Please note, while the good folks at Progress Missouri are our friends, we’re completely different entities. Oh, and by the way, we agree with them on this.

A letter from Sean Nicholson at Progress Missouri, sent to the powers that be in the Missouri Senate:

Progress Missouri

February 10, 2015

The Honorable Senator Michael Kehoe

Missouri Senate

201 W Capitol Ave., Rm. 429

Jefferson City, Missouri 65101

Re:Videotaping Senate Commerce Committee Meeting

Dear Senator Kehoe:

I am writing regarding videotaping of Senate Commerce Committee meetings. You stated on February 3, 2015 that videotaping of these meetings is only allowed for “member[s] of the Missouri press corps” with previous permission. This restriction violates Missouri’s Sunshine Law. In addition, to the extent the Committee is making membership in a private organization, such as the Missouri Press Association, a condition of videotaping these meetings, this restriction violates the First Amendment and our free speech rights under the Missouri Constitution.

On February 2, 2015, a representative of Progress Missouri sent a courtesy email to you, to notify you of our intent to videotape the next Senate Commerce Committee meeting. The e-mail cited Section 610.020, R.S.Mo., which states that a “public body shall allow for the recording by…videotape…of any open meeting.” The e-mail also requested any guidelines for recording the meeting to minimize disruptions.

On February 3, 2015, Adam Gresham telephoned us and stated that we would not be able to collect video at the meeting. He did not explain how he thought our efforts to videotape the meeting could possibly be disruptive. Nor did he offer any steps we could take to minimize any possible disruptions.

Notwithstanding the statement by your Chief of Staff, we attended the Commerce Committee meeting on February 3, 2015. At the start, you announced a “housekeeping” matter. At this time, we were videotaping the proceedings. You stated:

[page]

“The policy of the Senate, certainly the policy I’m going to adopt, is that if you’re a member of the Missouri Press Corps you can get with our office before the meetings start. Certainly, Adam will work with you to allow videotaping. If you need something other that you’re welcome to get with Senate Communications given to you certainly and you’re welcome to attend any meeting that you want to. But videotaping is only allowed for press corps members with previous permission and Senate Communications. That will be the policy.”

Your statement was a direction to us to stop videotaping. We are not members of the Missouri Press Association, which is a private organization of reporters. Accordingly, we ceased videotaping the meeting. Members of the Missouri Press Association may have continued to record the proceedings, but we do not have access to their recordings.

Per Missouri’s Sunshine Law, it is the public policy of the state that “meetings, records, votes, actions and deliberations of public governmental bodies be open to the public unless otherwise provided by law.” Section 610.011.1, R.S.Mo. The law is to be liberally construed.

Id.

The Sunshine Law gives a broad right to record public meetings, and these rights are not limited to reporters. Missouri’s Sunshine Law is absolutely clear on this issue.

Section 610.020 of Missouri’s Sunshine Law states: “A public body shall allow for the recording by audiotape, videotape, or other electronic means of any open meeting. A public body may establish guidelines regarding the manner in which such recording is conducted so as to minimize disruption to the meeting.”

The Senate Commerce Committee is a “public body,” as defined by Missouri’s Sunshine Law. In addition, the meeting on February 3 was a “public meeting” as defined by the Law. At no time was our videotaping disruptive. We were quiet and respectful. We did not block or obstruct anyone’s access or views and did not interfere with the proceedings. We conducted ourselves in the same manner as we have conducted ourselves at other committee meetings, which we have videotaped without issue. We also conducted ourselves in the same manner as members of the press corps have conducted themselves in videotaping committee meetings. Nothing about our efforts to record the meeting could be considered disruptive or would cause a reasonable person to believe that our conduct would cause any disruption.

In the past, Senators have cited Senate Rule 96, which purportedly requires the permission of a Chairman to videotape a committee meeting. But, the Senate cannot draft a rule, which is not a law enacted by the General Assembly, to escape its obligations under the Sunshine Law. While

[page]

the Senate may establish neutral guidelines to minimize disruptions at meetings, it cannot create guidelines that completely defeat the law. A rule giving the Chairman blanket discretion to withhold permission to record is also arbitrary and unlawful, and could be used to suppress disfavored views for political reasons. Moreover, our efforts to videotape did not cause and will not cause a disruption.

I also note that courts in other states have held that citizens and businesses have the right to videotape public meetings, even if they are not members of the press.  See Tarus v. Borough of Pine Hill, 916 A.2d 1036 (N.J. 2005) (actions of mayor were arbitrary when it created restrictions to block citizen from videotaping a public meeting); Pinellas County School Board v. Suncam, Inc., 829 So.2d 989 (Fl. Ct. App. 2002) (business has right to videotape public meeting).

We hope this letter resolves this matter. We will continue to send emails to your staff regarding our attendance at meetings as a courtesy, when possible.

If you intend to prevent us from videotaping Committee meetings, please inform us with your basis for doing so. We reserve the right to take legal action, including seeking an injunction. In case of legal action, we will consider your actions to be “knowing” and “purposeful” violations for purposes of the Sunshine Law, and will seek costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in protecting the public’s right to videotape Committee meetings.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. I look forward to hearing your response.

Sincerely,

s/

Sean Soendker Nicholson

Progress Missouri

Cc:

Senator Tom Dempsey, President Pro Tem of the Senate

Senator Ron Richard, Majority Floor Leader

Senator Joseph Keaveny, Minority Floor Leader

Chris Koster, Missouri Attorney General

Chris Grant, Schuchat, Cook & Werner

What is the Missouri Senate afraid of?

It’s gonna be a bright, bright, bright sun shiny day.

Exploring the possibility of running for Lieutenant Governor in 2016.

Today at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C141569 02/12/2015 BRADSHAW EXPLORATORY COMMITTEE Brad Bradshaw 1736 E. Sunshine, Suite 600 Springfield MO 65804 Self Physician/Attorney 2/12/2015 $100,000.00

[emphasis added]

That’s a total of $250,000.00 in personal contributions to his exploratory committee in 2015.

Previously:

Campaign Finance: Exploring what? (January 10, 2015)

Campaign Finance: Exploring something. (January 13, 2015)

Campaign Finance: that’s some exploration (January 26, 2015)

Today at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C151015 02/12/2015 MISSOURI MEDICAL MARIJUANA Brad Bradshaw 1736 E. Sunshine, Suite 600 Springfield MO 65804 Self Physician/Attorney 2/12/2015 $20,000.00

[emphasis added]

It’s a new new political action committee:

C151015: Missouri Medical Marijuana

Po Box 190201 Committee Type: Campaign

St Louis Mo 63119

[….] Established Date: 01/16/2015

  Termination Date:

Information Reported On: 2015 – Initial 15 Day Report

Beginning Money on Hand $0.00

Monetary Receipts + $2,100.00

Monetary Expenditures – $1,661.30

Contributions Made – $0.00

Other Disbursements – $0.00

Subtotal     $438.70

Ending Money On Hand   $438.70

[emphasis added]

The times they are a changin’.

Previously:

Campaign Finance: Exploring what? (January 10, 2015)

Campaign Finance: Exploring something. (January 13, 2015)

Campaign Finance: that’s some exploration (January 26, 2015)

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

Rep. Vicky Hartzler ‏@RepHartzler

ICYMI: I spoke on the floor today about “Why Marriage Matters” [….] 2:26 PM – 12 Feb 2015

The video:

[….]

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r): Thank you. Mister Speaker, I rise today in support of National Marriage Week. It’s an honor to promote an institution that has been the cornerstone of society for centuries. And I’m blessed to celebrate this week with my husband of thirty years, Lowell Hartzler. When a man and woman join together in holy matrimony they are not only starting a life together and creating a family, they are also establishing the foundation of a healthy society. Researchers document many benefits to marriage – better health, greater personal happiness, enhanced financial stability, and positive impacts for children. Boys and girls raised at home by a mom and dad perform better in school, have less addiction, experience lower rates of teen pregnancy, and see less trouble with the law. At a time when some question the future of marriage I think it’s wise to reflect on the unique benefits the intact marriage family provides. Social science clearly tells us that marriage leads to greater wealth, health, longevity, and happiness. It is something to aspire to, to treasure, and to fight for. Not only does society benefit, but most importantly, so do the men and women who commit to a lifetime of love, laughter, faithfulness, and future generations. I yield back.

[….]

“…Researchers document many benefits to marriage – better health, greater personal happiness, enhanced financial stability, and positive impacts for children…”

Interesting. That’s a strong argument for marriage equality. Uh…

“…At a time when some question the future of marriage…”

Who exactly?

“…Social science clearly tells us that marriage leads to greater wealth, health, longevity, and happiness…”

That’s another strong argument for marriage equality.

“…It is something to aspire to, to treasure, and to fight for…”

A lot of people are. The courts are agreeing with them, too.

Previously:

Jim White (D) in the 4th Congressional District: speaking out (February 12, 2015)

Today at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C031159 02/12/2015 MISSOURIANS FOR KOSTER McBride & Son Management Co. 16091 Swingley Ridge Road Suite 300 Chesterfield MO 63017 2/10/2015 $10,000.00

[emphasis added]

Previously:

Campaign Finance: it’s so quiet… (February 9, 2015)

Yesterday, via Twitter:

Jim White ‏@JW_for_Congress

Elections matter, see Brownback’s attack on civil rights. My rights are only as secure as yours. # Mo. don’t be a me too state. 5:04 PM – 11 Feb 2015

Somehow we don’t think Vicky Hartzler (r) agrees.

Same planet, different epochs.

Remember this?:

Dude, you’ve got bigger problems than an out of the way blog with dozens of readers (May 6, 2014)

We just received this Facebook message from someone identified as [Representative] Keith English. We have no idea if it really is him.

A Facebook message from Representative Keith English? Really?

Keith English

Thanks

RIGHT TO WORK AND

PAYCHECK IS GONE FOR 2

YEARS.. THANKS

Sent from Jefferson City, MO

[….]

Today in Jefferson City:

House Communications ‏@MOHOUSECOMM

HB 116 & 569 (Labor Organizations) perfected by #MOHouse by a vote of 92-66.

4:34 PM – 11 Feb 2015

HB 116

Prohibits an employer from requiring a person to become a member of a labor organization as a condition or continuation of employment

Sponsor: Burlison, Eric (133)

Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2015

LR Number: 0562H.02P

Last Action: 02/11/2015 – Perfected (H)

Bill String: HCS HBs 116 & 569

[….]

HCS HBs 116 & 569 [pdf] — LABOR ORGANIZATIONS

SPONSOR: Burlison

COMMITTEE ACTIONS: Voted “Do Pass” by the Standing Committee on Workforce Standards and Development by a vote of 9 to 3. Voted “Do Pass” by the Select Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations by a vote of 6 to 2.

This bill specifies that, except in instances when these provisions conflict with or are preempted by federal law, any person as a condition or continuation of employment cannot be required to:

(1) Become or refrain from becoming a member of a labor organization;

(2) Pay dues, fees, assessments, or other charges to a labor organization; or

(3) Pay to any charity or third party any equivalent amount in lieu of dues, fees, assessments, or other charges required of a member of a labor organization.

Any agreement, understanding, or practice between a labor organization and an employer that violates the rights of employees as guaranteed under these provisions is declared to be unlawful, null and void, and of no legal effect.

Maybe that third floor office has a nice view.

Richard Mayhew at Balloon Juice:

….2001 to 2015 contains an interesting case study of policy implementation and formulation by reactionaries and liberals in the United States.  The liberal policy project was to greatly expand health insurance coverage while reducing total societal cost growth of health care spending.  The conservative goal was to break and remake Iraq.  One is succeeding, the other is a Hydra headed cluster-fuck….

[….]

….any one who cheerleaded for the invasion of Iraq and believed that there was exclusively Good News ™ and painted schools in Iraq for the first decade of this century and then argues that a fairly straightforward health care coverage expansion is impossible should be ignored as they’ve proven that they have anti-judgement.

This, this, a thousand times this.

Sarah Felts ‏@sarahfelts

#JonStewart on #BrianWilliams’s suspension: “Finally someone is being held to account for misleading America about the Iraq War.” 9:41 PM – 10 Feb 2015

Don’t hold your breath for more.

As Michael Bersin pointed out earlier today, Claire McCaskill can get to the heart of the matter when it’s necessary. She made it clear that the problem with Rep. Mike Moon’s (R-157) legislative resolution “calling for the Missouri Congressional delegation to “endeavor with ‘manly firmness’ and resolve to totally and completely repeal” and not replace the 2010 Affordable Care Act” isn’t the reflexively sexist language that he used. The problem is his cheering for “kicking folks off their health coverage and once again letting insurance companies discriminate against women and sick people.” It’s his meanness plain and simple that got McCaskill riled up.

The sexist language is just par for the course. This is the same Rep. Moon who last year advocated closing down the last clinic in Missouri where women could exercise their choice to procure an abortion. His idea of humor includes this tweet: “#FailedCharities The Sandra Fluke Recycled Contraceptive Program” – not surprising since he is endorsed by Missouri Right to Life (MRL), an endorsement that carries with it, according to MRL, an assurance that the candidate supports the such extreme positions as banning abortion with, ideally, no exceptions for rape or incest; banning emergency contraception, birth control pills, and IUDs; along with support for “personhood” amendments. These bozos even oppose membership in the Girl Scouts because they “they link to the “pro-abortion World Health Organization” on their website.”  

Rep Moon, however, seems to be somewhat bewildered by the attention Senator McCaskill’s response has focused on  his effort to pander to that especially tribal segment of the Republican base that gets upset whenever anyone suggests that our government has an obligation to work for the well-being of all its citizens. Not only does he think the issue is just language, but he also seems to be bewildered by the way language works:

“It is just like going to war,” Moon said. “You want a soldier to fight like a man. If a woman is in the trenches, you want them to fight like a man, too.”

Because the measure of bravery is manliness, right? But Rep. Moon wasn’t through, though, ramming his foot down his throat:

Moon said he does not believe that being a male makes him a better lawmaker than his female colleagues. “I know there are some women who are much smarter than I am and I tip my hat to them.”

Well, I’m glad to know that Rep Moon knows “some” smart women – not to mention that he’s now tipped his hat to them. Isn’t this line of reasoning similar to the “friends” fallacy. You know: “I’m not a racist, some of my best friends are black,” I’m not homophobic, I know some gay people,” or “I’m not a murderer, I know lots of living people”?

But of course, the real offence isn’t that Rep. Moon is the foot-soldier in the GOP War on Women he has already revealed himself to be by his actual legislative agenda, but that that agenda, as Senator McCaskill correctly points out, is just plain mean, and, worse, mean for no practical reason. In Moon’s mind the real message he was trying to send was that members of his own party who are calling for Obamacare to be replaced are weak (and, yes, he does seem to think that equates to femininity); he wants to make it clear that the real problem with Obamacare isn’t in how it does what it does, but rather that it does anything at all. Moon wants government totally out of healthcare, he clearly believes it has no role to play in the well-being of its citizens. In his own words:

… . “It was not meant to downplay their womanhood at all. We just want them to know, every man and lady who is representing us, that we are demanding, as citizens of Missouri, that Obamacare be repealed and make it clear we don’t want a replacement.”

And the folks who can’t afford to provide their own healthcare can just die. This isn’t just misogyny, it’s misanthropy. It’s so mean the mind boggles. We can do lots better in the United States. McCaskill was right to aim her metaphorical kick at his metaphorical backside. Good on you, Claire.

*Slightly edited for clarity.

“….the members of the Missouri House of Representatives, Ninety-eighth General Assembly, hereby insist that each member of the Missouri Congressional delegation endeavor with “manly firmness” and resolve to totally and completely repeal the Affordable Care Act….”

Claire is really ticked.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) [file photo].

From the office of Senator Claire McCaskill (D):

McCaskill on ‘manly firmness’

Tuesday, February 10, 2015

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill today issued the following reaction to a Missouri State Legislature resolution calling for the Missouri Congressional delegation to “endeavor with ‘manly firmness’ and resolve to totally and completely repeal” and not replace the 2010 Affordable Care Act-a law that is providing health insurance to more than 200,000 Missourians, and has barred insurance companies from denying coverage because of a preexisting condition, dropping coverage for a person after becoming sick, or discriminating based on whether a patient is male or female:

“I don’t think you prove your manhood by kicking folks off their health coverage and once again letting insurance companies discriminate against women and sick people.”

McCaskill also reiterated her commitment to protecting Medicare from elected officials who believe, as the Missouri State Representative who authored this resolution has stated, that the federal government has “no business in health care, anyway…”

It is estimated that a full repeal of the Affordable Care Act would strip more than 200,000 Missourians of health insurance coverage, and-according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office-would raise the national deficit by billions of dollars.

[emphasis in original]

That left a mark.

Joni Ernst (r) ain’t got nothin’ on Claire.

Previously:

HR 99: Are those instructions good for Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r) and Rep. Ann Wagner (r)? (January 20, 2015)

HR 99: Because words mean nothing? (February 10, 2015)