I don’t do caffeine unless I’m desperate, but Friday was a mind-numbingly boring day, and Diet Coke was called for as I observed a full day of the recount in the Attorney General’s race and the Fifth Senatorial, where Robin Wright-Jones had edged past Rodney Hubbard by only 101 votes.

First, I observed workers (always one Democrat and one Republican) take turns going through paper absentee ballots. One young woman used a rubber thimble on her middle finger to help her pick up the pieces of paper one by one. (Everybody else dipped two fingers in a pink paste called SORTKWIK to make their fingers sticky.) While her partner watched, she either put a ballot in the pile of those correctly marked or, occasionally, in the pile reserved for screwups who can’t fil in a bubble with a pen. That latter pile would be hand counted later.

Apparently I missed what minimal “excitement” was to be had when, on the previous two days, the hand count of paper ballots cast on primary day took place. Some discussion of voter intent occurred in the case of a few ballots. Perhaps four or five of them are still in dispute–a far cry from anything that would change the result in either race.

On the day I was there, the ballots that had been filled in correctly were taken to another room and fed through an optical scanner (by one Republican and one Democrat, of course). The ballots were then packed up in boxes of five hundred, sealed, and initialed by both people.

At other tables, pairs of workers were tallying the votes on what looked like long rolls of cash register tape from touchscreen machines. They sat across from each other with a long four inch wide board that had a couple of metal brackets screwed into it eight inches apart. They pulled the tape under those brackets. One set of votes exactly fit between the brackets, so one worker would pull the tape through to each new set of votes. His partner would read the votes in the two races being recounted, and the one who pulled the tape toward himself would record the votes on paper.

At the end of each tape, the workers compared the number of votes listed at the end of the machine’s paper trail with their own handwritten tally. What they hoped for, and usually got, was a match. On one occasion where the paper tally was off by one vote, they had to run all that tape under the brackets and recount. Fifteen minutes. Bummer. The young man whose count was off flushed at his mistake.

Of the half dozen observers in the room, only one was actually attempting to write down the totals each pair of counters came up with. That was a man who was there on behalf of Wright-Jones. He pointed out to me that 270 rolls of votes would be counted in the Fifth Senatorial race. Since only 101 votes separated Wright Jones from Hubbard, a one vote difference on less than half the rolls could change the outcome, so he was keeping a close eye out.

You know I don’t trust touch screen machines or op scans either, for that matter. But the people running the recount and those doing the counting acted as if their reputations were on the line. They answered any questions we had and were scrupulous about following the rules. Although one pair of counters miscounted the same roll three times in a row, everybody else remained admirably alert despite the monotonous task at hand.

So human error was not much of an issue. Machine malfunctions cost the workers far more of their time. An indecipherable ink mess caused by a paper jam could occur near the end of a roll, necessitating that the roll be reprinted and recounted. For example, at the end of one particularly huge roll, an ink mess threw the count off. The hand count showed Koster one vote short of the machine tally. Since a vote was obviously hidden in the ink mess, and although that vote was “almost surely” for Koster, they reprinted the roll to be recounted. Sigh.

One pair of counters ran into four straight rolls with printer jams. SIGH. I would put the number of rolls with ink messes that necessitated a reprint somewhere around 15-20 percent.

Another complication was that occasionally a printer had stopped and later started again without making an ink mess. While the printer was stopped, people voted and the machine counted those votes even though the printer failed to record them. The only way to know when that had occurred was when the hand count produced fewer votes than the machine said it had counted.

The recount was obviously being run on the up and up, but I mentioned my dislike of voting machines to Kyle Dubbert, who seemed to be in charge. His official title is “Policy Supervisor” and he’s a Republican. He said that if enough audits are conducted, then he would catch any widespread discrepancy between what the machines tallied and what the printers printed out. He  told me that the city conducted more audits than the state requires. The state requires an audit of one precinct for every 100 precincts. The city conducted five audits out of 203 precincts, which is about 2 1/2 percent of the precincts. Kyle said that if they’d had more workers, they’d have done more audits in the two weeks they had for that.

The other possible kind of fraud that concerns e-voting activists is that the machine would record a different vote than what was intended as well as print a different vote than intended. Kyle felt that the only protection against that possibility is for voters to examine their printed receipts, and he said the city urges them to do that. Of course, considering that many people are careless enough to vote in downticket races on whether they like the sound of a name, it doesn’t seem likely that most of them will double check voting receipts.

In any case, we’re stuck with the machines, and the recount is proceeding even as I type, probably. I see no indication that either race is going to come out any differently.

DNR director Doyle Childers is a brick wall. Environmentalists and ordinary rural people are welcome to bat their heads against him on the CAFO issue, but he knows their warnings about leaky lagoons are a bunch of henny penny the sky is falling nonsense. But sometimes even a brick wall can’t hold back a flood. Six days ago, the K.C. Star reported that officials are worried about CAFO lagoons overflowing or collapsing.

Along the Mississippi River, they’re watching the levees. In northern Missouri, they’re watching the walls of lagoons holding back millions of gallons of animal waste.

Rains this week were filling waste lagoons on industrial farms, and some were leaking and overflowing.

State officials, worried that lagoon walls might collapse, have told farmers that they can lower lagoon levels by spraying the waste on fields, even though the ground was soaked from rainfall.

No doubt spraying the waste on the fields is better than watching a lagoon wall break, but spraying is no solution either. When the ground is soaked, the excrement still flows off into local streams.

“This could result in an unprecedented environmental disaster,” said Scott Dye, national director of the Sierra Club’s Water Sentinel program. Several thousand gallons of waste from a lagoon leaked Thursday into a stream that flows through Dye’s family farm near Unionville.

A collapsed lagoon would be even worse, Dye said.

“I have no idea how you clean up 25 million gallons of hog (waste),” he said. “This is exactly why people are opposed to them.”

Fifteen years ago, before CAFOs proliferated in Missouri, we had the flood of ’93. Remember that? I do. But nobody worried about CAFO levees then because hogs–and their waste–were scattered all over the state, not concentrated in an acre here and another acre there.

Jeff Harris, running for Attorney General, wants to see these disasters-in-the-making reined in. This year, he sponsored legislation (that went nowhere in the Republican General Assembly) to keep CAFOs at least five miles from state parks and to grant local control of CAFOs.

His latest press release says:

“Right now, our local communities have no control over where these corporate farms get built, and that has got to stop,” said Harris. “Right now, the state closes its doors and prevents the people who know the land best from even being heard. As Attorney General, I will stand up for Missourians and against Big Ag, corporate interests and the political appointees who let them have their way.”

Harris will force DNR to pay attention to local communities and to consider their concerns and opposition before approving new CAFOs. Harris will go after corporate farms that contaminate the ground and water, holding them accountable and making them pay to clean up the mess they leave behind.

Good ‘tude, dude. But how do you “force” the DNR to listen? I called him and asked.

Harris said that the AG cannot, of course, pass laws or regulations, but he can certainly propose them, and the weight of the office goes a long way toward making them happen. He assumes that if and when Jay is governor, Childers will be history, and the new DNR director will be more amenable to passing regulations that control some of the CAFO problems.

On the other hand, I pointed out, Harris would have no vote in the legislature. And yet his press release speaks of giving local communities control over the building of CAFOs. Jeff responded:

“I believe that I would have an even stronger position as Attorney General to advocate for those things that we want changed. As an example, in ’03–the winter of ’03, the 2004 session–I sponsored the legislation–but Jay was the one pushing it–that upgraded the Sunshine Law. In fact, we did a fly around. We went to Hannibal and St. Louis and Columbia, and some, one other place, did a big press fly around, followed up with joint press releases. And even though it was my legislation, it was clearly part of his legislative agenda.”

Getting such CAFO legislation passed should be easier next year than this year because there will almost surely be a larger proportion of Democrats in the legislature, enough so that with a few Republican allies, and a governor who wouldn’t veto it, local control could happen. Jeff added:

“Correct. I could build on my legislative leadership experience to get my agenda through the general assembly. I mean, I understand how the process works, having been the leader, and on top of that I know a lot of the personalities involved.”

All this is not to say that Harris’ opponent, Margaret Donnelly, feels any differently about CAFOs than he does. She has opposed them and shown it in her votes.

His other opponent, Chris Koster, on the other hand, last year introduced legislation to strip away whatever minimal local control existed. It would have been bad enough to have voted for such legislation, but to introduce it?

The threat of a broken lagoon wall hovers over much of the state. It would make the Taum Sauk reservoir failure look like a bubble bath. And it is raining even as I type. But Lord willin’ and the creek lagoon don’t rise, we’ll start to take sensible measures on this issue once the Democrats have more power in Missouri.

The photo, from flickr, is an aerial view of Whitetail Hog Cafo, Missouri. Those things that look like steps are hog barns, and the barns in the center of the picture are flanked by two lagoons.

Democratic Attorney General Debate in Kansas City, part 1

Democratic Attorney General Debate in Kansas City, part 2

Democratic Attorney General Debate in Kansas City, part 3

The panel and the candidates at the end of the debate

A transcript of the panel questions and candidate answers follows (from approximately the 45 minute mark in the 90 minute debate to the end).

The transcript:

…Moderator: Mr. Wesson the next question is for Representative Donnelly.

Eric Wesson: The difficult part about this is all three of you are lawyers and all three of you sound very compelling. But I think we need to kind of get down to the nitty gritty ’cause I think we kind of side swiped some things. I’m gonna go back to something that you sais earlier. You said that you supported the death penalty and as Attorney General that you would make sure that there is sufficient resources. So in other words, I’m takin’ that to mean that right now you don’t think that there is sufficient resources. And I ask you, do you think that some innocent people have been killed, executed in Missouri?

Margaret Donnelly: I think for any of us the thought that there would be an innocent person who lost his or her life is very chilling. When I made that statement about not having sufficient resources, I think you just look at the appeals as they’re handled, and many of them are thrown back for retrials, errors. And what I’m saying, that we’ve got to start back and look, and I’ve heard it time and again, in the budget process, wee need to beef up the resources that are available to handle those capital cases, so that, repeat what I said, the juries have confidence. We need to beef up those resources sp that we are doing everything in our power to have the right evidence and the right tools.

Moderator: Mr. Kraske, I’m sorry, Mr. Arce the next question is for Senator Koster.

Joe Arce: I wanted [garbled] to get your opinion of Margaret’s, or should I say your response to Margaret’s comments in regards to you switching parties.

Chris Koster: Can you be more specific in terms of what you wanted me to discuss [crosstalk]?

Joe Arce: She pointed out several things earlier and her concerns about you. And I kind of wanted to give, give you an opportunity to respond to that.

Chris Koster: Well, let me take an opportunity, then to respond to the Medicaid issue. I entered the legislature in January of two thousand and five. And the state was in a six hundred million dollar budget sit…deficit situation. Senate Bill 539 came to the floor, and as I’ve said on a number of occasions, including my speech in October to the Democratic Central Committee in St. Louis, my vote for Senate Bill 539 was something that I consider to be a mistake. 539 over reached, even in the face of a six hundred million dollar deficit, I think that time has proven that bottom line costs were elevated above human costs. And had I to do it over again, I wouldn’t. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I would be surprised if each of us didn’t have some vote that they regretted during the course of their career. The question is not do you regret a vote exclusively, the question is what do you do after you have realized that, to change, to grow, or to make it right. In two thousand and six I was chairman of the Senate select committee to investigate Medicaid provider fraud in the state. Five hundred million dollars that is being stolen by the twenty, no, thirty five thousand contracting agents to the Medicaid, the six billion dollar Medicaid system. We produced legislation in two thousand and six, it passed in 2007. And utilizing that tool within the Attorney general’s office to crack down on Medicaid provider fraud will be job one. In two thousand and seven I voted to return ninety thousand women to the Medicaid rolls for women’s health care issues. In 2007 I voted to add back four thousand handicapped individuals through the ticket to work program that gave them day attendants to help put them back, put these individuals back into the workforce. 2007 I added, voted to add back seven thousand youngsters into the children’s health insurance program. I voted for nine million dollars for eye and dental care. This year, in 2008, I voted to add in fifty two thousand of the individuals who lost their health care in two thousand and five, back into the system. And also in two thousand and seven voted to return the durable medical equipment, the wheel chair battery example, back into the budget. We need to rebuild the Medicaid system. We need to do it responsibly, because one of the real unfortunate things is that the preliminary prognosis for two thousand and ten is another six hundred million dollar budget deficit. But over the course of whatever time I have in public service rebuilding it responsibly will be a priority.

Moderator: Mr. Kraske the next question is for Representative Harris.

Steve Kraske: Jeff I wanted to ask you about Attorney General Nixon, a couple of years ago was under very intense scrutiny for not only accepting, but having had a campaign aide actually seek out campaign donations from Amren while he was, while, while Nixon was overseeing a criminal probe of the Tam Sauk [sp] reservoir collapse. Amren, of course, operates the reservoir. So my question is was it appropriate for the Attorney general to accept those donations? Was it appropriate for him to even solicit them through his aides? And what’s your policy going to be when it comes to campaign donations from the people you’re out there investigating?

Jeff Harris: Steve my policy is going to be not to solicit, personally solicit, and nor would anyone on my staff at my direction solicit contributions from entities or persons who have litigation or matters that are pending before the office, or that could be reasonably foreseen to be pending. The key there is reasonable foreseeability because theoretically anyone could have a case. There must be a reasonableness standard similar to the standard that I have advocated for Public Service Commission commissioners in discussions that they should have with utilities that would reasonably, foreseeably have matters pending before them. That would be my policy in the office. To address the predicate of the first part of your question, I don’t know that it has been established that Attorney general Nixon directed anyone to solicit those contributions at the time that the matter was pending. Campaigns are big operations, you have a lot of people who are acting on your behalf, you don’t always know what people are doing. I will tell you though, that is what my policy will be.

Moderator: Mr. quest…Mr. Mahoney the next question is for Representative Donnelly.

Mike Mahoney: Representative Donnelly Attorney General Jay Nixon has tried a couple of times now, and failed to ban those automated robocalls that campaigns use. Senator Koster said that there’s been [garbled] the dinner hour. Will you continue that pursuit of, of banning those and banning them for, not only home phone, but the cell, cell phones and faxes?

Margaret Donnelly: When you get a robocall for yourself at home you know that things have probably gone to far when they’re saying, “Call Representative Donnelly and tell her today to do this.” So I think we can all agree it’s probably gone too far. The simple answer is yes, I do believe that there can be regulation on political robocalls that meets the free speech political requirements. I have actually, have attempted to offer an amendment several different times on campaign finance legislation. Unfortunately since we only spent twenty five minutes on this year’s bill, and they only allo
wed one amendment to be offered, my amendment which I had drafted this year to do…the, the first step, I think, is to be sure that anyone who’s making a phone call to you has to identify who is making the call because that’s a great danger. Right now you have no one identifying who is making the call, so I think if even a live person is making the call we need to say who’s paying for it. If we need to have “paid for by” on all our media and mail we absolutely need it on telephone call, it’s required by Federal law, and it should be, and that was my this year’s amendment and I have signed on and helped offer amendments, signed on to bills and offered the amendments to actually to stop the robocalls for political purposes as well.

Moderator: Mr. Wesson the next question is for Senator Koster.

Eric Wesson: Senator in your opening you said that you had established relationships with minority communities throughout the state, and I didn’t understand if that was as a Republican or a Democrat. [laughter] But my question was, what are you gonna do as Attorney general to increase diversity in the Attorney General’s office in Kansas City and other [garbled] cities?

Chris Koster: Several things. The first thing is, I think the time has come when the size of the Jefferson City office can be reduced, and the size of the St. Louis and Kansas City office can be expanded. One of the big issues with regard to recruiting a diverse pool of young lawyers into the office has been the reality that Jefferson City just doesn’t look like the rest of the State of Missouri, everybody knows it. And when young, intelligent African American and minority attorneys come out of law schools in St. Louis and Kansas City a lot of times, for social structure reasons, they don’t want to move to Jefferson City and take up a new life there. So out of the things I want to do is, right now I think we have fifty four attorneys in St. Louis and twenty one in Kansas City, and I would like to see within two years those built up by about fifty per cent, I think it could probably be accomplished in the first two years, commensurate shrinking of the Jefferson City office. And what that is gonna do is make more jobs available in, in the places, first of all, where the case load is increasing. And in the places where social network exists where I hope we could recruit more aggressively in, from the minority communities [crosstalk].

Eric Wesson: When you said twenty one, is that twenty one minorities or is that twenty one total?

Chris Koster: That’s twenty one attorneys in Kansas City.

Eric Wesson: Okay.

Chris Koster: There are twenty one attorneys in Kansas City today and I’d like to see that get to thirty five, thirty, thirty five. I’d like to see St. Louis go from fifty four to seventy five. And so we need to bring the jobs to where the people are and bring the jobs to the communities rather than ask the communities to come to the jobs.

Moderator: Mr. Arce the next question is for Representative Harris.

Joe Arce: I’m gonna go ahead and follow up with that question in regards to the diversity within the office. Because I hear, Chris, your comments constantly but it seem to me there has to be a change, you know, we hear the same rhetoric time after time after time we cannot find these people because of the budgets or what have you. But, it’s a predominantly white organization. So again, how would you change that?

Jeff Harris: I’d do a number of things, Joe, and I’m glad you followed up on Eric’s question. And by the way, my comments are not a knock on my former boss Jay Nixon, I think he’s done a great job as Attorney General and I know that he has tried to make this office look like the State of Missouri. It’s a challenge. Right now in the office, speaking from the attorney side, about nine per cent of the attorneys in the office are persons of color. The statewide average for law, large law firms is about six per cent. So it’s a little better than large law firms. But we can do better. And we can do it in a number of different ways. I will tell you that I intend to visit with the director of human resources of the office to increase the diversity of the office, both on the staff side, because you remember we have nearly as many staff people, both legal assistant investigators and secretaries, was we do lawyers. And I want to just, let’s say it, there’s no quota system in place, but it is important that the people’s law firm look like the people of the State of Missouri. And if you look at the Blue Book, right now, and this isn’t a knock against Jay at all, if you look at the Blue Book, the state’s manual, that shows the photos of people who are in the administrative part of the office, all of them look like me. Okay. It’s all white people. I think I can do better than that. And I intend to do better than that. And it’s a challenge with resources. But you know people go into government service, I left my job here to go into government service as an Assistant Attorney General under Jay Nixon because I want to make the world a better place. And there are all kinds of young lawyers out there who want to be inspired by the same vision, who want to work for a Democratic Attorney general who’s gonna embody their values, who’s gonna be a person of integrity, who’s gonna make them believe that they’re making the world a better place every single day. And that’s, that’s how we can improve the diversity of the office.

Moderator: Mr. Kraske the next question is for Representative Donnelly.

Steve Kraske: Margaret I have a question about, I’m gonna go back to the open records law which is of course very important to reporters here and everywhere across the state. Should the Attorney General have a role in handling rejections of open records requests as Attorneys general do in many other states? And should the AG be the place to go for appeals of denials of open records requests?

Margaret Donnelly: I think transparency in government has to be a number one goal for all of us. And so to strengthen the ability of the Attorney General to actually take action when the requests are rejected does seem to me to be a good first step. Because I know frequently the rejection happen and individuals don’t have the resources to go out and actually sue, and so it just kind of languishes and local prosecutors who have other responsibilities are not always willing to take up that cause. So I think we have to look to the Attorney general’s office to provide more coordinated response to be able to open up government. People are sick and tired of closed government. And, I, you all may know, on my own I filed a lawsuit this year against the Ethics Commission to open up hearings on the over limit contributions. Because I felt so strongly that the action they were taking to close those hearings, so no one knew what was happening with who was claiming hardship as to why they did not have to turn over their campaign contributions was, it was wrong. So I think that the Attorney General is the office for people who would find it burdensome and expensive to file a lawsuit on their own should be able to have that [garbled].

Moderator: Mr. Mahoney the next question is for Senator Koster.

Mike Mahoney: Senator, I think it was a week ago tonight, you participated in a filibuster on the repeal of the village bill that lasted until well in the morning, four a.m., something like that. You told reporters later that you did that ’cause you feared that they might be able to bring up the photo ID bill and get that passed. That’s how I, how I understand it. What is wrong with having a Missourian prove who they are at the polls?

Chris Koster: The, so the question is… [crosstalk]

Mike Mahoney: Right, it’s more important, the ID question. You were, you were part of that filibuster ’cause you feared that bill. The basic question is, what was wrong with making voters prove who they are?

Chris Koster: Okay, there, I kind of hear two questions in there. [crossta
lk] The first question is about the filibuster and Senator Callahan’s in here somewhere, he’s over there. When we walked in at two o’clock on Monday afternoon last week I was standing with Senator Callahan against the back wall of the Senate and said to him, “The biggest problem we have right now is we’ve got too much time left on the clock.”  In all the preceding years we would have a lot of issues that were still going through the legislature and this year there were a relatively few in comparison to previous years. And the situation for majority mischief and shoving ideological bills through the system in the last days was dangerous. The first three days of the week went relatively smoothly and then on Thursday Senator Callahan and I had an opportunity to gobble up seventeen hours of the last twenty four hours of the session, in which, rather than waiting for the Republicans to launch on us, we essential took a small group of guys that included Senator Graham and Senator Smith and launched on them. They didn’t expect it, it threw off the rest of the session, but when we left at four a.m. on Friday morning we had an understanding that voter ID would not come up on Friday. With regard to why is it, what is the appropriateness of showing IDs? The, the Jim Baker Jimmy Carter report from several years ago was a bipartisan attempt to address this issue. What occurred in two thousand and six was an attempt to do it too fast. If some type of a Baker Carter solution is pushed through it needed to be done over a long extended period of time, such as four to six years, so that people had time to digest it. And really, as I have spent a lot of time in the communities in St, Louis and in Kansas City, have listened to the pain that this legislation, the threat was felt in the community as a result of the 2006 vote which is why Senator Callahan and I did what we did this week to try and stop it from returning.

Moderator: Mr. Wesson the next question is for Representative Harris.

Eric Wesson: Representative Harris, protector of consumers, that’s what you said in your opening statement. I watched on TV the past couple of days, I watched oil executives talk about making forty billion dollars in profits in the first three months of this year, the first quarter of this year rather. What would you do, or what will you do, if elected Attorney General, to address the gas prices in the State of Missouri? There has to be some gouging. I paid three dollars and eighty six cents for a gallon of gas today.

Jeff Harris: Sure.

Eric Wesson: What would you do to regulate that industry?

Jeff Harris: Let me address that. I want to briefly follow up though on Senator Koster’s response to the prior question. I have to tell ya, I’m not sure I agree with the predicate of Mike’s question or with Senator Koster’s response…

Eric Wesson: Okay, you’re on my time. [laughter]

Jeff Harris: Okay.

Eric Wesson: You need to answer my question.

Jeff Harris: Let me answer your question first and then I’ll follow up.

Eric Wesson: Okay.

Jeff Harris: I do think we need to strengthen our price gouging law in the State of Missouri. Right now, you know, it’s appalling. I travel all over the state, it’s appalling that we’re paying, you know, of we see a sign that says three fifty nine a gallon and we think that that’s some sort of break. And it’s appalling to me that at the very same time that we’re paying those prices at the pump that executives are making millions and millions and millions dollars. As Attorney General I want a stronger price gouging law that, that increases penalties for price gouging, for monopolistic anti-competitive behavior. I’d also like to explore the hot fuel issue. Now, having said all that, I want to follow up. I believe that Senator Koster, well, let me just say this. In troubles me that he selectively filibustered, didn’t continuously filibuster on the day before session ended. He filibustered only that village law repeal which the Speaker of the House wanted. It was his pet project, a sweetheart deal that he did it for a developer and, as a matter of fact, it’s been reported that Senator Koster met with Speaker Jetton that week. So, I have some, I have some serious concerns about Senator Koster’s repeated votes to put a photo ID law in place in 2006 and I was concerned, I have to tell you, very concerned when he was filibustering the village law repeal.

Moderator: Mr. Arce the next question is for Representative Donnelly. And I think we’ll have time for one more question for each of the three candidates.

Joe Arce: Representative Donnelly you were very concerned about the toys, in some of your information you have out there regards to toys that are coming from China, toys that are not healthy for children. Can you elaborate a little bit about that, you’re very protective of that.

Margaret Donnelly: The question leads to the over all observation that we have to have a strong Federal response to the issue of the flood of unsafe products from China and other countries. The, at the Federal level there’s been just a total dereliction of duty to provide that oversight. So states are going to have to step up to the plate and do something about it. It’s not the best response, but it is a response. And that would be to model, to have a model law based on what’s been done in eight other states. That would be the first step. And that is a children’s products safety bill. What this would do would mandate that recalls. It would mandate, would…It would have mandatory recalls because right now many of us aren’t aware that recalls at the Federal level actually do not require a retailer or manufacturer to take them out of the stream of commerce. It is a voluntary process. And so my bill would mandate that when there is a Federal recall they get off the shelves within a certain period of time. And it would give fines to the retailers for failure to do that or to properly post the notices. I had the opportunity to visit with the Attorney General in Illinois right after the flood of the recalls of toys last summer and she indicated that because they have that children’s products safety code that when they send investigators out forty per cent of the retailers still had either not removed the items or had improperly posted the recall notices. So a parent who bought it the week before wouldn’t know necessarily that that was a recalled product. So it is a response to the failure of the Federal government and I think it is an absolutely appropriate response because parents, you know feel like they’re going in and playing Russian roulette when they’re buying toys. I’ve had many parents with young kids say they just were appalled when they went through their kid’s toy boxes and found out what was in there.

Moderator: Mr. Kraske the next question is for Senator Koster.

Steve Kraske: Senator I’m not sure I quite understood Representative Harris’ statement about the filibuster at the end of the session, but it sounded kind of nefarious, what he was saying about you, selective filibuster [laughter] and that kind of thing. I want to give you a chance to respond to that. And would you also answer the same question I asked before about the differences between the three of you? You’ve already given us your resume, your job application process, tell us, but tell us why you, and not the other two, in this primary campaign.

Chris Koster: Well, well I appreciate my colleague’s insight into the inner workings of the Senate, it is, there are strategies and opportunities that are available in the Senate that are simply different that are available in the House. And at the end of the day the proof is in the pudding. The voter ID bill came through the House of Representatives and was not stopped there. But with the help of intelligent and wily colleagues of mine we were able to use creative solutions to stop the bill from coming to the floor in the Missouri Senate. And the reality is when, when we walked off the floor, and it’
s a give and take, you know, there was extraordinary anger in the building that night, and without, I hope I’m not breeching confidences, the reality is that at three in the morning I’m looking at one of my colleagues going “you know, we take this too far and it, the thing could back fire.” So, there’s a give and take in terms of how much pressure you let build up in either chamber. And I think both of us believed that somewhere around four o’clock in the morning we had run this thing as far as we were gonna go without it back firing. We walked out of the building that night with a very good solution and one that gave us confidence that actually neither abortion legislation nor voter ID would come to the Senate floor the next day.

Differences. Is that what you want [crosstalk]?

Steve Kraske: Tell us why you and not the other two.

Chris Koster: But I burned a lot of time on the first question. But let me just say, you know, I think at the end of the day it’s about experience. The office of Attorney General will either be, will either, the next occupant of that office will either steer that office or be steered by it. And the experience that comes from trying cases year in and year out throughout rural Missouri and the, in the Supreme Court, adds a depth of oversight that I think is unique to this candidacy. You can’t train someone to do that which you are not experienced in doing yourself. I’m the only candidate in this entire race, on either side of the political aisle, that has a depth of trial experience that we, that is being brought to this candidacy. Be…adding a hands on approach to the management of the attorney system, as well as being able to go into court and do it yourself, is a quality of leadership that I think that the office will benefit from.

Moderator: Mr. Mahoney the last question for Representative Harris.

Mike Mahoney: Mr. Harris, actually and we haven’t touched on this very much, Representative Harris, and that is probably the biggest thing that, that the AG’s office does and that is consumer protection. A specific reform that you would offer in consumer protection.

Jeff Harris: You bet. Well there are a lot of things that we want to do. I will push for changes in the law regarding sub prime mortgages that would give the [crosstalk], that would, that would give the Attorney General a private right of action and create a fiduciary duty on the part of lenders to act, not in their own best self interest, but in the interest of borrowers. In the Attorney General’s office, in addition, Mike, I intend to have a special counsel that will address child exploitation, that is to make sure that we have preventative measures in place and that we also have someone who can be dedicated to going after those who would take advantage of our most vulnerable kids. I also want to see us, it’s important that we preserve and protect our quality of life in the State of Missouri, and that means protecting and preserving family farms and clean water and clean air. And, which means going after confined or concentrated animal feeding operations. That will certainly be a priority of this office. In addition, it is important that the consumers of this state have a real voice in rate making and utility rate proceedings. What I want to see is the Office of Public Counsel, which is the voice of consumers, moved from the Department of Economic Development to the Attorney General’s office. There, there are fifteen other states, Mike, that, that do this. And this is consistent with the functions and the role of the office, it is, you are the people’s lawyer. The primary responsibility of the Attorney General’s office, you’re not the Jackson County or Boone County prosecutor, you are the number one consumer champion, consumer advocate, for the people of this state. And that’s why the public counsel should be in the office of the Attorney General. And on day two there’s a lot more we do, too. [laughter]

Moderator: Now we come time for closing so we can keep everybody on schedule. We will reverse the order we started with. So we will start with Representative Harris.

Jeff Harris: Well, thank you all. And thank all the panelists here and thank everyone in attendance here this evening for not just coming here, but for all of the great work that all of you do that is members of the CCP, the campaign team members here for all the candidates, and UMKC Young Democrats. Thank you for all you do for our Democratic Party. I think you’ve seen that there are clear differences between the candidates in this race and there are clear reasons to support our candidacy, my candidacy. I served. I’m the only candidate in this race to serve as an Assistant Attorney General under Attorney General Jay Nixon, under a Democratic Attorney General. And as Jay Nixon, as an Assistant Attorney General under Jay, I defended the rights of public employees to collectively bargain in state government when Governor Holden’s executive order was under attack from then Senator Peter Kinder and the Chamber of Commerce and others. I was also the Democratic Leader in the House of Representatives at a very critical juncture in our state’s history. When we needed leadership, when we needed someone to fight and stand up against the hateful and immoral Medicaid cuts. And I have consistently, throughout my career in public service, fought for a level playing field. That’s what this job is all about. You know, the world these days is a little more uncertain, it’s a little more insecure, our people are a little more insecure, than we used to be. What we need in the Attorney General’s office, having had an AG that we can count on to stand up for us for the last sixteen years, what we need in the AG’s office is someone that we know, who we know will be there for us. Someone who has never wavered in his or her convictions, someone who has never wavered in his or her principles, someone who has always been there, who has been consistent in his beliefs and has a consistent and reliable record. I would be honored, I would be honored, I’ve lived in Kansas City, I understand the role the CCP plays, I would be honored to have the endorsement of the support of the CCP. As I said earlier, I’m not gonna make any promises other than to be the very same person that I’ve already been and always been as a legislator. Someone who stood up and fought the good fights, someone who responded when our party called. And I answered the call for leadership. I promise you this, I am gonna work as hard as I possibly can every single day on your behalf. Not on behalf of special interests, but on your behalf. Because I’m in public service for one very simple reason. And that’s to make this world a better place. Thank you all so much for having us here this evening. [applause]

Moderator: Senator Koster.

Chris Koster: Last year at the Attorney General’s office there were eight hundred original jurisdiction cases that were referred or brought to that office. Eight hundred cases. Four hundred of them were serious felonies. Twenty five of them were homicides. To pretend that it doesn’t matter whether or not you’ve ever argued in front of a jury, stood in the well of a court room and made a closing argument, it’s just not true. It does matter. And it matters that you can do it yourself. The next Attorney General will either steer that office or be steered by it. I’m the only candidate in this race that has walked the homicide crime scenes, overseen the forensic investigations, interrogated the killers, trained the young lawyers, made the closing arguments from rural court rooms in this state all the way to our Supreme Court, cared for the victims of brutal crimes that I’ve cared for. On June 2nd two thousand we discovered the bodies of the women that John Robinson had brutally beaten and murdered in this community, eleven women in all, in all. Forty five detectives in that case. Twelve jurisdictions came together for a period of two years to prosecute the, that case in two jurisdictions. It’s been a long time since any candidate has come f
orward with that type of experience to manage this office. I’ve managed attorneys over a ten year period in the Cass County Prosecutor’s office. And bring, hopefully, an attitude to the job and to our party of bringing people together, making sure that everyone’s issues are heard and understood, and people are, know that they can come to this table, and that they can work towards solutions that make sense and move the ball forward here in the State of Missouri. Nobody gets left out, nobody gets left behind. An Attorney General is the voice that stands in the court rooms of this state and makes the closing arguments on behalf of our people. All I have to offer the people in this room, people of our party, is the experience of someone who’s been there. And so I ask you, respectfully, to consider this candidacy, to come aboard this candidacy, and believe in the values that it has to share. [applause]

Moderator: Representative Donnelly.

Margaret Donnelly: Once again thank you to CCP, and UMKC and Young Democrats and our moderators for making this debate possible. As I said earlier in response to a question, the Attorney General’s office is the place where policy and law intersect. And the most important part of the job, as Attorney General, is to establish the direction of the office and to manage the resources. Having looked at the state budget at least half a dozen times I know those agencies that frequently interact with that office. Corrections, mental health, social services. And I can use that knowledge to take those resources to support our efforts to better protect Missouri’s families. And I will stack up my court room experience against anyone. Day in and day out I was fighting for Missouri’s families, trying cases in some of the most difficult and sometimes life threatening situations. And all of this has lead me to the point where I bring experience and judgment so that we can put Democratic values in to action. Because there will be no question that I ever had to justify a vote, or hide the fact that I supposedly did not know what I was voting for, and yet two years later, three years later, when I had a chance to reverse that, did not. And so you won’t doubt where I stand on putting those Democratic values into action. We’ve been lucky to have Jay Nixon as our Attorney General for sixteen years. I don’t know about you, but it scares me to think about turning that important office over to Republican Mike Gibbons, who for the last four years has championed the Medicaid cuts, helped to put a photo ID law into effect, and has undercut public education. We can’t have someone with that record as our Attorney General. The fate of many elections, from Harry Truman to Claire McCaskill, has hung on those late night returns from Jackson County. I need your votes to win, and I promise to represent you with the same tenacity, and integrity, and compassion that I’ve represented clients in the court room and my constituents in the capitol. I ask for your vote on August 5th. Thank you very much. [applause]

Moderator: That concludes our debate for tonight…

Democratic Attorney General Debate in Kansas City, part 1

Democratic Attorney General Debate in Kansas City, part 2

The candidates: (from left to right) Margaret Donnelly, Jeff Harris, Chris Koster

A transcript of the panel questions and candidate answers follows (up to approximately the 45 minute mark in the 90 minute debate). Part four of our coverage will include the transcript from the ending point here through to the end of the debate.

The transcript:  

Moderator: Joe the first question will be yours to Representative Donnelly.

Joe Arce: I’d like to ask what is your views in regards to immigration law here in the State of Missouri? With the Latino community here, and throughout the State of Missouri, it’s been a tough year, a lot of bills have been introduced in Jefferson City, there have been many Hispanics that have traveled there, to give input. Will you also be engaging the Latino community throughout the State of Missouri to help you make some decisions, tough decisions, when it comes to immigration law, and enforcing immigration law?

Margaret Donnelly: Within the Attorney General’s office there has to be confidence from the Latino community and all other immigrant groups that the Attorney General will be, have a fair approach. And my first commitment is to be sure that we have diversity among the staff so that there is a level of trust so that when we reach out to the Latino community for advice that there is that level of trust that there are people there who understand the unique needs of the Latinos and other immigrant groups. I think that it’s unfortunate in the discussion about immigration that we’ve forgotten the value that immigration has added to this country and that the wonderful contributions that can be made as people join us from other countries. But until the Federal government does its job we at the state are going to have to confront some of the issues. And the issue which the, which I believe is appropriate for the state to address, is going after employers who exploit workers and undermine our system of wages and benefits. The bill that finally passed has some provision to go after employers who are trying to get around the labor laws by employing individuals…as independent contractors. It, but the penalties are very weak and I wish that we had put more teeth into those who want to take advantage of the workers and undermine our system of wages and benefits. And I will aggressively go after those employers who are involved in that sort of exploitation and are violating our labor laws.

Moderator: Mr. Kraske the next question is for Mr. Kostor, Senator Koster.

Steve Kraske:  Senator I wanted to ask you about Jay Nixon’s performance as Attorney General. He’s been around now for four terms. How would you alter the focus and direction of the office that he has operated and what’ll be new under a Koster administration compared to the last sixteen years of Jay Nixon’s administration?

Chris Koster: Well first let’s start with what he’s done in excellent fashion. He has been stalwart with regard to consumer rights. And has consumer protection, and has been heralded really around the country with regard to that. His work on the no call list has lifted up a new device that has made dinner time possible again in the country. And he has prosecuted environmental issues, I think, at a level that all Missourians can be proud of. Where am I gonna go differently and with different emphasis? I would say prevailing wage violations is going to be number one. When I was Prosecuting Attorney in Cass County we were able to essentially eliminate prevailing wage violations by stepping up prosecutions to such a level that no contractor entered the county without realizing that they were truly at risk if they tried to circumvent the law. Second, I think Medicaid provider fraud. In two thousand and six I was the chairman of the Senate select committee to investigate Medicaid provider fraud. I wrote the bill, we passed it in two thousand and seven. We have about twenty people prosecuting Medicaid provider fraud in the Attorney General’s office today in the State of Missouri. But those states that have really turned it on in that area, like the State of Florida and the State of Texas, have been able to double and triple the amount of money that they pull out through prosecution of Medicaid provider fraud and return to the Medicaid system.

Moderator: Mr. Mahoney the next question is for Representative Harris.

Mike Mahoney: Yes, Representative there is, there is a funding crises and a case load backup problem in the state’s Public Defender’s office. What do you plan to do about it?

Jeff Harris: That’s a very good question Mike. In this role as Attorney General this is the place where you can advocate for strengthening our public defender system. And let me tell you this, having served in Jefferson City, for the last six years, that’s not necessarily a popular idea to strengthen our state’s public defender system. But I think we should do it and I think in this office, it is the Attorney General who is best positioned to advocate for it. Now, why do I think that’s a good idea? Because I don’t think any innocent person in this state should ever be convicted of any crime at any level. And the way, one way that we can do that is to strengthen our public defender system by increasing resources to that system by paying public defenders a better wage, and Mike, sort of concomitantly with that I would also like to see and would advocate for the use of DNA as not just an exculpatory, excuse me, not just as an inculpatory tool to convict people. But broaden and expand the use of DNA to make sure that the innocent are not convicted.

Moderator: Mr. Wesson the next question is for Representative Donnelly.

Eric Wesson: Representative Donnelly one of the major issues that takes place within the State of Missouri is racial profiling. Several years ago there was some measures put on the books, but it’s not, it doesn’t seem to be enforced in a vigorous manner. What will you do as the state’s Attorney General to put some severe sanctions on cities and counties that violate the racial profiling laws?

Margaret Donnelly: We can’t ignore the fact that the statistics from last year indicate that in certain areas we are making almost no improvement in the disparities between stops of individuals from various races. And…the racial profiling casts a pall over our entire system when people are fearful that because of the color of their skin they might be more likely to be stopped. The training which is going on, I think has to be looked at. Clearly there we’re missing the mark in terms of having law enforcement train in a way that we can start making progress on the, in those areas where the disparity is quite evident. Racial profiling cannot be tolerated in this state and the jurisdictions need to know that they have a responsibility to do things differently so that no one has a fear of being stopped simply because of the color of their skin. And we have to start holding those jurisdictions accountable and say to them, “Under no circumstances is racial profiling going to be tolerated.”

Moderator: Mr Arce the next question is for Senator Koster.

Joe Arce: In regards to home foreclosures will you be looking into any type of fraud in regards to banking or mortgage companies because I think we’re at the tip of the iceberg here in the State of Missouri, we haven’t seen a lot, but I believe come this summer, with people making some decisions of moving, we’re gonna probably see more foreclosures in the State of Missouri.

Chris Koster: The answer to that is, “Yes.” Attorney General Tom Mi
ller in Iowa just finished a large scale DAGID [sp] case, Democratic Attorney Generals around the country joined in against Countrywide Mortgage. And Countrywide Mortgage was settled for about three hundred and fourteen million dollars. Those types of cases are out there, I think that the, there are really two stratifications of cases in this regard. One is the big nationwide mortgage players, and that process is really in play already and I think that a good deal of that litigation has been begun by Attorneys General all across the country. What you’re referring to I think is going to be a more regionalized inquiry into smaller, not neighborhood players, but municipal, citywide players that don’t have the national scope. The cases won’t be as large, but they’re just as important to bring forward. And it would certainly be one of many issues under scrutiny when next year begins.

Moderator: Mr. Kraske the next question is for Representative Harris.

Steve Kraske: Representative I wanted to ask you about the death penalty and I’m wondering if it’s time to end the death penalty given the increased scrutiny on that law in states around the country and the finding of innocent people on death row, even in some cases, under DNA reviews being done right now. I’m wondering if the other two panelists can answer that question as we go along here. You’re up first, Representative.

Jeff Harris: Thanks Steve. Well, just to actually follow up on my response to Mike Mahoney’s question a minute ago, it is my firm belief that the innocent in this state and in this country should never be executed. What I intend to do as Attorney General to prevent that is, is as I mentioned a minute ago, to expand the use of DNA, to prevent the innocent, not only from being convicted, but from being executed. Expand funding and increase funding to our public defender and capital offender system, and having, frankly I’m open to any other suggestions from folks who are opponents of the death penalty, or people who believe in a just and fair criminal justice system. Having said all that, the role of the Attorney General in enforcing the death penalty is largely ministerial. There is not a great deal of discretion. My personal position is that I do support the death penalty. I know that there are people in this audience, I know there are Democratic voters across this state, who disagree with me. But this has been my position ever since I’ve been in public office. I respect those who disagree with me and I’m not gonna change my position. While I will listen to others and improve the system, I, I won’t change my position simply for politically expedient reasons.

Steve Kraske: David, can I get the other two to respond to that, too?

Moderator: All right, but let, we’ll do it this time, but in the future…[laughter]

Margaret Donnelly: I support the death penalty. But I also believe that we cannot ask jurors to make such a weighty decision if there is a lack of confidence in the system. And so, because it is the Attorney General’s responsibility to handle the appeal and because we want justice served, I also believe that we have to put the right resources into the offices that prosecute, the offices that defend, and in having the best up to date scientific evidence so that we have the right evidence, and the right person. And I would use the office to vigorously advocate for making certain that we put in the right resources. Right now I don’t believe that we are putting in sufficient resources to the system so that there’s abso…, there’s absolutely a fair and, and accurate trial in all cases.

Moderator: Senator.

Chris Koster: I support the death penalty and I’m also glad I’ve never had to use it. In twenty cases that theoretically it could have touched upon I have withdrawn it the night before trial one time, and within a week of trial, two other times, and both of those were situations where we got to a point where the defendant  was willing to plead with life, to life without. The death penalty is not a ministerial act within the Attorney General’s office, there are twenty five cases a year that are referred by the outlying prosecutors, that those are the prosecutor’s outside the state, uh, city of St. Louis, Kansas City, St. Louis County. The out state prosecutors refer about twenty five cases in a year. The Attorney General is involved in the decision as to whether or not to go forward it’s, in consultation with the pro…local prosecutors. And I think that what we need to do is look for ways to take politics out of the decision making process. Brief hypothetical. First year Caucasian  prosecutor in the boot heel has an African American defendant for, up on first degree murder charges. It’s his first six or eight months on the job. It’s an all white community. The pressure on that young prosecutor to file death penalty charges is extraordinary, and it has to do, and, and politics cannot be denied, I mean politics is in that decision making process. What we need to do with the Attorney General’s office is something that we actually started and tried to do when I was on the board of the prosecutor’s, five years ago now, and that was create a review panel that has, six, you know, five to seven experts who understand how these cases are brought and reviews the facts of the case and does not, and makes decision independent from the, the politics that are occurring at home. It’s not a perfect solution, it is a step forward. It does make it, it is a better situation than we have today and I would hope to try and move in that direction with the cooperation of law enforcement.

Moderator: Thank you. Mr. Mahoney the next question is for Representative Donnelly.

Mike Mahoney: Yeah, Representative Donnelly I’d like to go back to one of the things we were talking about with immigration a few moments ago. You said that you didn’t want employee, employees to exploit the workers. I don’t think anybody does. But how specifically do you go about that and, for instance, the Federal government is recommending that employers use the E verify program to, to check that. There are some people, more than some, a lot of people have questions about whether or not E verify system is accurate and that it, it cannot be relied on. Do you support using E verify and how would you at the AG’s office specifically address that verification problem beyond just simply saying employers shouldn’t exploit the workers.

Margaret Donnelly: I think that the E verify system is the best that we have at this point and we should use it. And the Attorney General, up until now, has been able to go after employers, there’s a couple cases, one at the Lake of the Ozarks, one in St. Charles, where the employer was clearly violating the labor laws, that’s how the, the Attorney General was able to go in to prosecute because of the failure to wage withholding and the failure to pay worker’s compensation. With the new law that we just passed there is now actual delegated authority to the Attorney General to go after employers who are using this independent contractor system to get around the, and to try to avoid our system of wages and benefits by using this loophole that has existed in the past, of independent contractors. And so now the Attorney General will have a very straightforward way to go after these employers and that will be helpful.

Moderator: Mr. Wesson the next question is for Senator Koster.

Eric Wesson: Senator Koster I want to go back with you with the racial profiling as well. What can be done, because I think within the parameters and boundaries there’s some fines and the state withholds money from counties for 90 days if they’re not making progress on the racial profiling? What will you do aggressively to let these counties know, and cities know, that racial profiling will not be tolerated.

Chris Koster: Unfortunately, as a ten year law enforcement officer in a collar county to a municipality the size of Kansas City I know, I’ve seen this occur on the ground and I kn
ow that steps have to be taken. And the Attorney general has done a very good job, Attorney General Nixon, has done a very good job in beginning the process of developing data and publicizing that data every year. But it’s not good enough to just collect data and then not do anything with it, which is largely what is occurring today. The data shows that the racially based traffic stops in Raytown are almost identical to the racial traffic stops that occur in the city of Kansas City, despite the fact that the black population is quite a bit different. And there’s actually a corner where there’s a convenience store in Raytown where I know that a neighborhood of African American population, which typically has to go through that corner in order to get work, typically every day takes the long way around because there used to be a series of cops that stayed on that corner. We need to do something with the data because it’s real and it affects the way people live their lives. The first thing we do, need to do, is upgrade the in-house training and or training from the outside for departments that find themselves on the outlying ends of the bell curve. And if a, a series of training remedies do not occur than we need to pressure police and sheriff’s departments to step up to the plate and do the right thing and that we will impose financial withholdings from state government on those that refuse to cooperate.

Moderator: Mr. Arce the next question is for Representative Harris.

Joe Arce: How comfortable are you with the governor, Matt Blunt, empowering the Missouri Highway Patrol department to enforce Federal immigration laws? Talked earlier about profiling, that was one of the major concerns of Latino people in regards to the Missouri Highway Patrol stopping these vehicles, also concerns about maybe something on the vehicle would attract them, it could be a saint, it could be some sort of Latino blanket or something. But the real concern that there’s going to be racial profiling, how comfortable are you with that right now?

Jeff Harris: Well, you know, the first part of your question Joe, I’m not comfortable with Matt Blunt. And I’m glad he’s not going to be our next governor. [laughter, applause] Probably the easiest question to answer [garbled]. [laughter] You raise a very good point, Joe. My, my opinion is this. The, I believe that this is primarily, though not exclusively, a Federal issue. Having said that, if there is a role for the Missouri Highway Patrol to play in our immigration enforcement, talking to these, these men and women who are state troopers, you know frankly, they are over burdened as it is. And if we as a state are going to place that additional burden on them we need to make sure, first, they are adequately funded, second, they are adequately trained, and then third, we have to make sure that, I’m not suggesting that the patrol would ever engage in racial profiling, but we have to make sure that the, that the data that is collected, vis a vis the immigrant population in the state, the state highway patrol doesn’t indicate that there’s a problem, that there needs to be additional training. I think the most important thing here, though, is to not over burden an already over burdened patrol.

Moderator: Mr. Kraske the next question is for Representative Donnelly.

Steve Kraske: All three of you tonight are striking me as, as smart people, well qualified people, and certainly good looking people. [laughter] And I’m, I’m just wondering, I’m trying to put myself in the position of the voter out there in Kansas City, trying to sort between the three of you. Margaret, give ’em a hand, what’s the difference? Why should someone vote for you as opposed to your other two colleagues here, because I think they’re going to have a hard time sorting this one out.

Margaret Donnelly: You’re correct. We all are lawyers. We all are legislators. But I think that the kind of law practice that I’ve had, my local government service, the only one who has such, and the work that I’ve done in the legislature give me an advantage in leading the office that protects Missouri’s families. My law practice has been solely devoted to fighting in court rooms, with families in very difficult situations. So when I talk about protecting families it isn’t just a catch phrase, it’s what I did day to day. On the budget committee in the legislature I’ve had to look at that budget, in and out, for almost six years. And I know the departments that the, the AG’s office will represent better than anyone else in this race. I think that that gives you a clear advantage in understanding how policy and law intersect and in knowing where to go for the resources for the kinds of things that I want to see us advocate for. We’ve talked tonight already about public defender system, there are things that could be done in the domestic violence area, there are things that need to be done further, sexual predators, and in crime prevention. And all of those have some place in the Missouri budget, and I know where to go for them. And then in my experience, serving on the boards of two complex local agencies, a large school district and a public transit system, I had the responsibility of overseeing budgets and staff that are larger than the Attorney General’s are. And so I think if you combine the kind of law that I have practiced and the unique kinds of government experience, it gives me the position to go forward and really make happen the values that we hold dear. Because it isn’t just enough, again to use the catch phrases, you have to know how to set the direction and the policy, and manage the resources.

Moderator: Mr. Mahoney the next question is for Senator Koster.

Mike Mahoney: Senator Koster let’s talk about your party switch for a second. You said it was because you became uncomfortable with the Missouri Republican Party policy approaches. What do you say to the Missouri Democratic primary voters who may be suspicious of your party switch and whether or not your values are deeply held, especially when there are other candidates in this race who feel that they have much deeper credentials than you?

Chris Koster: This business is about more than the letter after a person’s name. It’s about a body of issues that we work toward as public servants and as legislators. The body of issues that I came into the Missouri Senate espousing where stem cell research, a dogged loyalty to wages, hours, and conditions of working families, and the working family agenda, a loyalty to the civil justice system, and the openness of the courts, passion around the issue of funding higher education. These are, as I worked for three years on the Republican side of that aisle, what I increasingly saw as I looked out was a party that was crushing the very things that I had gone there to work on. The party flip was an effort to find common ground and, to stand with those actually who I increasingly found that I agreed with on these issues. When I would look across the floor of the Senate I found that my best friends and my strongest allies were all members of the Democratic Party. And the issues that I cared about were all issue that were being crushed by the majority party and espoused by the Democratic Party. And ultimately I felt that if I was to be true to myself, for whatever limited time I had left in public service, that I wanted to do it as a Democrat. This has not been an easy transition for me at all. I was in a position of, I was the fourth ranking member of the majority. I had influence, power, the ability to pass legislation. I had a weekly meeting with the governor of the State of Missouri. And I gave up all of that because I wanted to join with my friends on the other side of the aisle and help them to fight their way back. I’m proud of the decision that I made. I wish I had made it sooner. But it is, it is the situation that I’m left with and I hope I have an opportunity to continue to serve this state.

Moderator: Mr. Wesson the next question is for Representative Harris.

Eric Wesson
: Do you believe that innocent people have been executed in the State of Missouri?

Jeff Harris: Eric I hope not. I hope not. And as someone who will be charged with enforcing our state’s death penalty I hope that it never happens on my watch. The fact of the matter is, we live in an imperfect world. I believe that our system of justice, both our civil justice system, that is before they enacted their tort reform, but our civil justice system is the best we have in the world. Our criminal justice system is the best in the world. It’s still not a perfect system. The best we can do, and what we have to hope for and pray for, is that no innocent person is ever executed in this country ever. And I will do my level best as our state’s Attorney General to make sure that that doesn’t happen and still uphold the duties, my constitutional duties and moral obligation of the office.

Moderator: Mr. Arce the next question is for Representative Donnelly.

Joe Arce: Margaret how do you feel, the fact that Chris Koster switched parties and now you find him as a, an opponent in, within your own party as, as Attorney General?

Margaret Donnelly: I think the voters will have an opportunity to view all of us on our records. And that’s what I’d suggest that they do. Because you can’t undo the fact that you voted to cut hundreds of thousands of people off health care or reduce their benefits. Those people are still suffering. And that’s part of Mr. Koster’s record. You can’t undo that you voted for a bill that would disenfranchise the elderly, the disabled, and many others because of an ideology of photo ID. And you can’t hide from a record that does not give full support to public education in the state. I stand on a record of battling the absolutely immoral health care cuts of Matt Blunt, of serving on the elections committee, taking an active role in fighting photo ID and then participating in the lawsuit. And I will stand on a record of never wavering in my support of public education, from kindergarten through higher education. And so people can look at what are our values. Who’s voted. What way. And who will hold those values dear when it’s time to be the Attorney General.

Moderator: Mr. Kraske the next question is for Representative, Senator Koster.

Steve Kraske: Senator I wanted to ask you about the e-mail controversy now swirling around Governor Blunt. If you become Attorney general will you continue this means that the investigation could wind up costing hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Chris Koster: I don’t think that the, the litigation would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, actually. But the answer is, yes. The governor’s office has put itself in an intractable situation that can’t be ignored at this point. The, the lawsuit that was filed by Colonel Fisher, Mel Fisher, to try and stop the taps from being destroyed, and I guess we will see a hearing at some point, and Chet Pleban [sp], the lawyer that filed the case, made some interesting claims in his statement of facts that he’s going to produce these witnesses soon that apparently heard from emissaries of the governor, allegedly heard from emissaries of the governor that top officials on the second floor wanted these tapes destroyed. These allegations are serious enough that they need to be carried forward. It gets to the issue of the sunshine law. The sunshine laws in chapter 610, Representative Harris has done good work on this issue. The sunshine law needs to be improved. It has been difficult this year, with the majority trying to protect the governor, to improve it. The real problem in my estimation comes in chapter 109, which is the records retention law. And the reality is while the governor is under orders to maintain records un…by statute, for certain lengths of time, there is no penalty in the state for breeching that law. In other words, if you violate chapter 109 nothing happens. There’s, the language is silent on that. Two things need to be done. One is, we need to come up with civil and criminal penalties for destruction of public records. Probably a fine on the civil side of five thousand dollars, or something along those lines, per count. Five to ten thousand dollars per count, and then a criminal violation that begins at an A misdemeanor and moves up through the felony line for intentional destruction of records. And then, the second, more touchy subject is what do, do we put some kind of stop gap in government to go in and save documents that we think are in danger of being destroyed, such as the ones we’ve got to play, right here. And whether that power be placed with a solicit…solicitor general, or the Attorney General, or with several people, perhaps the Auditor’s office, is a legislative decision. But those are the two elements. How do we save records that are in danger and what are the penalties for destroying them.

Moderator: Mr. Mahoney the next question is for Representative Harris.

Mike Mahoney: Representative, sort of following up on that, to what, if any, degree have you complied with the governor’s request for yours. And, taking the answer, “I don’t know” off the table, what do you think is going on here with the governor’s records? [laughter] You think…[laughter] And “I don’t know” doesn’t count.

Jeff Harris: You know, he and I don’t talk on a regular basis. [laughter]

Mike Mahoney: Ah, no, [laughter] [garbled] worried about that. What, what do you think is behind that? Number, number one, have you complied, intend to comply? If so, when? And is there, do you fear politics in those e-mails, fear personal items? What do you believe or fear might be there that prompted this stand off?

Jeff Harris: Well Mike, I’m glad you asked the follow up question and clearly this has been a story, some of the folks here, here this evening, I see Kit and Jason, I think covered this and put a story in the paper a week ago. For those of you who aren’t aware of it, just to give you a little background to Mike’s question…

Mike Mahoney: Answer please.

Jeff Harris: I will do it.

Mike Mahoney: Don’t stall me out. [laughter]

Jeff Harris: Oh, I’m not gonna stall on this one. I believe in the First Amendment. The answer is I spoke up in support on the House floor, for two minutes, of the two state employees who Mel Fisher and Chad Pleban [sp] put in their pleadings, allegedly refused to destroy these back up tapes. And I spoke in support of those folks because I see state employees getting a bad rap all the time in Jefferson City. And I think they get, morale is low, and I don’t like it. And so I spoke in support of them. Well, lo and behold, the next day I get in my office and I have a request from Trish Vincent, who is the governor’s chief of staff, for every single e-mail my office has ever created or received since I took office in 2003 and all back up tapes. And every document we’ve created or received since 2003. My response the very next day to Trish Vincent was, you can have, we’ve done a preliminary assessment, because I don’t want to disclose anyone’s social security number, for example, but I said you could have 75,000 pages of documents, five thousand e-mails, come and get ’em, it’ll cost you ten thousand dollars. So I did comply with that request. I also suggested that she could narrow her request to save taxpayer dollars. She did. She asked for all of my documents and e-mails on February 20th 2008. To my knowledge there’s nothing magical about that day. We looked at February 20th 2008 and I produced, Mike, approximately two hundred and fifty pages of documents and e-mails to Ms. Vincent for February 20th 2008 and I told her that because the costs wee de minimus, she didn’t, I didn’t need to charge here for copying. She tendered me a check for about twenty four bucks that was payable to my office that I don’t think I can cash and it has not yet been cashed. So I did comply. And I would, I would comply again because I believe in the sunshine law. It, and I intend to create, in our, in our Attorney Genera
l’s office a sunshine law enforcement unit that would both educate and prosecute sunshine law violations. In answer to your second question, Mike, what do I believe has happened or what is going on there? I don’t know [laughter] I honestly don’t know. [laughter] Let me say this. No, let me say this in all seriousness, you know, many times, I think we’ve all seen this, sometimes the cover up, if you will, is worse than the underlying misdeed. I don’t know if there is an underlying misdeed. Is it, is it something political? Politically embarrassing, unethical, illegal, personally embarrassing? We can speculate about these things, but what we do know, is that those records should have been retained and they should be produced because this is our government and we have a right to know. Period.

Democratic Attorney General Debate in Kansas City, part 1

The candidates: (from left to right) Margaret Donnelly, Jeff Harris, Chris Koster

The order for opening statements was determined at random. The candidate statements:  

…Margaret Donnelly: Good evening. Thank you to CCP, the UMKC Young Democrats for hosting the event, and also to the University for providing such an outstanding location. Also like to thank all of our moderators for taking the time to participate tonight.

Growing up as a middle child of eleven kids I learned two important life lessons, besides getting to the shower line early. [laughter] That’s to stand up for your beliefs and to protect others. And those are the principles which have guided my career in law and in public service.

For twenty years I’ve been in court rooms fighting for Missouri’s families in some of the toughest situations. I’ve represented women who have been beaten by their husbands. And I’ve tried case after case to protect children from the adults who have physically and sexually abused them. In the legislature I battled those who wanted to cut the health care benefits for our most vulnerable and I worked to stiffen the penalties for those who would commit abuse and exploit senior citizens.  I was successful in passing laws to crack down on drunk drivers and to strengthen the laws against sexual assault and domestic violence. It is this commitment to protecting Missouri’s families that I will take to the Attorney General’s office.

I travel the state and I’ve heard the concerns. Parents who are worried about the safety of their children from sexual predators. Senior citizens and their families who are trying to protect themselves and their loved ones from the latest financial scam. Consumers who feel insecure because of identity theft and the unsafe products flooding our shelves from China and other countries. And neighborhood leaders who are concerned that the stability and safety of their communities are threatened by drugs and violence. As Attorney General I will remember those two life lessons. To stand up for our Democratic beliefs and to protect others. No one will stand straighter or fight harder for Missouri’s families. Thank you. [applause]

Chris Koster: A political campaign is like a job interview, so I begin this like we would begin any job interview, with a resume. My name is Chris Koster. I’m 43 years old. I have a law degree from the University of Missouri, Columbia and a Masters in Business Administration from Washington University, St. Louis. I spent two years as Assistant Attorney General to this state, for ten year I was Prosecuting Attorney of Cass County in Missouri. And I’ve served the past four years as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I’ve prosecuted approximately twenty homicide cases in our area. I have two Supreme Court victories and thousands of felony convictions in this state.

Over the past four years I have sponsored or passed more than thirty advancements in the civil and criminal laws of this state. In two thousand and five I fought back Republican efforts to criminalize stem cell research and the life saving cures they bring. In two thousand and six I passed the landmark eminent domain legislation to restrict government from seizing our private property. And in two thousand and seven I passed the green power initiative, which will lead to more than a billion dollars in new wind farms and hydro-electric energy development in our state by 2020.

The Missouri Bar Association has given me their Outstanding Legislator Award three of the last three years. Missouri Lawyers Weekly has named me one of the ten most influential lawyers in the State of Missouri for my work on the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys has given me their Legislator of the Year Award.

In two thousand and seven I left the Republican Party and asked to join the Democratic Party, because after three years I increasingly saw only Democratic solutions to the problems facing our state. Stem cell research, worker’s rights, respect for the judiciary, health care, higher education funding and an authentic relationship with the minority communities in our state. I could change my beliefs in order to preserve my party, or I could change my party in order to preserve my beliefs. I made my choice. I’m proud of my choice. I would like to continue to serve our state and our Democratic Party as Attorney General. But ultimately, as it should be, that choice will belong to you. [applause]

Jeff Harris: David, thank you. And I want to thank the CCP, and the UMKC Young Democrats, and everyone here for joining us this evening in sponsoring what I hope will be a very informative discussion and some illumination as to what we all believe in, what we stand for, and what we intend to do if we were elected Attorney General.

You know, they say that if you want to know where a person is going look at where they’ve been. And I’m proud of where I’ve been. In 2004, when it was literally our toughest time as a Democratic Party in this state, right after the 2004 election, my colleagues turned to me and unanimously elected me the Democratic Leader of the Missouri House. And as the Democratic Leader of the Missouri House I fought tooth and nail every single day for our values. I’m proud to say that I lead the fight against the hateful, immoral, and irresponsible Medicaid cuts that this governor put forward and his rubber stamp allies in the General Assembly passed. I’m proud to say that as the Democratic Leader in the House I lead the fight against the unconstitutional photo ID bill that would have disenfranchised so many Missourians across the state. So that’s where I’ve been.

Where I will be, as our future, as our next Attorney General will be on your side. And fighting the same fight for the values that I’ve fought for as the Democratic Leader, and as an Assistant Attorney General under Jay Nixon. If you want an Attorney General who’s going to stand up for the every day Missourian, who will be a protector of the consumers of this state, then I’m your person. Whether it means standing up against predatory lenders who, who foist sub prime mortgages on home owners across this state. Whether it means payday lenders, standing up against them. Whether it means making sure that our natural resources are protected against corporate factory farms, I am your person.

As Attorney General we will create great change across this state, but I’m not gonna change one thing about who I am. I’m gonna do the same thing I’ve always done as the Democratic Leader and in public service, and that’s work as hard as I can, fight the good fight as hard as I can, and I’m gonna be on the very same side I have always been on. And that’s on your side. Thank you very much. [applause]

The Committee for County Progress (CCP) presented a debate among the Missouri Democratic Primary Attorney General candidates at 6:00 pm Thursday night in White Recital on the campus of the University of Missouri, Kansas City.

Blue Girl and I attended along with approximately 150 other individuals. Vicki Walker from KKFI was also there.

Four candidates including Margaret Donnelly, Jeff Harris, Chris Koster, and Molly Korth Williams were listed as participants in the pre-debate publicity. It was announced at the start of the event that Ms. Williams had withdrawn from the debate.

The panel which questioned the candidates included Joe Arce – Hispanic News, Steve Kraske – Kansas City Star, Mike Mahoney – KMBC, and Eric Wesson – The Call  

The panel: (left to right) Joe Arce, Steve Kraske, Mike Mahoney and Eric Wesson

The format allowed each candidate a two minute opening statement and a two minute closing statement. The four panelists offered the candidates questions (the moderator keeping track of the sequence and acting as a timer) and the candidates were given two minutes to respond. The candidates did not address questions to each other.

The candidates after the debate: (left to right) Margaret Donnelly, Jeff Harris, Chris Koster

The panel’s questions and the candidates’ responses ran to almost 90 minutes. We’ll be working today to get the transcript done and posted as soon as possible.

Chris Koster

Margaret Donnelly

There was a post debate reception across the street in Pierson Auditorium where the candidates, their supporters, and attendees could (and did) eat, drink and schmooze.

The reception