“….So let me say at this at outset of my remarks.  I will never question the patriotism of others in this campaign. [applause][cheers] And I will not stand idly by when I hear others question mine. [cheers][applause]….” – then Senator Barack Obama (D), Independence, Missouri – June 30, 2008

Via Twitter, from Representative Steve Cohen (D):

Steve Cohen@RepCohen

Rudy Giuliani questioned how much,or even if, President Obama loves America.Maybe he thinks he loves it 3/5 as much as Giuliani & his pals 9:00 AM – 20 Feb 2015

Rudy Giuliani (r) and his pals probably don’t get it.

Previously:

Barack Obama in Independence, MO: the speech transcript (July 2, 2008)

Iowa – full circle, of sorts (July 11, 2012)

Rudi Keller ‏@CDTCivilWar

.@gopmatty says there will be no #RLD2015 straw poll; ballot box went missing Friday night, returned stuffed. 8:02 PM – 21 Feb 2015

In the republican world:

Eli Yokley ‏@eyokley

“A million dollars from a millionaire? He made more in interest last week,” @HanawayForGov says, defending @rexsinquefield money. #MOGov 4:52 PM – 21 Feb 2015

Not too good at math. Uh, if somebody’s assets generate a million dollars interest in one week they’re considerably more wealthy than just a “millionaire”.

Somebody else caught that:

Grant ‏@GrantGambling

Billionaire* @eyokley @HanawayForGov @rexsinquefield 4:56 PM – 21 Feb 2015

Tony Wyche ‏@tonywyche

@eyokley @HanawayForGov @rexsinquefield well then that makes it OK. 5:06 PM – 21 Feb 2015

Well, it is legal in Missouri.

Sean Nicholson ‏@ssnich

It doesn’t matter if I’m subservient to one radical rich man because he still has money after he pays me [….] #mogov 5:32 PM – 21 Feb 2015

In other news today:

Missouri GOP ‏@missourigop

@HanawayForGov wins State Committee #mogov straw poll at #RLD2015 10:44 AM – 21 Feb 2015

And they say money can’t buy happiness.

Previously:

Campaign Finance: the giant chess piece in the room (January 15, 2015)

In the 19th Senate District race:

Today at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C081079 02/20/2015 CITIZENS FOR STEPHEN WEBBER Kander for Missouri PO BOX 140252 Kansas City MO 64114 2/18/2015 $30,000.00

[emphasis added]

Previously:

Campaign Finance: Stephen Webber (D) in the 19th Senate District (January 14, 2015)

Jason Kander (D): for the U.S. Senate in 2016 (February 19, 2015)

In the 2016 gubernatorial campaign.

Yesterday at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C141055 02/19/2015 HANAWAY FOR GOVERNOR, INC Cape Radiology Group 70 Doctors Park Cape Girardeeau MO 63703 2/19/2015 $10,000.00

[emphasis added]

Where’s Rex? Just asking.

Today at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C031159 02/20/2015 MISSOURIANS FOR KOSTER Eastern Missouri Laborers’ Educational and Benevolent Fund 3450 Hollenberg Drie Bridgeton MO 63044 2/18/2015 $12,500.00

[emphasis added]

And ye shall know them by their contributors.

Previously:

Campaign Finance: the giant chess piece in the room (January 15, 2015)

Campaign Finance: keeping up with the Schweichs (r) and Hanaways (r) – part 2 (February 5, 2015)

Yesterday Democratic Secretary of State Jason Kander announced his intention to run for the Senate seat currently held by Republican Roy Blunt in 2016. Although Blunt is so well- established in the state political hierarchy, and his campaign coffers are so full that defeating him will be a rough slog in a state that, as the DailyKos notes, “has become increasingly Republican in recent years, especially at the federal level,” Kander  will be a credible opponent:

Kander enters the contest with the backing of Missouri’s Democratic statewide elected officials, and he’s unlikely to face any real primary opposition. Kander has only won statewide once, but he proved in 2012 that he is capable of prevailing in tough races. He defeated then-state Rep. Shane Schoeller 49-47 at the same time Mitt Romney was carrying the Show Me State 54-44. As an Afghanistan veteran, Kander also has a background that contrasts well with Blunt, who has served in Congress for decades.

I suspect that implicit in the contrast the writer was implying when he noted that Blunt  has “served in congress for decades,” is the fact that the folks Blunt has served most diligently during those decades are the ones who can fork over the dollars. It’s not for nothing that Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) selected Blunt as one of the most corrupt members in congress – an honor that, as far as I remember, didn’t get too much play in the local press where folks seem to be very wary of offending a powerful politician, not to mention the daddy of former governor Matt Blunt, who, incidentally, had to field his own corruption scandals (see here, here, and here), some of them in tandem with  his father.

Yesterday evening I got a sample of that curious reluctance of local media folks to tell it like it is when it comes to Roy Blunt. Donnybrook is a local St. Louis public television program where a few minor, local media people of almost all persuasions, from the center left to far right (no hard-core progressives – that doesn’t seem to be done in St. Louis “power” circles), get together to discuss local current events. Naturally, Kander’s announcement came up. I was shocked to hear the tenor of the comments, including some from the putatively “liberal” donnybrookers.

“Roy Blunt is a darn good politician” one participant noted, adding that although Missouri has liberal media in Kansas City and St. Louis, “Blunt gets pretty darn good press; he’s almost error free, controversy free.” While my mouth dropped, another added that Blunt is a “seasoned, good politician, the press likes him, he’s personable, not crazy” and, get this, “he’s scandal free.” To be fair, a panel member, Wendy Wiese, did point out the scandals surrounding the tenure of Matt Blunt in which his father was seriously implicated, including the connections to “K-street,” and “quid pro quo,” but even she agreed that all that had “quieted down.”

So we live in a state and a time where simply not being one of the crazies and hanging on through scandal after scandal not only qualifies one for office, but, given a firm enough power base, renders one unbeatable. The other operative issue seemed to be that the Missouri press “likes” Blunt – a fact that is borne out by the fact that the scandals have “quieted” down. Many of them didn’t get much coverage, if any, to start with, apart from maybe an occasional editorial in those bastions of that “liberal media” referred to in the discussion. Remember Roy Blunt’s “Montsanto Protection Act” just a couple of years ago? Hardly controversy free by my standards.

I realize that the Donnybrook pundits were trying to talk about the political “horse race” and not the real virtues of the candidates – but I don’t think that handicapping the race need preclude recognition and serious mention of the accusations that have dogged and continue to dog Roy Blunt. I also realize that our definition of political corruption has narrowed to include only easily identifiable acts of bribery – which have come close to dinging Blunt in the past – but it wouldn’t hurt if a few media figures such as those pontificating on Donnybrook were willing to look at the things that Roy Blunt seems to care passionately about – if one can use the word “passionately” about such a lazy politician – and trace the relationship between those issues and his financial sponsors.

Even in strictly horse race terms, a fresh, and truly scandal free politician like Kander might actually give a tired, damaged piece of goods like Roy Blunt a run for his money if only state media were willing to ask the real Roy Blunt to “come on down.” Instead, I heard only condescendingly tolerant treatment of Kander who, the Donnybrook regulars noted, “will have a tough row to hoe.” But hey, the official pseudo-liberal on the panel, Bill McClellan, added that if he wants “to play in the big leagues before he’s ready,” why not let him; after all, McClellan implied, what harm can the kid really do?

Also at the level of horse race journalism, I didn’t hear one word about how 2016 will be a presidential election which could bring out a somewhat more balanced constituency. Maybe if we Democrats can finally oppose Blunt with a viable, honest candidate who isn’t afraid of standing up for his beliefs, our junior Senator won’t be able to coast into office once again by capitalizing on his opponent’s fear of red state bile – center-hugging Robin Carnahan, anyone – and the perception that he’ll be okay just because he’s not quite as stark raving crazy as the type of nutjobs that Missouri has become famous for, folks like Cynthia Davis, Rick Brattin or, most notoriously, Todd Akin – who, incidentally, may be hoping to firm up Roy Blunt’s “not crazy” credentials by providing the necessary contrast with the real, worst thing in the GOP primaries.

I’ve been amused by the not inconsiderable number of individuals who sanctimoniously point out that if people in places like Ferguson, say, don’t like what’s going on in local government, or if they have a problem with the makeup of that government, then all they need to do is trot off to the polls and vote. Take, for instance, this letter printed in a recent edtion of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

You want change? Prove it. Those signs people are carrying that say “Black Lives Matter” should be saying “Black Votes Matter.” Marching in the streets may get some attention short term, but where you can really make a difference is on Election Day by marching into the voting booths and casting a ballot for people who can address your concerns. March into the county Board of Elections and register to vote. March into the town hall meetings, the school board meetings, the state legislature and tell your stories. Because these officials have to know how their actions affect you personally. And if their actions show they aren’t listening, then vote them out. Run for office, get involved, pay attention.

Although I don’t think protests vs. votes is an either/or situation – in this case, we probably need both – the writer is, of course, right on a basic level.  We get the government we deserve. When large majorities of the citizens of Missouri – and I’m not necessarily talking about “those people” singled out by the letter writer above – failed to turn out to vote in 2014, the result has been legislators like those currently in Jefferson City who seem hell-bent on trashing the state as fast as they can.

But there’s a bigger story here than the one about apathetic voters. There are a number of socioeconomic factors that influence whether people vote and how they vote. And it’s this last fact that gets us to a whole other open can of worms. There are those who have noticed that who people are, their race, economic status, gender and age, corresponds to their partisan leanings. Lots of those people are Republican politicians or the people who give them money. The result has been a growing effort to keep the wrong people, who often tend to be “those people,” from voting. And it’s happening right here in Missouri. As Rebecca Rivas at the St. Louis American reports:

Just as many are stepping out of the movie theaters with images of the 1965 March on Selma fresh in their minds, Missouri state legislators are hearing about proposed Voter ID laws.

“On the anniversary of the March on Selma, the fight for voter rights have [sic] been exposed and celebrated,” said state Rep. Stacey Newman (D-87). “But they’ve also taught us that this never ends.”

On Tuesday, January 27, the Missouri House of Representative’s election committee listened to community members and experts testify about two voter identification bills, introduced by state Rep. Tony Dugger (R-141). The bill HB 30 would requires voters to show a “valid government-issued photo ID” at the polls, with some exemptions. Dugger is also proposing the bill HJR 1, which would amend the constitution to require voters to have government-issued photo IDs.

[…]

Voter ID laws have been criticized and found unconstitutional because they disproportionately impact people who don’t often have state-issued IDs – often people of color, people with disabilities, seniors and young voters.

In 2006, the Missouri Supreme Court struck down Missouri’s Voter ID law. According to the court opinion, the Secretary of State’s analysis in August 2006 estimated that approximately 240,000 registered voters in the state may not have the required photo ID.

Rep. Dugger offers a comically unlikely hypothetical concerning possible voter fraud to justify his (likely ALEC inspired) obsession with the photo ID project that he has repeatedly tried to enact:

Missouri’s Voter Rolls are severely inflated due to various reasons,” Dugger said. “There are 15 counties in Missouri with 95% or more of their eligible voters registered to vote,” said Dugger. “One county, Reynolds County, actually has more registered voters than eligible voters. With that problem out there, the potential for fraud is quite prevalent. There is no verifiable way to ensure that a voter voting on Election Day is who they say they are without some sort of a photo ID requirement.”

You really think that some sinister somebody is going to go through the rolls, figure out who doesn’t belong there, and then send ringers to impersonate them? Lots of effort for very little return, I’d say. Photo IDs only prevent this type of in-person voter fraud, and as reported in The Washington Post:

A new nationwide analysis of more than 2,000 cases of alleged election fraud over the past dozen years shows that in-person voter impersonation on Election Day, which has prompted 37 state legislatures to enact or consider tougher voter ID laws, was virtually nonexistent.

But Photo ID laws do pose an often insurmountable barrier to voting:

Since 2008, states across the country passed measures to make it harder for Americans – particularly African-Americans, the elderly, students and people with disabilities – to exercise their fundamental right to cast a ballot. Over thirty states considered laws that would require voters to present government-issued photo ID in order to vote. Studies suggest that up to 11 percent of American citizens lack such ID, and would be required to navigate the administrative burdens to obtain it or forego the right to vote entirely.

The irony should not be lost on anyone that we are hearing so many disapproving sounds about the failure of “those people” in Ferguson to turn out and vote rather than rampaging in the street, while at the same time our GOP lawmakers are trying their hardest to keep them from the polls.