: 2014 – 30 Day After Primary Election-8/5/2014

Beginning Money on Hand $686.94

Monetary Receipts + $0.00

Monetary Expenditures – $3.95

Contributions Made – $0.00

Other Disbursements – $0.00

Subtotal     ($3.95)

Ending Money On Hand   $682.99

[emphasis added]

That’s what you call a low burn through rate.

Not to worry. Today, via the Missouri Ethics Commission, generous donors come to the rescue to help make the Missouri General Assembly safe for continued useless right wingnut paranoid legislation:

C091246 09/19/2014 CITIZENS TO ELECT PAUL CURTMAN Janell Brunner 11939 Manchester Rd #151 St Louis MO 63131 Home Maker 9/19/2014 $10,000.00

C091246 09/19/2014 CITIZENS TO ELECT PAUL CURTMAN John G. Brunner Trust 11939 Manchester Rd # 151 St Louis MO 63131 9/19/2014 $10,000.00

[emphasis added]

Saved by the big dollar donors…

While we’re at it, how’s it all workin’ out for you Senator Roberts?

Today, Representative Vicky Hartzler (r), via Twitter:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler ‏@RepHartzler

Our president’s policies are hurting the people. That motivates me everyday. I’m here to fight for my constituents. #BeaconBreakfast 5:43 AM – 19 Sep 2014

And one of the constituent replies:

KCLiveMusicBlog ‏@KCLiveMusicBlog

@RepHartzler I’m your constituent but you have never spoken for me. You’re a zealot pursuing a backwards agenda. 6:39 AM – 19 Sep 2014

Ouch.

When I last looked, Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill was still very carefully trying to say nothing at all about the EPA’s proposed new emission standards which are designed to reduce carbon emissions in the United States 30% by 2030. Which is actually pretty much in line with her past behavior; McCaskill has long been a disappointment to her constituents when it comes to showing leadership on the issue of climate change. She has been very careful to avoid even the appearance of pulling out the rug from under dirty coal, the producers and consumers of which are a powerful force in Missouri which currently gets 80% of its energy from fossil fuels.

McCaskill’s past arguments for rejecting stronger regulation of carbon emissions from coal-fired energy plants have revolved around: (1) the supposed potential for economic hardship for “Missouri’s families,” and, (2) the assertion that the costs would be born disproportionately by the U.S. She has noted that “it’s not going to do us any good to clean up our act as it relates to the atmosphere. It’s the same atmosphere that China shares and Japan shares and India shares. Some very big industrial countries.”

The first argument, which McCaskill shares with most Republican apologists for fossil fuels, should, by now, occasion the great hilarity that is due arguments that pit relatively minor, short-term concerns against long-term, global survival. After all, while it’s questionable that efforts to reduce carbon emissions will seriously harm those Missouri families she is so fond of citing, doing nothing about climate change is going to really hurt Missourians over the next thirty years, particularly those dependent on agriculture. A recent report stipulates that “higher temperatures will reduce Midwest crop yields by 19 percent by midcentury and by 63 percent by the year 2100.” McCaskill’s position also ignores the hidden costs of fossil fuel dependence, such as the personal and economic aspects of its effect on public health.  

A new report, the 2014 Low Carbon Economy Index (LCEI), demonstrates the emptiness of McCaskill’s international rationale for delaying action on carbon emisions. According to the LCEI:

… . China could be viewed as the poster child for developing countries, with a 2013 national decarbonisation rate of 4%. China improved its energy intensity by 3% in 2013, the third highest amongst the G20, and has a flourishing renewable energy sector 2. China also launched seven regional emissions trading schemes over the last year, although these are unlikely to have a dramatic impact on emissions in the short term. …

And:

While coal use in China rose by 3.7% in 2013, it is at a much slower rate than in previous years. China has made public efforts to curb coal use to manage its air pollution problems, for example a limit on coal use to 65% of its energy mix, and more recently a proposed ban on coal-fired power in Beijing by 2020. …  

China lowered its carbon emissions by 3.5%, a full percentage point more than the US where:

A revival of coal […], driven by a combination of falling coal prices and rising gas prices, has also been a major factor in the low US position in the G20 decarbonisation league table. Coal in the US has regained some market share from natural gas in the generation mix  ince its low in April 2012, causing an increase in emissions, and dispelling the myth that a shale gas revolution will necessarily result in emissions reductions. …

Don’t these numbers make it clear that we can no longer allow our politicans to point to the other guy in order to excuse inaction on carbon emissions? Certainly we should not allow Senator McCaskill to do so when the time comes when she will have to make her position on the new EPA regulations known. While the reduction in carbon emissions that these regulations would achieve is still not enough to stop potentially catastrophic global warming, they would still move us significantly forward in that direction:

If the rule goes forward as it is currently conceived, this proposal, combined with the reductions to date and those that will be driven by prior executive actions addressing the transportation sector, would, in approximate terms, put the US on a path to achieve Obama’s 17% by 2020 pledge. However, putting the proposed rule in context of the global de-carbonization challenge, it will achieve a small portion of the reductions required to stay within 2°C carbon budget. The EPA estimates it will result in reductions from the business as usual case of 545 MM tonnes of CO2 in 2030*. This plan would contribute a cumulative 5.9% reduction in US carbon intensity or an average annual additional intensity reduction of 0.39%

.

Isn’t it time for the US to start to play the leadership role when it comes to climate change that those advocates of “American exceptionalism” expect us to play when the question involves military action? Let’s ask Senator McCaskill why China should have to do all the heavy lifting – particularly since it’s clear that no nation can do it alone. And while we’re at it, let’s ask the Senator why she can’t manage to play more of a leadership role when it comes to helping our state make the transition from dirty energy sources – surely she can manage to stop concentrating on keeping her balance on the center line that runs down that rightward veering highway she’s been traveling in order to help determine the outcome of what will probably be the defining issue of our time.

Update:  Via Washington Monthly’s Ed Kilgore, Paul Krugman writes today on false economic arguments of the fossil fuel advocates:

I’ve just been reading two new reports on the economics of fighting climate change: a big study by a blue-ribbon international group, the New Climate Economy Project, and a working paper from the International Monetary Fund. Both claim that strong measures to limit carbon emissions would have hardly any negative effect on economic growth, and might actually lead to faster growth. This may sound too good to be true, but it isn’t. These are serious, careful analyses.

But you know that such assessments will be met with claims that it’s impossible to break the link between economic growth and ever-rising emissions of greenhouse gases, a position I think of as “climate despair.” The most dangerous proponents of climate despair are on the anti-environmentalist right. But they receive aid and comfort from other groups, including some on the left, who have their own reasons for getting it wrong.

Their own reasons …. hmmm. Locally, could that be Peabody Coal? Along with all the voting Missourians who get all their information from Fox News? How do you balance them beans against climate apocalypse?

Throw in a right wingnut Secretary of State, an out of touch right wingnut incumbent in the U.S. Senate race, a well funded independent challenger, a withdrawn Democratic Party candidate, and a state supreme court that knows crap when it sees it – the rest of us get weeks of entertainment:

Yael T. Abouhalkah ‏@YaelTAbouhalkah

Legal genius Kris Kobach, fresh from Supreme Court smackdown, orders Democrats to put someone on Senate ballot. Bet they get right on that. 7:17 PM – 18 Sep 2014

Yael Abouhalkah wins the Twitterverse.

It had been quiet.

Today, at the Missouri Ethics Commission, for the assumed to be republican rivals for the republican nomination for Governor in 2016:

C111150 09/17/2014 FRIENDS OF TOM SCHWEICH Hermann Companies Inc. 7701 Forsyth Blvd 10th Floor St Louis MO 63105 9/16/2014 $10,000.00

[emphasis added]

C141055 09/17/2014 HANAWAY FOR GOVERNOR William Kapp III 643 Deer Creek Lane Cape Girardeau MO 63701 Landmark Chairman 9/17/2014 $10,000.00

[emphasis added]

$10,000.00 continues to be a common amount. Except for us mere mortals.

Yesterday, via Twitter:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler ‏@RepHartzler

We were told #Obamacare wouldn’t fund abortions; nonpartisan GAO report says otherwise #brokenpromises [….] 7:22 AM – 16 Sep 2014

There is a link to a press release for the republican Majority Leader, not the Government Accountability Office report.

A constituent reply:

Bob Yates ‏@OldDrum

@RepHartzler Obamacare has brought insurance to millions of Americans without insurance. Is that pro-life or not? 8:18 AM – 16 Sep 2014

Good question. No answer yet, just crickets.

The summary of the report from the Government Accountability Office:

[….]

Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), insurance plans offered in health insurance exchanges-known as qualified health plans (QHP)-may cover abortion services as a benefit consistent with federal and state law. Federal law applicable to QHPs for the 2014 benefit year prohibits the use of federal funds made available to offset the cost of QHP coverage to pay for abortion services except where the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, or the life of the pregnant woman would be endangered unless an abortion is performed. QHPs may cover abortion services that do not meet that exception (referred to as non-excepted abortion services), but state law may restrict the circumstances under which coverage can be provided. For the 2014 benefit year, 17 states do not allow QHPs to provide non-excepted abortion services, and 6 states permit the coverage of such services only in certain limited circumstances. Among the remaining 28 states (including the District of Columbia) with no such laws, in 5 states all QHPs cover non-excepted abortion services; in 15 states some QHPs cover non-excepted abortion services; and in 8 states no QHPs cover non-excepted abortion services. Nationally, 1,036 QHPs in these 28 states cover non-excepted abortion services and 1,062 QHPs do not.

Of the 18 issuers from which GAO obtained information-which offered nearly one-quarter of the QHPs covering non-excepted abortion services in the 28 states-all but three issuers indicated that the benefit is not subject to any restrictions, limitations, or exclusions. All 18 issuers also indicated that their abortion services benefit is subject to the same requirements as other benefits, such as enrollee out-of-pocket costs-including deductibles, copayments, and coinsurance-and prior authorization requirements, all of which can vary depending on the location where the service is provided. To estimate the cost of the coverage of non-excepted abortion services, issuers indicated that they generally reviewed historical costs for these procedures. All but one of the issuers from which GAO obtained information estimated the cost of coverage of non-excepted abortion services to be less than $1 per enrollee per month-the minimum amount required to be estimated under PPACA for these services, and all but two of these issuers rounded the amount up to $1 to comply with PPACA. The highest cost estimated by the issuers GAO collected information from was $1.10 per enrollee per month. Fifteen issuers and a state-based exchange which bills enrollees on behalf of issuers did not itemize the premium amount associated with non-excepted abortion services coverage on enrollees’ bills nor indicate that they sent a separate bill for that premium amount. Six issuers GAO contacted indicated that they provided information about coverage for abortion services to consumers before they enrolled in QHPs, while others indicated that consumers shopping for QHPs would need to call the issuer to obtain such information.

[….]

PPACA requires QHPs to cover a package of essential health benefits. While this package does not include abortion services, QHPs may cover those services, consistent with federal and state law. GAO was asked to provide a list of QHPs that do and that do not cover abortion services and for additional information on issues related to that coverage. This report describes whether non-excepted abortion services are covered by QHPs within the 28 states with no laws restricting such coverage for the 2014 benefit year and provides additional information-such as the scope and the cost of non-excepted abortion services coverage-for selected QHPs that cover such services.

[….]

[emphasis added]

Evidently Representative Hartzler (r) doesn’t expect anyone to read the actual report, just the breathless right wingnut press release.

Yesterday, at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C051087 09/16/2014 MISSOURIANS FOR TIM JONES Grow Missouri 308 E High Street Suite 301 Jefferson City MO 65101 9/15/2014 $10,000.00

[emphasis added]

It’d be easier just to write the check directly, don’t you think?

Previously:

How “a broad based coalition” is now defined in Missouri and America (September 12, 2014)

[….]

The Grow Missouri PAC’s “broad based coalition” consists of $6,045,000.00 from Rex Sinquefield (in blue)

and $22,000.00 (in-kind) from Pelopidas LLC over the fourteen month existence of the PAC.

[….]