Monthly Archives: December 2017

Campaign Finance: self confidence

14 Thursday Dec 2017

Posted by in campaign finance, Missouri General Assembly, Missouri Senate

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

Today at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C091287 12/14/2017 ELECT BILL WHITE William White 2122 E 47th ST Joplin MO 64804 Self-employed State Representative 12/14/2017 $100,000.00

[emphasis added]

Heh. “…Self-employed State Representative…”

He wants to move over to the State Senate.

C091287: Elect Bill White
Committee Type: Candidate
Po Box 2461
Joplin Mo 64803
Party Affiliation: Republican
Established Date:
11/20/2009
[….]
Candidate William White
[….]
Election History
Election Outcome Political Office
8/7/2018 Primary Election State Senator District 32 Missouri State Senate

In the last report:

C091287: Elect Bill White
Committee Type: Candidate
Po Box 2461
Joplin Mo 64803
Party Affiliation: Republican
Established Date: 11/20/2009
[….]
Information Reported On: 2017 – AMENDED October Quarterly Report
Beginning Money on Hand $96,933.54
Monetary Receipts + $25,920.00
Monetary Expenditures – $4,654.06
Contributions Made – $0.00
Other Disbursements – $0.00
Subtotal $21,265.94
Ending Money On Hand $118,199.48

[emphasis added]

SB 767: another regressive tax on people who don’t understand math

13 Wednesday Dec 2017

Posted by in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri Senate

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , ,

Denny Hoskins (r) [2017 file photo].

A bill prefiled in the Missouri Senate:

SB 767
Creates the Missouri Video Lottery Control Act
Sponsor: Hoskins
LR Number: 4671S.02I
12/4/2017 – Prefiled
Effective Date: August 28, 2018
[….]
SB 767 – This act establishes the Missouri Video Lottery Control Act.

This act allows the State Lottery Commission to implement a system of video lottery game terminals and to issue licenses to video lottery game manufacturers, operators, handlers, and retailers, as defined in the act. The Commission shall not allow a single vendor or licensee to be responsible for implementing the program, nor shall it allow a single vendor or licensee to control or operate more than twenty-five percent of video lottery game terminals in the state.

The Commission may impose a non-refundable application fee, as described in the act. Manufacturers, operators, handlers, and retailers shall be required to annually remit a license fee, and licensees shall be required to renew licenses every two years. The Commission shall issue provisional licenses as described in the act.

Video lottery game terminals shall be independently tested, capable of randomly generating the outcome of games, and be able to print tickets.

No licensed video lottery operator shall offer a single game play exceeding two dollars or offer a pay-out for a single game-winning play in excess of five hundred dollars. To combat problem gambling, video lottery game operators shall provide a pre-commitment system that allows players to set daily and aggregate bet limits and to self-exclude themselves from play. Operators shall not operate more than five terminals at one retail establishment, except fraternal or veterans organizations may operate up to ten terminals.

Video lottery game operators are prohibited from offering anything of value other than the percentage of adjusted gross receipts to a video lottery game retailer for the placement of video lottery terminals. Persons violating such prohibition are subject to the loss or prohibition of his or her video lottery game operator’s license.

Video lottery game operators shall pay to the Commission thirty-two percent of any unclaimed cash prizes associated with winning tickets that have not been redeemed within one year of issue.

Video lottery game operators shall pay to the Commission thirty-six percent of the video lottery game adjusted gross receipts. The first $100 million of such adjusted gross receipts shall be appropriated for public institutions of higher education. The next $10 million of such adjusted gross receipts shall be appropriated for virtual elementary and secondary education. The remaining adjusted gross receipts shall be appropriated for public elementary and secondary education, with the first $10 million of such adjusted gross receipts appropriated for virtual elementary and secondary education course access programs. The Commission shall compensate the administrative costs of the city or county in which a video lottery retailer maintains an establishment in an amount equal to five percent of the video lottery game adjusted gross receipts. Sixty-four percent of video lottery game adjusted gross receipts shall be retained by video lottery game operators and shall be split between video lottery game operators and video lottery game retailers as provided under an agreement.

All revenues collected by the Commission from license renewal fees, administrative fines, and any reimbursements associated with the enforcement of the act shall be distributed as described in the act.

Participation in the state lottery under this act shall not be construed to be a lottery or gift enterprise in violation of Article III, Section 39 of the Constitution of Missouri, and shall not constitute a valid reason for the denial or revocation of a permit to sell liquor.

This act allows a municipality or county to adopt an ordinance within ninety days of the effective date of this act prohibiting video lottery game terminals within the municipality or county.

This act is substantially similar to SB 452 (2017) and is similar to HB 990 (2017).
[….]

“…The first $100 million of such adjusted gross receipts shall be appropriated for public institutions of higher education…”

If there are any left.

Sure, that’ll be a really stable way to fund investment in the future.

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D): it’s in their nature

13 Wednesday Dec 2017

Posted by in Claire McCaskill, social media, US Senate

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) [2017 file photo].

From Senator Claire McCaskill (D), via Twitter:

Claire McCaskill‏ @clairecmc
So there’s no misunderstanding, the negotiations on tax bill that are being talked about at WH right now are negotiations between Republicans. No Democrats allowed. We have no idea what they’re doing. It’s a shame. Coulda been different.
12:01 PM – 13 Dec 2017

“…Coulda been different…”

We’d have ham and eggs. If we had some ham and if we had some eggs.

I wouldn’t ever hold my breath.

HB 1563: not a right wingnut gun bill

12 Tuesday Dec 2017

Posted by in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri House

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

Not by any stretch of the imagination. But the bill does incorporate elements of right wingnut orthodoxy.

Representative Stacey Newman (D) [2016 file photo].

Just not for the purposes they like.

Prefiled by Representative Stacey Newman (D):

HB 1563
Establishes guidelines a person must follow to purchase a firearm in the state of Missouri and provides that certain entities selling firearms, ammunition, or accessories, or those who train individuals in firearm use, are ineligible to receive state funds or tax credits
Sponsor: Newman, Stacey (087)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2018
LR Number: 4416H.01I
Last Action: 12/08/2017 – Prefiled (H)
Bill String: HB 1563
[….]

The bill text:

SECOND REGULAR SESSION
HOUSE BILL NO. 1563 [pdf]
99TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE NEWMAN. 4416H.01I D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To amend chapter 571, RSMo, by adding thereto two new sections relating to firearm sales.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:
Section A. Chapter 571, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto two new sections, to be known as section 571.700 and 571.702, to read as follows:
571.700. 1. (1) Prior to any firearm purchase in this state, a prospective firearm purchaser shall, at least seventy-two hours prior to the initial request to purchase a firearm from a licensed firearm dealer located at least one hundred twenty miles from such purchaser’s legal residence, confer and discuss with a licensed physician the indicators and contraindicators and risk factors, including any physical, psychological, or situational factors, that may arise with the proposed firearm purchase. Such physician shall then evaluate the prospective firearm purchaser for such indicators and contraindicators and risk factors and determine if such firearm purchase would increase such purchaser’s risk of experiencing an adverse physical, emotional, or other health reaction.
(2) At the conclusion of the conference required under subdivision 1 of this subsection, if the prospective firearm purchaser chooses to proceed with the firearm purchase, the licensed physician conducting such conference shall sign and require the prospective firearm purchaser to sign a written statement that such purchaser is fully aware of all physical, psychological, or situational factors of such purchase.
2. No firearm purchase shall be allowed without voluntary, informed consent, given freely and without coercion.
3. A licensed firearm dealer shall orally inform the purchaser of a firearm the 18 following, and reduce it to writing:
(1) The name and license number of the licensed firearm dealer;
(2) The immediate and long-term medical risks associated with firearms, along with medical descriptions and photographs of fatal firearm injuries, as collected by emergency pediatric medical professionals, law enforcement, and prosecutors’ offices;
(3) Alternatives to purchasing a firearm, which shall include materials about peaceful and nonviolent conflict resolution; and
(4) A statement that the dealer is available to answer any questions concerning the purchase of a firearm, together with the telephone number of the dealer where the dealer may be reached to answer any questions the purchaser may have.
4. The prospective firearm purchaser shall obtain written consent of his or her parents in order to qualify for the purchase of any firearm.
5. Prior to the sale of any firearm, a purchaser shall:
(1) Be required to view a thirty-minute video on fatal firearm injuries, as collected by urban medical professionals, law enforcement, and local prosecutors, and verify in writing he or she viewed the entire video in the presence of a licensed firearm dealer. Such video shall be approved by the department of public safety; and
(2) Verify in writing by a licensed physician that the purchaser has toured an emergency trauma center in the nearest qualified urban hospital on a weekend between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. when gun violence victims are present.
6. Within seventy-two hours of a firearm purchase, the prospective firearm purchaser shall meet with at least two families who have been victims of violence involving a firearm and two local faith leaders who have officiated, within the past year, a funeral of a victim of violence involving a firearm who was under the age of eighteen.

571.702. Any entity that sells firearms, ammunition, or accessories, or any entity that instructs or trains individuals in the use of firearms, shall be disqualified from receiving state funds and shall be ineligible for any state-administered or subsidized tax credit, tax abatement, or loan pursuant to chapter 32, 100, 135, 253, 447, or 620. Any entity that is found to be ineligible for a state-administered or subsidized tax credit, tax abatement, or loan under this section may make an appeal with the administrative hearing commission pursuant to the provisions of chapter 621.

Alrighty then.

Previously:

Rep. Stacey Newman (D): about those guns… (December 12, 2016)

HB 1586: thou shalt not kettle

11 Monday Dec 2017

Posted by in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri House, Resist

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

Or indiscriminately spray chemicals on and beat peaceful protesters.

Representative Bruce Franks, Jr. (D) [2017 file photo]

A bill, prefiled today:

HB 1586
Establishes the “Protestors’ Bill of Rights”
Sponsor: Franks Jr., Bruce (078)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2018
LR Number: 5295H.01I
Last Action: 12/11/2017 – Prefiled (H)
Bill String: HB 1586
[….]

The bill text:

SECOND REGULAR SESSION
HOUSE BILL NO. 1586 [pdf]
99TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE FRANKS JR. 5295H.01I D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To amend chapter 590, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to protesters’ rights.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:

Section A. Chapter 590, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 590.825, to read as follows: 590.825.
1. The provisions of this section shall be known and may be cited as the “Protesters’ Bill of Rights”.
2. Except as provided in subsection 3 of this section, no law enforcement officer or agency shall declare an unlawful assembly under the provisions of section 574.040 for the sole purpose of punishing persons for exercising their constitutional rights to engage in 6 expressive activity, nor shall any law enforcement officer or agency:
(1) Use chemical agents, whatever the method of deployment, against any person engaged in expressive, nonviolent activity in the absence of probable cause to arrest the person and without first issuing clear and unambiguous warnings that the person is subject to arrest and that such chemical agents will be used, and providing the person sufficient opportunity to heed the warnings and comply with lawful law enforcement commands;
(2) Use or threaten to use chemical agents, whatever the method of deployment, against any person engaged in expressive, nonviolent activity for the purpose of punishing the person for exercising his or her constitutional rights; or
(3) Issue orders or use chemical agents, whatever the method of deployment, for the purpose of dispersing persons engaged in expressive, nonviolent activity without first specifying, with reasonable particularity, the area from which dispersal is ordered; issuing audible and unambiguous orders in a manner designed to notify all persons within the area that dispersal is required and providing sufficient warnings of the consequences of failing to disperse including, where applicable, that chemical agents will be used; providing a sufficient and announced amount of time that is proximately related to the issuance of the dispersal order in which to heed the warnings and exit the area; and announcing and ensuring a means of safe egress from the area that is actually available to all persons.
3. The provisions of subsection 2 shall not apply when persons at the scene present an imminent threat of violence or bodily harm to persons or damage to property, or where law enforcement officers or agencies are required to defend themselves or other persons or property against imminent threat of violence.
4. For purposes of this section, “chemical agents” includes, but is not limited to, mace or oleoresin capsicum spray; mist, pepper spray, or pepper gas; tear gas; skunk; inert smoke; pepper pellets; and xylyl bromide.

It’s telling (and sad) that this even has to be addressed by legislation. But it needs to be.

Again: “…Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard…”

11 Monday Dec 2017

Posted by in Resist

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

Along U.S. 50 Highway in west central Missouri:

Someone’s opinion.

In 1943, in a time of war, no less:

WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION ET AL. v. BARNETTE ET AL., 319 U.S. 624

[….]

….To sustain the compulsory flag salute we are required to say that a Bill of Rights which guards the individual’s right to speak his own mind, left it open to public authorities to compel him to utter what is not in his mind.

Whether the First Amendment to the Constitution will permit officials to order observance of ritual of this nature does not depend upon whether as a voluntary exercise we would think it to be good, bad or merely innocuous. Any credo of nationalism is likely to include what some disapprove or to omit what others think essential, and to give off different overtones as it takes on different accents or interpretations. If official power exists to coerce acceptance of any patriotic creed, what it shall contain cannot be decided by courts, but must be largely discretionary with the ordaining authority, whose power to prescribe would no doubt include power to amend. Hence validity of the asserted power to force an American citizen publicly to profess any statement of belief or to engage in any ceremony of assent to one presents questions of power that must be considered independently of any idea we may have as to the utility of the ceremony in question….

[….]

….Struggles to coerce uniformity of sentiment in support of some end thought essential to their time and country have been waged by many good as well as by evil men. Nationalism is a relatively recent phenomenon but at other times and places the ends have been racial or territorial security, support of a dynasty or regime, and particular plans for saving souls. As first and moderate methods to attain unity have failed, those bent on its accomplishment must resort to an ever-increasing severity. [319 U.S. 624, 641] As governmental pressure toward unity becomes greater, so strife becomes more bitter as to whose unity it shall be. Probably no deeper division of our people could proceed from any provocation than from finding it necessary to choose what doctrine and whose program public educational officials shall compel youth to unite in embracing. Ultimate futility of such attempts to compel coherence is the lesson of every such effort from the Roman drive to stamp out Christianity as a disturber of its pagan unity, the Inquisition, as a means to religious and dynastic unity, the Siberian exiles as a means to Russian unity, down to the fast failing efforts of our present totalitarian enemies. Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.

It seems trite but necessary to say that the First Amendment to our Constitution was designed to avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings. There is no mysticism in the American concept of the State or of the nature or origin of its authority. We set up government by consent of the governed, and the Bill of Rights denies those in power any legal opportunity to coerce that consent. Authority here is to be controlled by public opinion, not public opinion by authority.

The case is made difficult not because the principles of its decision are obscure but because the flag involved is our own. Nevertheless, we apply the limitations of the Constitution with no fear that freedom to be intellectually and spiritually diverse or even contrary will disintegrate the social organization. To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds. We can have intellectual individualism [319 U.S. 624, 642] and the rich cultural diversities that we owe to exceptional minds only at the price of occasional eccentricity and abnormal attitudes. When they are so harmless to others or to the State as those we deal with here, the price is not too great. But freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order.

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us….

[….]

Previously:

On “patriotic” pearl clutching (August 28, 2016)

“…Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard…” (September 24, 2017)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): jump on that publicity stunt bandwagon (October 8, 2017)

Gov. Eric Greitens (r): high or petty (October 11, 2017)

HB 1528: micromanagement

08 Friday Dec 2017

Posted by in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri House

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

Representative Dean Dohrman (r) [2016 file photo].

A bill, prefiled on Wednesday:

HB 1528
Requires students at public and private institutions of higher education to pass an examination on the provisions and principals of American civics as a condition of graduation
Sponsor: Dohrman, Dean (051)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2018
LR Number: 5087H.01I
Last Action: 12/06/2017 – Prefiled (H)
Bill String: HB 1528
[….]

Who’s going to pay for this new unfunded mandate?

The bill text, as prefiled:

SECOND REGULAR SESSION
HOUSE BILL NO. 1528 [pdf]
99TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY
INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE DOHRMAN. 5087H.01I D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk
AN ACT

To amend chapter 170, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to the Missouri higher education civics achievement examination.

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

Section A. Chapter 170, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be 2 known as section 170.013, to read as follows:

170.013. 1. Any student pursuing an associate’s or bachelor’s degree from a public or private institution of higher education, except those attending private trade schools, shall successfully pass an examination on the provisions and principles of American civics with a score of seventy percent or greater as a condition of graduation from such institution. The examination shall be known as the “Missouri Higher Education Civics Achievement Examination”.
2. The examination required under this section shall consist of at least fifty questions, but shall not exceed one hundred questions, and shall be similar to the one hundred questions administered to applicants for United States citizenship by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services division of the Department of Homeland Security. Subject matter on the examination shall include the United States Constitution, the United States Bill of Rights, governmental institutions, historical manifestations of federalism, and history of constitutional interpretation and amendments.
3. The examination required under this section may be included within any other examination that is administered on the provisions and principles of the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the state of Missouri, and in American history and American institutions, as required in subsection 3 of section 170.011.
4. Institutions of higher education may use online testing to comply with the provisions of this section.

I could be good with this if the members of the Missouri General Assembly had to take and pass the same test before they could be sworn in. But we should expect a higher passing score from them, right?