Politics makes for some very strange bedfellows:

MNEA Political Action Committee recommends  candidates for the 2012 primary election

At the close of candidate filing in March, local Missouri NEA members began the process of candidate recommendation. Candidates are evaluated through a series of questionnaires and interviews to see if they are a viable candidate who would support and value public education, the rights of school employees and the health and safety of students. After careful review, the MNEA PAC Executive Council has chosen to recommend the following candidates to MNEA members for the Missouri primary election Aug. 7, 2012.

[….]

MO HOUSE District 054 (Warrensburg) Denny Hoskins (R)

[….]

Remember this?:

“Noun, Verb, CPA”: Hoskins (r) mail attack on Cole (D) in the 121st Legislative District race (October 8, 2010)

Denny Hoskins (r-noun, verb, CPA) is the beneficiary of a mail piece attacking Courtney Cole (D) – and just like two years ago it’s paid for by the Missouri republican party, of course….

….And then there’s this disingenuous little gem:

“…Courtney Cole proudly states she is a card-carrying member of a liberal special interest group…”

As the footnote states, she’s a member of the Missouri National Education Association (MNEA). Uh, Courtney Cole is a teacher who works very hard to educate our children. And these republican morons call the MNEA a “liberal special interest group”? That shows the worldview of the Missouri republican party – and they think everyone else is stoopid….

Can you picture the endorsement vetting process? “Uh, about that mailer, I didn’t have anything to do with it (wink, wink, nod, nod), but I sure did benefit from it.”

Maybe it’s eleventh dimensional chess and Missouri NEA has concocted an e-vile plot to neutralize future republican attacks on public sector organized labor by bestowing their endorsement upon them.

Somehow that doesn’t seem like a workable plan.

We journeyed to Jefferson City this morning, checked in at the House Communications Office and then set up our still cameras in a side gallery. Over the course of the morning session we had conversations with Representatives Joe Aull (D), Jason Kander (D), Chris Kelly (D), Jill Schupp (D) and Mary Still (D). Representative Denny Hoskins (r) crossed the aisle and we had a lengthy conversation in the side gallery about redistricting and its aftermath, the budget, revenues, and HB 1229.  

Speaker Steve Tilley (r) at the dais.

Stained glass above the press gallery and dais in the House chamber.

Representative Jill Schupp (D-82).

Old media in the press gallery above the dais. There’s a lot of space up there, but not very many people occupying it anymore.

 One gets the feeling that the paradigm has been changing and it isn’t finished just yet.

Debate across the aisle.

Representative Stephen Webber (D-23).

Representative Mary Still (D-25).

Minority Floor Leader Mike Talboy (D-37)(left) and Speaker Steve Tilley (r)(right) in conversation at the back of the House chamber.

After the noon recess in the House we encountered American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and Communications Workers of America (CWA) members with signs marching to the Capitol steps. After a few cheers the union members were instructed to leave their signs in a pile for collection before the went into the building. Later in the afternoon we encountered small groups in the halls  and offices speaking to individual members of the House.

Which side are you on? Which side are you on?

As the AFSCME, CWA and SEIU members gathered in front of the steps Representative Mark Parkinson (r) was exiting the building. We greeted each other and had a pleasant enough conversation. Apparently, Representative Parkinson believes public workers should be happier then they are.  

Have you written your Missouri Representative on Speaker Tilley’s decision to put a bust of Rush in the Hall of Famous Missourians?  

Here is what I wrote my Representative — Denny Hoskins, CPA.

Representative Hoskins,

Do you agree with Speak Tilley that Rush Limbaugh should be honored in the Missouri Hall of Fame with Harry Truman, John Ashcroft, Buck O’Neil, and Samuel Clemons  to name just a few?

If you agree, would you please explain what have Rush’s contributions been to warrant him being with the list above?

If you disagree, what are you doing to convince the Speaker this is a terrible choice?

Thank you for your time,

 

Today, Representative Hoskins replied.

Dear Robert,

Thank you for contacting me about Missouri’s Hall of Famous Missourians.  

The Speaker of the House determines whose bust is included in the Hall of Famous Missourians and the Speaker raises private donations to pay for the bust.

Since I was elected, I have advocated for Blind Boone to be inducted into the Hall of Famous Missourians, however, the decision is made by the Speaker and unfortunately Blind Boone has not been selected despite our best efforts.

Thanks again for contacting me.  I appreciate your input.

Sincerely,

Rep. Denny Hoskins, CPA

I recognized that Representative Hoskins was not involved with this decision.  

I thought my questions were very civil. I wonder why Representative Hoskins did not answer them.

Legislative Redistricting: Denny Hoskins (r) – from the 121st to the 51st (December 4, 2011)

….Representative Denny Hoskins (r) will probably move into the 54th Legislative District….

In today’s Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal, front page, side bar, below the fold:

Hoskins runs in 54th

…After discussions with friends and backers, Rep. Denny Hoskins confirmed he will run in the new 54th District….

[emphasis in original]

Political self preservation once again triumphs over residence.

What’s a republican incumbent to do? The Appellate Apportionment Commission cut Representative Denny Hoskin’s (r) base out from under him.

The map of the new 51st Legislative District, including the eastern half of Warrensburg, part of Pettis County, and the city of Marshall in Saline County – from the Appellate Apportionment Commission.

Denny Hoskins (r) lives approximately two and a half miles from the far southwest corner of the new 51st Legislative District. A district which, at close to fifty miles from corner to corner, includes a good chunk of Saline County and the city of Marshall in Representative Joe Aull’s (D) old district. Representative Aull (D) cannot run again due to term limits.

Knob Noster, in eastern Johnson County and a significant contributor to Hoskin’s margin in 2008 (a narrow victory with a recount), is now lumped in with Sedalia in the new 52nd Legislative District. On the other side, Warrensburg is cut in half, with the University of Central Missouri (and those presidential election year student voters in the dorms) in the new 54th Legislative District.

Let’s take look at that new 51st Legislative District:

Appellate Apportionment Commission

House Redistricting Plan

Election Returns Data [pdf]

2002 through 2010 Merged, 2008 and 2010

November 30, 2011

District 51

% Democratic 02 to 10 58.5%

% Republican 02 to 10 41.5%

% Democratic 2008 55.7%

% Republican 2008 44.3%

% Democratic 2010 51.1%

% Republican 2010 48.9%

Whoa. A 58.5% Democratic performing district, with a 51.1% performance in 2010 when Democrats didn’t bother voting? 2012 won’t be 2010.

And to further demonstrate that the Appellate Apportionment Commission has a sick sense of humor and is well attuned to karma, the Missouri Valley Community Action Agency is located in Marshall. Uh, oh.

From September 2010:

Rep. Denny Hoskins (r) and the Film Festival: that was then, this is now – part 2 (September 28, 2010)

The saga of a small town film festival, a desperate republican politician, teabaggers and the stimulus continues.

Remember this, from Representative Denny Hoskins’ (r-noun, verb, CPA) September 20, 2010 Capitol Report?:

…My own questions were based on those I received from constituents concerning the film festival.  As you can see, I did not request funding be withheld or rescinded.  I simply asked how people who need assistance would be helped by the film festival.  Since the film festival was held, I have received even more questions from constituents.  The idea of a film festival or similar event to shine a spotlight on the Warrensburg community is not in itself a bad idea.  How to pay for this event is what concerns me…

[emphasis added]

In today’s Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal, front page, above the fold:

9/28/2010 1:44:00 PM

Spotlight still shines on film fest [broken link]

Jack Miles

Editor

….Rep. Denny Hoskins took partial credit for the withdrawal of funds in a Sept. 10 release labeled, “Rep. Denny Hoskins helps recover Social Services funding inappropriately used….”

Apparently it’s really convenient to immediately claim credit when teabaggers have been complaining and it’s also really convenient to walk it all back when more rational constituents wonder what the big to do was all about….

And, according to RBH (via e-mail), the population breakdown in the new 51st Legislative District is:

HD51 population split by county

Johnson: 13156

Pettis: 3834

Saline: 18449

The results in the 26th Legislative District (Marshall and Saline County) in 2010?:

Official Election Returns

State of Missouri General Election  – November 2, 2010 General Election

Tuesday, November 02, 2010

As announced by the Board of State Canvassers

on Tuesday, November 30, 2010

State Representative – District 26 – Summary

Precincts Reporting 28 of 28

 Aull, Joe DEM 9,271 100.0%

Total Votes   9,271

State Representative – District 26 – County

Aull, Joe   DEM

 LAFAYETTE 3,945

 SALINE 5,326

That’s right, no republican bothered to run in 2010, a republican teabagger year.

And 2008?:

Official Election Returns

State of Missouri General Election  – 2008 General Election

Tuesday, November 04, 2008

As announced by the Board of State Canvassers

on Tuesday, December 02, 2008

State Representative – District 26 – Summary

Precincts Reporting 30 of 30

 Aull, Joe DEM 13,211 100.0%

Total Votes   13,211

State Representative – District 26 – County

Aull, Joe   DEM

 LAFAYETTE 5,647

 SALINE 7,564

Again. It’s the same story in 2006.

In 2004:

Official Election Returns

State of Missouri General Election

Tuesday, November 02, 2004

As announced by the Board of State Canvassers

on Wednesday, December 01, 2004

State Representative – District 26 – County

[….]

SALINE

Aull, Joe DEM 5,989

Begley, Kevin  REP 2,539

That’s a huge margin.

This doesn’t look very good for Representative Denny Hoskins (r). There may be an out:

Missouri Constitution

Article III

LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

Section 4

Qualifications of representatives.

Section 4. Each representative shall be twenty-four years of age, and next before the day of his election shall have been a qualified voter for two years and a resident of the county or district which he is chosen to represent for one year, if such county or district shall have been so long established, and if not, then of the county or district from which the same shall have been taken.

Source: Const. of 1875, Art. IV, § 4.

[….]

Since the Appellate Apportionment Commission came up with the new districts less than a year before the 2012 election, does “…if such county or district shall have been so long established, and if not, then of the county or district from which the same shall have been taken….” mean that Denny Hoskins can run in the 54th Legislative District by moving to the west side of Warrensburg, or in the 52nd Legislative District by moving to Knob Noster? Does he even need to move for 2012? Just asking.

And if Denny Hoskins (r) decides to run in the 51st Legislative District does anyone think the HRCC will run robocalls on his behalf? Do republicans have all the money they need?

File this under “your jokeing, write?”:

@FiredUpMissouri Fired Up! Missouri

Ummm… MT @DLHoskins: One of my constituents told me “God loves u because your pro-gun.” I will proudly support the 2nd amendment! 2 hours ago

We got this via our good friends at Fired Up! because:

@DLHoskins‘s Tweets are protected.

Only confirmed followers have access to @DLHoskins’s Tweets and complete profile. You need to send a request before you can start following this account.

And just think, that carry conceal stuff worked out so well for Representative Denny Hoskins (r) the last time.

Not jobs, but, this being the republican controlled Missouri General Assembly, conceal carry.

Introduced yesterday:

HB 778

Allows certain persons to carry concealed firearms in the state capitol building or at a meeting of the general assembly if it is held in the state capitol building if they have a concealed carry endo

Sponsor: Riddle, Jeanie (020)

Co-Sponsor: Parkinson, Mark (016) … et al.

Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2011

LR Number: 1229L.01I

Last Action: 3/08/2011 – Read Second Time (H)

Bill String: HB 778

Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled

Calendar: HOUSE BILLS FOR SECOND READING

“Certain persons?” Who could that be?

The bill:

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 778

96TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES RIDDLE (Sponsor), PARKINSON, JONES (89), SCHOELLER, ALLEN, KEENEY, SMITH (150), SILVEY, TILLEY, ENTLICHER, RICHARDSON, WALLINGFORD, KORMAN, LEARA, BROWN (116), HIGDON, HOUGHTON, SCHATZ, PHILLIPS, GRISAMORE, LAIR, FISHER, LOEHNER, SCHAD, ROWLAND, SHUMAKE, CAUTHORN, FUNDERBURK, HINSON, HAMPTON, CROSS, CRAWFORD, BRATTIN, DAVIS, WHITE, FREDERICK, McCAHERTY, BERRY, BARNES, LANT, REIBOLDT, FUHR, BROWN (85), FITZWATER, LEACH, COOKSON, FRAKER, BAHR, WYATT, HAEFNER, MARSHALL, CONWAY (14), GUERNSEY, ASBURY, LARGENT, MOLENDORP, COX, BERNSKOETTER, REDMON, KLIPPENSTEIN, ZERR AND FRANZ (Co-sponsors).

1229L.01I                                                                                                           D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To repeal section 571.107, RSMo, and to enact in lieu thereof one new section relating to carrying concealed firearms in the state capitol building, with existing penalty provisions.

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

           Section A. Section 571.107, RSMo, is repealed and one new section enacted in lieu thereof, to be known as section 571.107, to read as follows:

[….]

(5) Any meeting of the governing body of a unit of local government; or any meeting of the general assembly or a committee of the general assembly, except that nothing in this subdivision shall preclude a member of the body holding a valid concealed carry endorsement from carrying a concealed firearm at a meeting of the body which he or she is a member. Possession of a firearm in a vehicle on the premises shall not be a criminal offense so long as the firearm is not removed from the vehicle or brandished while the vehicle is on the premises. Nothing in this subdivision shall preclude a member of the general assembly, a full-time employee of the general assembly employed under section 17, article III, Constitution of Missouri, legislative employees of the general assembly as determined under section 21.155, or statewide elected officials and their employees, holding a valid concealed carry endorsement, from carrying a concealed firearm in the state capitol building or at a meeting whether of the full body of a house of the general assembly or a committee thereof, that is held in the state capitol building;

[….]

[emphasis in original]

Heh. Except, members of the general public who hold valid conceal carry permits wouldn’t be able to carry in the galleries of the House or the Senate. That’s quite an exception, don’t you think? Wouldn’t letting those in the general public with valid conceal carry permits actually carry in the galleries and everywhere else in the capitol make everyone safer? Just asking.

And, there’s a very interesting absence among the co-sponsors of the bill:

Representative Denny Hoskins (r) – Town Halls: campus conceal carry (June 21, 2009)

[….]

Question:  So, are you going to allow people in the gallery in the House have con… guns? ‘Cause they can’t now. I’ve looked at the legislation, sir. They cannot now.

Representative [Denny] Hoskins: I, I wouldn’t be against that.

Question:Why don’t you introduce that as your legislation then? So that your colleagues could, people in the gallery can have guns in case somebody enters.

Representative Hoskins:  Well, and, and they currently, uh, they can have them out in the hallways. It’s just that they can’t have them in any, uh, I think…[crosstalk]

Question: Well you’re worried about the Kirkwood case, though?

Representative Hoskins: Right.

Question: Don’t you think you ought to have armed citizens sitting above you as you debate, uh, legislation on the floor of  [crosstalk] the General Assembly?

Representative Hoskins: If they’re, uh, properly trained and law abiding [crosstalk] citizens.

Question: Then intro…, why don’t you introduce that, too? The next time you want to make me safe, why don’t you make yourself safe and introduce the same thing? End the, the restriction in the House for conceal and carry?

Representative Hoskins: …but…[crosstalk]

Question: If Kirkwood is, is your, if…[crosstalk]

Representative Hoskins:  I, I didn’t introduce the legislation, so…[crosstalk]

Question: Yeah, but you’re my representative.

Representative Hoskins: I know.

Question: You voted to, to have guns where I work. You understand why I’m concerned about this?

Third person in audience: Are you concerned when you go to Wal-mart? Because people go to Wal-mart. Are you concerned when you walk down the street? Because people walk down the street with guns all the time. [crosstalk]

Question: Sir, I drove a taxicab in the City of Chicago for five years.

Third person in audience: Profess…[crosstalk]

Question: You bet. And no gun was gonna keep me safe. And when I finally had one pointed at the back of my head, had I pulled one out, he’d of got me before I got him…[crosstalk]

Third person in audience: [garbled]…they don’t have that in Illinois…[crosstalk]

Question: What? He’d of killed me before.

Third person in audience: Illinois doesn’t have a conceal carry permit.

Representative Hoskins: Sir, where, where do you think that, uh, guns should be allowed?

Question: Ooh, I, lord knows, having hit a deer, we gotta have, we gotta kill deer in this state. Oh, I love hunters. Please kill deer. Please kill the deer. But I don’t, you think I need a gun in here in this library right now? You think I, I, I feel unsafe? Do you feel unsafe? Because nobody has a gun?

Representative Hoskins: [inaudible] All right. Thank you….

[underline emphasis added]

“…I, I wouldn’t be against that…”

That must be the reason he didn’t sign on to the bill, right?

Ironic, to say the least.

From Representative Denny Hoskins’ (r-noun, verb, CPA) March 4, 2011 Capitol Report:

….This week, Speaker Steve Tilley appointed me to the Missouri Film Commission.  Missouri needs to continue to work hard to attract production companies to come to Missouri to film movies.  This has brought millions of dollars of out-of-state money into Missouri in the last two years, including the films Up in the Air and Winter’s Bone.  Recently, Governor Nixon withheld an important economic development tool that caused Paramount Pictures to withdraw their plans to produce another major film in St. Louis and go to another state.  All states but one have film commissions or offices which work to keep their state in the forefront of consideration so you can see the competition is stiff.  Governor Nixon’s budget recommendation is to eliminate the Missouri Film Commission.  With no film commission, there is no one to advocate for Missouri, which means we aren’t seriously considered.  I have already made my position clear on the importance of this investment in this economic development effort and will continue to do so in the Budget Committee and on the House floor if necessary….

Local film festivals are another matter, however:  

Suppose you held a film festival and right wingnuts didn’t want anyone to attend (September 10, 2010)

The show must go on (September 10, 2010)

Rep. Denny Hoskins (r) and Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder (r): The review is in – two thumbs down (September 14, 2010)

Veto Session Reviews for Rep. Denny Hoskins (r): great potental for a Razzie (September 15, 2010)

Rep. Denny Hoskins (r) and the Film Festival: because the arts never generate economic activity? (September 17, 2010)

Rep. Denny Hoskins (r) and the Film Festival: demagoguery, not oversight (September 18, 2010)

Rep. Denny Hoskins (r) and the Film Festival: that was then, this is now (September 20, 2010)

Rep. Denny Hoskins (r) and the Film Festival: no one knew about it… (September 21, 2010)

A short film about a film festival… (September 22, 2010)

Ky Dickens, the film festival, the Chicago Reader, and teabaggers (September 23, 2010)

We get film festival hate mail (September 28, 2010)

Rep. Denny Hoskins (r) and the Film Festival: that was then, this is now – part 2 (September 28, 2010)

Rep. Denny Hoskins (r) and the Film Festival: what the teabaggers say (October 4, 2010)

So, using public money to promote film and contribute to the local economy in your own district is really bad, but using public money to promote film and contribute to the economy in other places in the state is really good?

What will the teabaggers think?

Representative Denny Hoskins (r-121) prefiled HB 45, a bill to modify a statute with the catchy republican title: “Big Government Get Off My Back Act”. The proposed bill has an interesting addition:

Any federal mandate implemented by the state shall be subject to statutory authorization of the general assembly.

[emphasis in original]

Anyone have an explanation for that clause? Just asking.

There was a letter to the editor about Denny Hoskins (r) last Friday in the Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal:

12/10/2010 11:53:00 AM

Criticism hits appointee

Letter to the Editor

[….]

It appears that the way to get ahead in the Missouri Republican-controlled legislature is to try to avoid taxes and use unethical means to get elected.

These unethical tactics were used against a fine, upstanding and talented young lady. He should be ashamed of what he did, but it seemed to pay off.

The Republicans in the Missouri legislature must certainly condone these tactics, because he was appointed chairman of an important committee. God help us.

Representative Hoskins (r) was appointed by Speaker-elect Steve Tilley (r) to be chair of a House committee. Avoiding taxes and unethical means? Really?

Back to the full text of the bill:

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 45

96TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES HOSKINS (Sponsor), ALLEN, NANCE, MOLENDORP, ZERR, NOLTE, POLLOCK AND SCHARNHORST (Co-sponsors).

0145L.02I                                                                                                                                                  D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To repeal section 1.310, RSMo, and to enact in lieu thereof two new sections relating to small businesses.

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

Section A. Section 1.310, RSMo, is repealed and two new sections enacted in lieu thereof, to be known as sections 1.310 and 143.173, to read as follows:

1.310. 1. This section shall be known and may be cited as the “Big Government Get Off My Back Act”.

2. Any federal mandate implemented by the state shall be subject to statutory authorization of the general assembly.

3. No user fees imposed by the state of Missouri shall increase for the [four-year] five-year period beginning on August 28, 2009, unless such fee increase is to implement a federal program administered by the state or is a result of an act of the general assembly. For purposes of this section, “user fee” does not include employer taxes or contributions, assessments to offset the cost of examining insurance or financial institutions, any health-related taxes approved by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or any professional or occupational licensing fees set by a board of members of that profession or occupation and required by statute to be set at a level not to exceed the cost of administration.

[3.] 4. For the [four-year] five-year period beginning on August 28, 2009, any state agency proposing a rule as that term is defined in subdivision (6) of section 536.010, other than any rule promulgated as a result of a federal mandate, or to implement a federal program administered by the state or an act of the general assembly, shall either:

(1) Certify that the rule does not have an adverse impact on small businesses consisting of fewer than [twenty-five] fifty full- or part-time employees; or

(2) Certify that the rule is necessary to protect the life, health or safety of the public; or

(3) Exempt any small business consisting of fewer than [twenty-five] fifty full- or part-time employees from coverage.

[4.] 5. The provisions of this section shall not be construed to prevent or otherwise restrict an agency from promulgating emergency rules pursuant to section 536.025, or from rescinding any existing rule pursuant to section 536.021.

143.173. 1. As used in this section, the following terms mean:

(1) “Deduction”, an amount subtracted from the taxpayer’s Missouri adjusted gross income to determine Missouri taxable income for the tax year in which such deduction is claimed;

(2) “Small business”, any small business as described in section 1.310;

(3) “Taxpayer”, any small business subject to the income tax imposed in this chapter.

2. In addition to all deductions listed in this chapter, for all taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2011, and ending on or before December 31, 2014, a taxpayer shall be allowed a deduction for each new full-time job created by the small business in the taxable year. The deduction amount shall be as follows:

(1) Ten thousand dollars for each new full-time job created with an annual salary of at least the average annual county wage; or

(2) Twenty thousand dollars for each new full-time job created with an annual salary of at least the average annual county wage if the small business also offers new employee health insurance and pays at least fifty percent of the health insurance premiums of all full-time employees.

3. The department of revenue shall establish the procedure by which the deduction provided in this section may be claimed, and may promulgate rules to implement the provisions of this section. Any rule or portion of a rule, as that term is defined in section 536.010, that is created under the authority delegated in this section shall become effective only if it complies with and is subject to all of the provisions of chapter 536 and, if applicable, section 536.028. This section and chapter 536 are nonseverable and if any of the powers vested with the general assembly under chapter 536 to review, to delay the effective date, or to disapprove and annul a rule are subsequently held unconstitutional, then the grant of rulemaking authority and any rule proposed or adopted after August 28, 2011, shall be invalid and void.

4. Under section 23.253 of the Missouri sunset act:

(1) The provisions of the new program authorized under this section shall automatically sunset on December thirty-first three years after the effective date of this section unless reauthorized by an act of the general assembly; and

(2) If such program is reauthorized, the program authorized under this section shall automatically sunset on December thirty-first three years after the effective date of the reauthorization of this section; and

(3) This section shall terminate on September first of the calendar year immediately following the calendar year in which the program authorized under this section is sunset.

[emphasis in original]

Because deregulation has worked out so well in the past.

The “30 Day After General Election” reports were due in at the Missouri Ethics Commission today. At this point we usually start wading through final campaign reports by race (and we are) and post as many stories as we can on the interesting minutiae and connections we find in our research. In starting that research today we ran into another blatant connection to the robocalls in the 121st Legislative District race. Yes, we were very interested in this race – it had a hardworking and hard charging newcomer in Courtney Cole (D) challenging a republican incumbent who managed to keep shooting himself in the foot. Alas, Denny Hoskins (r) was reelected.

Right at the end of the campaign the Missouri House republican Campaign Committee (HRCC) loosed homophobic robocalls against a number of Democratic candidates across the state, including Courtney Cole, on October 27th. You might want to remember that date.

Of course, the republican candidates disavowed any knowledge of those calls. Wink, wink.

We followed the story and tracked the source of those robocalls:

HRCC? What HRCC? I’ve never heard of them… (November 1, 2010)

….The Missouri House republican Campaign Committee (HRCC) filed a “no name” report with the Missouri Ethics Commission on October 29th. There are some enlightening expenditures:

Detailed Summary of Expenditures And Contributions Made

Committe: HOUSE REPUBLICAN CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE INC

ReportDate: 10/29/2010

Survey St. Louis, LLC PO Box 432 Saint Charles, MO 63302-0432 10/28/2010 IE GOTV Call-Hoskins $1,288.54

Survey St. Louis, LLC PO Box 432 Saint Charles, MO 63302-0432 10/28/2010 IE GOTV Call-Brattin $1,141.13…

That’s for Denny Hoskins (r-noun, verb, CPA) in the 121st Legislative District and Rick Brattin (r) in the 124th Legislative District….

On October 29, 2010 Denny Hoskins (r) publicly disavowed any knowledge of the robocalls in the Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal:

10/29/2010 2:08:00 PM

GOP robocall attacks Cole’s ‘family values’

Warrensburg – Rep. Denny Hoskins sought to distance himself Thursday from a robocall barrage targeting his Nov. 2 Democratic opponent….

….Hoskins said in a prepared statement. “I did not pay for, approve or have any knowledge of the robocall, nor do I condone its message….”

You might want to remember that date.

Denny Hoskins (r) filed his “30 Day After General Election” report with the Missouri Ethics Commission on December 1st. There was an interesting entry in the expenditures:

Detailed Summary of Expenditures And Contributions Made

Committe: CITIZENS FOR HOSKINS

ReportDate: 12/2/2010

B. ITEMIZED EXPENDITURES ALL OVER $100 AND ALL PAYMENTS TO CAMPAIGN WORKERS

SURVEY ST. LOUIS PO BOX 432 ST. CHARLES, MO 63302 10/29/2010 PUSH CARDS $1,712.15

[emphasis added]

That’s right, on the same day that he disavowed the robocalls, and two days after those calls were made, Denny Hoskins (r) paid the perpetrator of those calls, Survey St. Louis, for campaign paraphernalia. How nice.

The right hand doesn’t know what the far right hand is doing? Yeah, right.

So, we thought we do a little searching on Survey St. Louis via the Missouri Secretary of State:

Survey Saint Louis, LLC is a fictitious business name registered to Display Stuff, LLC. The owner is a Thomas Smith.

Business Name History

Name Name Type

Survey Saint Louis, LLC Legal

Fictitious Registration – Domestic – Information

Charter Number: X00589093

Status: Fictitious Active

Entity Creation Date: 5/24/2004

State of Business.: MO

Expiration Date: 8/28/2014

Owners

Name: DISPLAY STUFF, L.L.C.

Address: 320 MONROE STREET

ST. CHARLES MO 63301

The registered agent for Display Stuff, LLC is a Thomas Smith:

Business Name History

Name Name Type

DISPLAY STUFF, L.L.C. Legal

Limited Liability Company – Domestic – Information

Charter Number: LC0044000

Status: Active

Entity Creation Date: 10/26/2000

State of Business.: MO

Expiration Date: Perpetual

Registered Agent

Agent Name: THOMAS W. SMITH, JR.

Office Address: 320 MONROE STREET

ST. CHARLES MO 63301

Mailing Address:

Organizers

Name: JAMES W. MATHIS

Address: 911 WASHINGTON AVEUE

ST. LOUIS MO 63101

Where have we seen that name before?:

…Tom Smith, the owner of the company hired by the HRCC to blast the calls (and who also happens to be a staffer for outgoing Speaker Ron Richard)…

[emphasis added]

Apparently, the right hand washes the far right hand, too.

Previously:

HRCC robocall in the 121st Legislative District: desperation and homophobia (October 27, 2010)

The Missouri HRCC steps in it with homophobic robocalls (October 28, 2010)

Tilley (r) on HRCC robocalls: Uh, that didn’t go very well, did it? (October 28, 2010)

Tilley (r) on HRCC robocalls: “But, but, the Democrats are mean to us…” (October 29, 2010)

Tilley (r), the HRCC robocalls, and the media: “…testing, testing, testing, is this thing on?” (October 29, 2010)

Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal Headline: “GOP robocall attacks Cole’s ‘family values'” (October 29, 2010)

Campaign Finance: old media needs to learn to do some freakin’ research (October 29, 2010)

I guess I’m going to have to go with “No Comment” (October 29, 2010)

Another Democrat fights sleazy robocalls (October 30, 2010)

HRCC? What HRCC? I just like their swag… (October 30, 2010)

Missouri’s HRCC and the robocalls: follow the money (October 31, 2010)

HRCC? What HRCC? I’ve never heard of them… (November 1, 2010)

I see nothing! I know nothing! (November 24, 2010)