Not particularly decisive, via the Missouri Secretary of State::

UnOfficial Results

as of 8/6/2014 4:49:49 AM

Constitutional Amendment 1 3898 of 3898 Precincts Reported

YES 498,751 50.127%

NO 496,223 49.873%

Total Votes: 994,974

By 0.254%. What a waste (dual reference intended).

Previously:

Campaign Finance: $110,000.00 for something they really care about (January 3, 2014)

Campaign Finance: Food fight! (May 28, 2014)

Campaign Finance: Because, across Missouri, family farms are being supplanted by… (June 24, 2014)

Campaign Finance: as if yard signs were actually a cash crop for actual farmers… (June 28, 2014)

Utilizing the First Amendment to challenge our oppressive corporate overlords… (July 2, 2014)

Joe Maxwell – “No” on Amendment No. 1 (July 8, 2014)

Campaign Finance: egg money (July 9, 2014)

Campaign Finance: opposing useless law (July 25, 2014)

Right to farm: read the small print and between the lines (July 25, 2014)

Pinch me, I must be dreaming – Cynthia Davis gets it right on Amendment 1 (July 30, 2014)

Campaign Finance: Big agriculture money keeps pouring in for Amendment 1 (July 31, 2014)

Baker Creek Seed Company – Vote “No” on Amendment 1 (August 3, 2014)

Senator Paul LeVota (D) on Amendment 1 (August 4, 2014)

Proposition B is on the November ballot. It would:

…amend Missouri law to require large-scale dog breeding operations to provide each dog under their care with sufficient food, clean water, housing and space; necessary veterinary care; regular exercise and adequate rest between breeding cycles.  The amendment further prohibits any breeder from having more than 50 breeding dogs for the purpose of selling their puppies as pets.  The amendment also creates a misdemeanor crime of “puppy mill cruelty” for any violations…

Some big contributions have come in for Missourians for the Protection of Dogs, a group which supports the ballot initiative’s restrictions.

CONTRIBUTION OF MORE THAN $5,000.00 RECEIVED BY ANY COMMITTEE FROM ANY SINGLE DONOR – TO BE FILED WITHIN 48 HOURS OF RECEIVING THE CONTRIBUTION

C091304 MISSOURIANS FOR THE PROTECTION OF DOGS [pdf] 8/26/2010

ASPCA

New York, NY

8/26/2010

$200,000.00

[emphasis added]

CONTRIBUTION OF MORE THAN $5,000.00 RECEIVED BY ANY COMMITTEE FROM ANY SINGLE DONOR – TO BE FILED WITHIN 48 HOURS OF RECEIVING THE CONTRIBUTION

C091304 MISSOURIANS FOR THE PROTECTION OF DOGS [pdf] 8/24/2010

The Humane Society of the United States

Gaithersburg, MD

8/24/2010

$500,000.00

[emphasis added]

CONTRIBUTION OF MORE THAN $5,000.00 RECEIVED BY ANY COMMITTEE FROM ANY SINGLE DONOR – TO BE FILED WITHIN 48 HOURS OF RECEIVING THE CONTRIBUTION

C091304 MISSOURIANS FOR THE PROTECTION OF DOGS [pdf] 8/4/2010

Mary and Peter Max

New York, NY

8/5/2010

$10,000.00

Leslie Bhutani

Greenwich, CT

8/5/2010

$5,000.00

[emphasis added]

CONTRIBUTION OF MORE THAN $5,000.00 RECEIVED BY ANY COMMITTEE FROM ANY SINGLE DONOR – TO BE FILED WITHIN 48 HOURS OF RECEIVING THE CONTRIBUTION

C091304 MISSOURIANS FOR THE PROTECTION OF DOGS [pdf] 8/4/2010

Big Cat Rescue Corporation

Tampa, FL

8/3/2010

$5,000.00

Animal Welfare Advocacy Inc

Mamaroneck, NY

8/3/2010

$10,000.00

[emphasis added]

CONTRIBUTION OF MORE THAN $5,000.00 RECEIVED BY ANY COMMITTEE FROM ANY SINGLE DONOR – TO BE FILED WITHIN 48 HOURS OF RECEIVING THE CONTRIBUTION

C091304 MISSOURIANS FOR THE PROTECTION OF DOGS [pdf]8/1/2010

The Fund for Animals

New York, NY

7/30/2010

$10,000.00

[emphasis added]

Okay, this looks like it’s one of three things – no one in Missouri is sufficiently bothered by the problem this initiative seeks to correct that they want to part with large sums of money to help pass it, or the economy is so bad in Missouri that no one has the big bucks to contribute, or the people that have the big bucks to contribute are contributing to something else. Like, I dunno, say, a ballot initiative that’ll gut the finances of Missouri’s two largest cities.

The big contributions continue:

CONTRIBUTION OF MORE THAN $5,000.00 RECEIVED BY ANY COMMITTEE FROM ANY SINGLE DONOR – TO BE FILED WITHIN 48 HOURS OF RECEIVING THE CONTRIBUTION

C091304 MISSOURIANS FOR THE PROTECTION OF DOGS [pdf] 7/30/2010

Paula Kislak, DVM

Santa Barbara CA

7/30/2010

$5,000.00

[emphasis added]

CONTRIBUTION OF MORE THAN $5,000.00 RECEIVED BY ANY COMMITTEE FROM ANY SINGLE DONOR – TO BE FILED WITHIN 48 HOURS OF RECEIVING THE CONTRIBUTION

C091304 MISSOURIANS FOR THE PROTECTION OF DOGS [pdf] 7/28/2010

Michael Katz

New York, NY

7/27/2010

$10,000.00

[emphasis added]

Whew. We finally got one from Missouri. I’m somewhat relieved.

CONTRIBUTION OF MORE THAN $5,000.00 RECEIVED BY ANY COMMITTEE FROM ANY SINGLE DONOR – TO BE FILED WITHIN 48 HOURS OF RECEIVING THE CONTRIBUTION

C091304 MISSOURIANS FOR THE PROTECTION OF DOGS [pdf] 7/21/2010

Humane Society of Missouri

St. Louis, MO

7/21/2010

8,088.10

[emphasis added]

I bet if you vote yes on Proposition B your puppies will thank you.

…and pretty soon you’re talking serious money.

The folks promoting the repeal of earnings taxes in Kansas City and St. Louis got another economic boost from their supporter. Their web site states:

Welcome to the official website of the Let Voters Decide Coalition. Our group was formed to support the initiative proposed for the November 2010 state ballot…

[emphasis added]

Reported today at the Missouri Ethics Commission [pdf]:

MISSOURI ETHICS COMMISSION

CONTRIBUTION OF MORE THAN $5,000.00 RECEIVED BY ANY COMMITTEE FROM ANY SINGLE DONOR – TO BE FILED WITHIN 48 HOURS OF RECEIVING THE CONTRIBUTION

LET VOTERS DECIDE 6/4/2010

C101013

Rex A. Sinquefield

Westphalia, 6/3/2010

$2,534,000.00

[emphasis added]

Let’s take a look at the “Let Voters Decide” first quarter campaign finance report filed with the Missouri Ethics Commission on April 15th:

Detailed Summary of Committee Disclosure Report

Committe: LET VOTERS DECIDE

ReportDate: 4/15/2010

1. TOTAL RECEIPTS FOR THIS ELECTION PREVIOUSLY REPORTED $0.00

2. ALL MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED THIS PERIOD $1,000,545.00

9. TOTAL ALL RECEIPTS THIS ELECTION(SUM 1B + 7A – 8A) $1,000,545.00

15. TOTAL EXPENDITURES THIS ELECTION (SUM 10B + 14A) $889,541.68

28. MONEY ON HAND AT THE CLOSE OF THIS REPORTING PERIOD (SUM 25 + 26 – 27) $111,003.32

Okay, let’s take a look at where all that money came from. That’s got to be a serious grass roots fundraising effort. Wrong:

Detailed Summary of Contributions And Loans Received

Committee: LET VOTERS DECIDE

Report Date: 4/15/2010

A. ITEMIZED CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED FROM COMMITTEES REGARDLESS OF THE AMOUNT, OR FROM PERSONS GIVING MORE THAN $100 TO A COMMITTEE.

Rex Sinquefield Westphalia MO Retired 01/19/2010 $500,000.00

Robert F. Poli St. Louis MO Washington University Education 01/13/2010 $200.00

Rex Sinquefield Westphalia MO Retired 01/19/2010 $500,000.00

13. TOTAL MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED FROM PERSONS GIVING $100 OR LESS $345.00

That’s all of it. You’ve got wonder why Mr. Poli even bothered.

Now when one contributor funds $3,534,000.00 and a few others toss in a couple hundred bucks it’s beyond irony to call the promoter of the ballot initiative a “coalition” or the person funding it a “group.”

The expenditures:

Detailed Summary of Expenditures And Contributions Made

Committe: LET VOTERS DECIDE

ReportDate: 4/15/2010

Advertisers Printing Company Dept. Number 22925 St. Louis MO 02/23/2010 Printing $1,136.54

National Petition Management Roseville CA 01/21/2010 Petition Signature Gathering $120,000.00

Brown Printing Jefferson City MO 02/01/2010 Printing $2,615.13

Winner and Mandabach Campaigns Santa Monica CA 02/01/2010 Campaign Management $40,000.00

Charton Communications Columbia MO 02/01/2010 Communications $2,500.00

Johnston & Company Sarasota FL 02/01/2010 Communications $2,500.00

Peri Hall & Associates Inc Williamsburg MA 02/01/2010 Internet Outreach $2,500.00

Peri Hall & Associates Inc Williamsburg MA 02/01/2010 Internet Outreach $12,550.00

Initative Law Group St. Louis MO 02/01/2010 Legal Services $2,500.00

CommonGround Public Relations Chesterfield MO 02/01/2010 Media Support $2,500.00

National Petition Management Roseville CA 02/01/2010 Petition Signature Gathering $48,764.48

Blitz Bardgett & Deutsch Jefferson City MO 02/01/2010 Legal Services $17,500.00

Winner and Mandabach Campaigns Santa Monica CA 02/23/2010 Campaign Management $25,000.00

Charton Communications Columbia MO 02/23/2010 Communications $2,500.00

Peri Hall & Associates Inc Williamsburg MA 02/23/2010 Internet Outreach $5,550.38

Johnston & Company Sarasota FL 02/23/2010 Campaign Operations $12,196.68

Winner and Mandabach Campaigns Santa Monica CA 02/23/2010 Campaign Management $7,500.00

Brown Printing Jefferson City MO 02/23/2010 Printing $2,615.13

National Petition Management Roseville CA 02/23/2010 Petition Signature Gathering $103,042.76

Blitz Bardgett & Deutsch Jefferson City MO 02/23/2010 Legal Services $30.20

Winner and Mandabach Campaigns Santa Monica CA 02/23/2010 Campaign Management $2,500.00

Winner and Mandabach Campaigns Santa Monica CA 02/23/2010 Campaign Management $2,500.00

Post Master St. Louis MO 03/05/2010 Postage $185.00

Post Master St. Louis MO 03/05/2010 Rental Fee $585.00

Blitz Bardgett & Deutsch Jefferson City MO 03/09/2010 Legal Services $17,500.00

National Petition Management Roseville CA 03/09/2010 Petition Signature Gathering $229,439.59

Advertisers Printing Company Dept. Number 22925 St. Louis MO 03/09/2010 Printing $1,293.48

Winner and Mandabach Campaigns Santa Monica CA 03/09/2010 Campaign Management $5,000.00

Winner and Mandabach Campaigns Santa Monica CA 03/09/2010 Campaign Management $47,900.00

SalientPoint LLC Boston MA 03/09/2010 Media Services $9,825.56

Brown Printing Jefferson City MO 03/18/2010 Printing $2,615.13

Johnston & Company Sarasota FL 03/18/2010 Campaign Operations $10,762.50

CommonGround Public Relations Chesterfield MO 03/18/2010 Media Support $7,514.41

Laura Barlow Winter St. Louis MO 03/18/2010 Campaign Outreach $6,200.00

Charton Communications Columbia MO 03/18/2010 Communications $2,500.00

Winner and Mandabach Campaigns Santa Monica CA 03/18/2010 Campaign Management $25,209.30

National Petition Management Roseville CA 03/18/2010 Petition Signature Gathering $74,510.41

Pelopidas St. Louis MO 03/29/2010 Campaign Services $30,000.00

[emphasis added]

Ah, the usual suspects.

This is the golden rules of politics. He who has the gold apparently “decides”.  

The ballot initiative carpetbaggers are coming, with deceptively titled petitions they hope we’ll be dopey enough to vote on. Californian Ward Connerly is trying to sell us the “Missouri Civil Rights” petition aimed at banning affirmative action. The petition nowhere said that banning affirmative action was its aim, though. Instead, it claimed it would “ban discrimination based on race or gender.” There’s a beaut of a misrepresentation.

But for sheer audacity in lying, the “Prevention of Coerced and Unsafe Abortion Act”, rivals it. This ballot initiative, brought to us by the Illinois-based Elliot Institute, king of anti-abortion junk science, would effectively outlaw abortion.

Don’t you just love that title: “Prevention of Coerced and Unsafe Abortion Act”. Ladies, how many of you have been coerced into having abortions? And speaking of “unsafe”, let me remind you that “one in three American women will have an abortion at some point in their reproductive lives.” Don’t for a minute think that if abortion is outlawed, all those women will shrug their shoulders and buy a layette. Many of them will have truly “unsafe” abortions.

What’s unsafe is banning all abortions. South Dakota, here we come.

Or not. Maybe it won’t get to the signature gathering phase. It’s currently tied up in court by a lawsuit financed by Planned Parenthood. PP contends that the proposed ballot measure is unconstitutional on its face because Roe v. Wade guarantees a woman’s constitutional right to abortion.  

The initiative would ban abortion, without provision for rape or incest, in all cases except where the mother will die otherwise or suffer organ failure. Even in the case where the mother faces imminent death, she must undergo an extensive evaluation by a licensed psychologist, social worker or registered nurse, who will then write a report about the findings. Furthermore, the pregnant woman must be told about “risk factors” (enter junk science). After all these requirements are met, the physician must still wait 48 hours, regardless of the possible impact on her health, so that she can reflect on what she’s about to do.

The “risk factors” such women–who might be on their death beds–would hear about are hokum, factors such as the claim that abortion and breast cancer are linked. Reliable scientific studies disprove that claim. But the people at the Elliot Institute point to articles in respected peer reviewed journals, articles that support the claim.

Um-hmm. The articles, filled with ersatz science, are indeed printed in respected journals. That’s because such journals take a few articles on controversial topics, knowing that the peer review process will reveal them to be full of holes. It’s a process of separating the wheat from the chaff. The Elliot Institute lies, in effect, when it pretends its claims are wheat, not chaff.

Maybe Missouri won’t have to face these liars on the ballot this year, though. The pending lawsuit might finish quickly and be decided in Planned Parenthood’s favor. Or if the court rules against PP, perhaps it will take time to do so. Delay is good, making gathering 90,000 signatures more difficult. One concern about the trial, however, is that our Missouri court may feel bound to follow the lead of the Roberts court. That would be bad news because the Roberts court has quietly undertaken a “profound restructuring of constitutional law”, according to Pamela Sumners, executive director of NARAL in Missouri.

The Roberts court has declined to rule on issues that look to be unconstitutional on their face, instead requiring citizens to wait until such laws have gone into effect and then to prove that they do harm in a way the constitution forbids.

It used to be that citizens could challenge a law before it went into effect. They could look at a statute and say that this can’t possibly be constitutional–before it was ever put into effect. If the court agreed, it could enjoin bad acts before they could occur and do damage. With the precedent the Roberts court has set, our court may feel legally bound to rule that this ballot initiative should go forward and that only if it becomes law can anyone challenge it.

Just in case the Missouri court rules, however, that the petition is unconstitutional on its face, a second petition has now been submitted. And although this one, Stop Forced Abortions Alliance, supposedly does not come from the Elliot Institute, the same two people are named as contact people on both petitions. This second one is even more deceptive in that it claims (as if!) not to be a ban on abortions–you know, just in case the court rules that banning abortions is unconstitutional.

Of course, either or both of those initiatives might well fail at the polls anyway. In fact, Michelle Trupiano of Planned Parenthood, doesn’t think their chances of success are great. They would be on the ballot to bring out true believers to vote against Democrats.

These initiatives are a case of people from out of state monkeying around in Missouri’s election. Isn’t there some way to keep these carpetbaggers out?

….or more.  Any evening this week from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m., you could help out in St. Charles, but you’ll be multitasking.

One hand is going to be holding a clipboard for collecting signatures in the petition drive to get an amendment on the ballot mandating hand-counted paper ballots in Missouri instead of computerized voting.

Another hand will be giving folks information about the special election in St. Charles next Tuesday for the state senate.  Republican Chuck Gross resigned from the senate.  Ed Applebaum, the Democrat, is facing a well funded Republican named Tom Dempsey.  Applebaum’s a good man and, by the by, could use your contribution.

The third hand will have voter registration cards.

No partisan rant will be required or even desired.  You’ll just be urging people to vote in an election where single digit turnout is expected, helping them register if need be, and asking for a petition signature.  That request for signatures will prove to be popular.  When several volunteers for Show Me the Vote went signature collecting recently at the St. Charles Festival of Little Hills, they got a seventy percent positive response from people they approached for signatures.  That’s as in 70% of the people were glad to sign.  A lot of Missourians would be happy to see the last of those computers at the voting precinct.

The reason you might need more than three hands, by the way, is that petition signers have to sign on a sheet for the county they reside in.  Just kidding about the hands.  You won’t need extras, of course.  Just put a sheet for each county on your clipboard.

Volunteering in St. Charles will enable you to kill three birds with one stone. 

If you’re interested in helping, call Judith Conoyer (636-946-8425).  And if you need a ride, call Pro-Vote.