A concurrent resolution, introduced today by Representative Bill Rieboldt (r):

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

House Concurrent Resolution No. 35 [pdf]

98TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE REIBOLDT.

2292H.01I

WHEREAS, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, also known as the Commerce Clause, was designed to ensure free trade between the states by preventing any state from imposing a tariff or other restriction on goods from another state; and

WHEREAS, the Commerce Clause is an enumerated power granted to Congress and is also a restriction imposed on states from enacting legislation that places an undue burden on interstate commerce; and

WHEREAS, California voters adopted Proposition 2 to their state constitution in 2008, requiring the state’s egg producers to switch to “enriched cages” or nonconfinement operations in a campaign led and funded by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS); and

WHEREAS, HSUS is a national animal rights group that has aggressively pursued an agenda intended to decrease and eventually eliminate the public’s consumption of animal protein; and

WHEREAS, forcing egg producers to switch to “enriched cages” or nonconfinement operations drove up the cost of eggs in the European Union while also leading to food shortages and the closure of countless farms; and

WHEREAS, forcing egg farmers in America to utilize “enriched cages” or nonconfinement operations will lead to the same impacts on the U.S. economy and food supply; and

WHEREAS, in 2010, at the behest of HSUS, the California legislature passed AB 1437, which was signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown, prohibiting the sale of eggs from other states that do not meet the requirements of Proposition 2 of 2008; and

WHEREAS, together, California’s Proposition 2 and AB 1437 violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution by preventing free trade among the states; and

WHEREAS, together, California’s Proposition 2 and AB 1437 have artificially increased egg prices and restricted the availability of affordable eggs and vital animal protein to Californians, especially low-income citizens:

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the members of the House of Representatives of the Ninety-eighth General Assembly, First Regular Session, the Senate concurring therein, hereby condemn California’s anti-trade actions and call on the California legislature to repeal AB 1437 and urge the voters of California to reconsider and repeal Proposition 2.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chief Clerk of the Missouri House of Representatives be instructed to prepare a properly inscribed copy of this resolution for the majority and minority leaders of the California General Assembly, the Governor of California, and the Attorney General of California.

[emphasis in original]

“…California’s Proposition 2 and AB 1437 violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution by preventing free trade among the states…”

Uh, that would be determined by the federal courts if somebody actually bothered to pursue the issue. Oh, wait…

“…HSUS is a national animal rights group that has aggressively pursued an agenda intended to decrease and eventually eliminate the public’s consumption of animal protein…”

Left out the part about the “conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids”.

Irony impairment alert:

“…California’s Proposition 2 and AB 1437 have artificially increased egg prices and restricted the availability of affordable eggs and vital animal protein to Californians, especially low-income citizens…”

The concern for California’s low-income citizens from the Missouri General Assembly is touching. You know, unlike Missouri’s low-income citizens, they have better access to affordable health care.

Ladies and gentlemen, the priorities of our republican controlled Missouri General Assembly.

Previously:

HB 826: the wrath of grapes (February 4, 2015)

….2. No domestic wine shall be sold at retail in the state unless it has been certified as having been produced by and with grapes harvested by verified United States citizens….

[emphasis in original]

At the U.S. Department of Homeland Security:

U.S. Citizenship

If you meet certain requirements, you may become a U.S. citizen either at birth or after birth.

To become a citizen at birth, you must:

   Have been born in the United States or certain territories or outlying possessions of the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; OR    

   had a parent or parents who were citizens at the time of your birth (if you were born abroad) and meet other requirements

To become a citizen after birth, you must:

   Apply for “derived” or “acquired” citizenship through parents

   Apply for naturalization

Okay.

We received copies of the following e-mail conversation from the individual who initiated it:

On Feb 5, 2015, at 10:52 PM [….]

Dear Representative McGaugh,

Why do you want to make it impossible for my spouse, who lives in the US legally, to produce wine that can be sold in Missouri?

[….]

We wondered about that concept, too.

The first response from Representative McGaugh (r):

Subject: Re: HB 826

Date: 2/5/15 10:58:17 PM

From: “JoeDon McGaugh” JoeDon.McGaugh@house.mo.gov

To: [….]

If your spouse lives legally in the US I don’t see what the issue is. If you are using unverified workers to produce wine and pick grapes that will be another issue.

Thanks. JDM

A follow up of the inquiry:

On Feb 6, 2015, at 6:50 AM [….]

Representive McGaugh,

You have not read the language of your bill.  Reread it again and tell me how your bill excludes my spouse who is not a US citizen.

[….]

That’s what we read, too.

But wait, there’s more from Representative McGaugh:

On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 6:56 AM [JoeDon McGaugh]

If she is here legally she would be verified. That is my intention. Verified workers covers lawful permanent residents and if not we will change it.

If California can tell us how to humanely raise our livestock we can tell them how they must produce their wine.

I am sure Chris Koster will be supportive given his federal lawsuit challenging California’s actions.

Thanks again.

JDM

Wait a minute, the bill [pdf] language makes no reference to “lawful permanent residents”.

This is all about egg retaliation? Really?

And still more in the inquiry

On Feb 6, 2015, at 9:05 AM [….]

Here is the language in your legislation:

2. No domestic wine shall be sold at retail in the state unless it has been certified as having been produced by and with grapes harvested by verified United States citizens.

My spouse is in this country legally, but she is NOT a “verified United States citizen.”

With all due respect, do you understand what “citizen” means?  Do you understand there are people living and working in the US, legally, and are not citizens, verified or not verified?

I appreciate your responding to my inquiries.

[….]

And the final response from Representative McGaugh (r):

Subject: Re: HB 826

Date: 2/6/15 10:00:16 AM

From: “JoeDon McGaugh” JoeDon.McGaugh@house.mo.gov

To: [….]

http://www.uscis.gov/e-verify

My idea was to have the Dept of Ag verify like the E-verify system.

Again my intent is to not disqualify any lawfully present citizens. Only those businesses who are bad actors.

JDM

What on earth is a “lawfully present citizen”? Anyone? Anyone?

Today the U.S. Supreme Court, 5-4, punted on California’s Proposition 8 which repealed gay marriage in that state:

HOLLINGSWORTH ET AL. v. PERRY ET AL. [pdf]

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-144. Argued March 26, 2013-Decided June 26, 2013

….We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to. We decline to do so for the first time here.

Because petitioners have not satisfied their burden to demonstrate standing to appeal the judgment of the District Court, the Ninth Circuit was without jurisdiction to consider the appeal. The judgment of the Ninth Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

It is so ordered.

This ruling effectively restores gay marriage in California, the Supreme Court ruling that the people who brought the case to overturn the overturning (think about that for a second) do not have standing to bring the case to the court.

I wanted to make the complete videos available here. Videos by Jerry Schmidt.

Previously:

Missouri: our delusional paranoids are creative in a folk art sort of way (May 4, 2012)

Town Hall Meta (May 4, 2012)

Vicky Hartzler rats out Showmeprogress crew! (May 5, 2012)

On May 4, 2012 Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) held town halls in Buffalo, Versailles and California, Missouri. We attended all three and photographed and recorded audio and video at each event.

We’ve noted at the town halls that we’ve attended this Spring that the number of people who show up is relatively miniscule when compared to the number of people who live in and actually vote in the district.

The town hall in California, Missouri was held in the new city building. Other than two

of us from Show Me Progress there was only one other media representative present (from the local paper).

Representative Hartzler (r) working the room in Buffalo, Missouri before her presentation and the question and answer session.

Power point slides as part of the presentation in Buffalo. We’ve seen many of these before.

In Buffalo, Missouri, a response to a paranoid question about an executive order signed on March 16th by President Obama to “take over everything” in a declared emergency (Gee, where have we seen that before?):

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r): ….and this president has done more executive orders than any other president, although it is, has been a tool that’s been used by every president since George Washington….

Au contraire, from the National Archives:

Executive Orders Disposition Tables Index

The Disposition Tables list the status of Executive Orders from:

January 8, 1937 – May 2, 2012

Barack Obama (2009-Present)

EO’s 13489 – 13607

George W. Bush (2001-2009)

EO’s 13198-13488

William J. Clinton (1993-2001)

EO’s 12834-13197

George Bush (1989-1993)

EO’s 12668-12833

Ronald Reagan (1981-1989)

EO’s 12287-12667

Jimmy Carter (1977-1981)

EO’s 11967-12286

Gerald R. Ford (1974-1977)

EO’s 11798-11966

Richard Nixon (1969-1974)

EO’s 11452-11797

Lyndon B. Johnson (1963-1969)

EO’s 11128-11451

John F. Kennedy (1961-1963)

EO’s 10914-11127

Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953-1961)

EO’s 10432-10913

Harry S. Truman (1945-1953)

EO’s 9538-10431

Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933-1945)

EO’s 6071-9537

Herbert Hoover (1929-1933)

EO’s 5075-6070

Do the math. That’s 118 by President Obama, 290 by George W. Bush, 363 by Bill Clinton, 165 by George H. W. Bush, 380 by Ronald Reagan, 319 by Jimmy Carter, 168 by Gerald Ford, 345 by Richard Nixon, 323 by Lyndon Johnson, 213 by John Kennedy, 481 by Dwight Eisenhower, 893 by Harry Truman, 3,466 by FDR, and 995 by Herbert Hoover.

“…and this president has done more executive orders than any other president…”

Not even close.  

There were six different members of Representative Hartzler’s (r) staff in attendance at different stages of the three May 4th town halls.

In Buffalo, Missouri.

Working the room before her presentation and the question and answer session in Versailles, Missouri:

Taking questions in Versailles, Missouri:

Working the room in California, Missouri:

Taking questions in California:

This Spring Representative Hartzler (r) did close to twenty town halls and “meet and greets”. For the events we attended the difference in format between the two was mostly a matter of length and, sometimes, the slide presentation was absent from the meet and greet. At each location Representative Hartzler’s staff set up a sign-in table. On her arrival Representative Hartzler greets everyone in the room individually, taking time to speak briefly with them. She may nod to the bloggers, if they’ve been at a number of her town halls. A staffer sometimes accompanies her, taking photos. Representative Hartzler then does a presentation (lasting up to twenty or so minutes), then takes questions for the remainder of the event. At the close of the event she takes time to talk with those who wish to visit.

The attendance at the events we’ve covered this Spring has been relatively sparse. We’ve noted that there has been a definite ideological mix of people showing up, from obvious libertarians (by their questions), to teabaggers (by their t-shirts), to true believers, to corporatist republicans (by their introductions), to Democrats (by their questions and t-shirts).

Representative Hartzler (r) sometimes avoids calling on obvious Democrats (either because she knows them or because they’re wearing t-shirts identifying them as such), though she’s not always successful in avoiding them. To be fair, when she can’t avoid it, she does take questions from the obvious Democrats. Interestingly, the most painfully embarrassing questions and/or statements appear to come from the lunatic fringe right wingnuts in attendance.

Meta. Here’s a tip for folks in public life who are new to this Internets and blogging thing – if you did or said something that attracted a lot of attention, remember, you were the one who did or said it.

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) presented three town halls in the 4th Congressional District today in the towns of Buffalo, Versailles and California. We were there.

Under the constituent sign-in table at Representative Vicky Hartzler’s (r) town hall in Buffalo, Missouri – May 4, 2012.

For anyone who has attended one of Representative Hartzler’s town halls this is funny and ironic on so many levels.

Before the start of the Buffalo town hall one of Representative Hartzler’s staffers approached us as we had finished setting up and I had started taking stills of people signing in for the town hall. The conversation (paraphrased):

Staffer:  Are you taking video?

Me: No, he does video [pointing to Jerry Schmidt]. I take stills. [There was a slight pause in the conversation]

Staffer: I would prefer that you not. People attending don’t want to be on video or pictures, their privacy…

Me: This is a public meeting. Have we ever done anything in the past other than present everything in its entirety?

Staffer: I could ask you all day and I suppose the answer would be the same.

Me: This is a public meeting.

There were six different staff in attendance at different stages of the three town halls.

In Versailles, Missouri. That’s a staffer on the right with a camera.

Wait, that’s a staffer with a camera taking pictures of Representative Hartzler interacting with constituents at a town hall? We do that, too. We also do meticulous transcripts of the proceedings so anyone can read what went on.

Part of the response to a question by a constituent at the Versailles, Missouri town hall about Representative Hartzler’s worth as reported in her personal financial disclosure report:

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r): ….So those reports are written by people who don’t like me, who don’t want me reelected. They’re here, we’ve got people been following me around. They take my pictures, they’re video recording me so they can defeat me this November. Uh, anyway, that’s a part of it. So, you know, But it’s out there and, uh, anyway, so….

“…they’re video recording me so they can defeat me this November…”

“…if you did or said something that attracted a lot of attention, remember, you were the one who did or said it…”

Uh, we cover politics and government in Missouri. We post that information (photographs, video, transcripts, public reports) on our blog so that anyone who may be interested can access it. You know, it’s called reporting.

If you think we’re just being mean to you, you might want to ask Senator Claire McCaskill (D) and Representative Chris Kelly (D) about that.

In Versailles. Same staffer, same camera, same member of Congress, different constituent.

In California, Missouri. Same staffer, same camera, same member of Congress, different constituents, different town.

The lack of respect for people’s privacy at public events is just beyond the pale.

Previously: Missouri’s Adam Smith Foundation gives $498,000 to repeal California’s greenhouse gas law (April 19, 2010)

Yesterday, in California, from the Sacramento Bee:

Democrats seek federal probe of Prop. 23 donor

By Rick Daysog

Published: Thursday, Aug. 5, 2010 – 12:00 am | Page 3A

State Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and Assembly Speaker John Pérez have asked U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to open an investigation into a tiny Missouri nonprofit organization that has pumped nearly $500,000 into a voter initiative to suspend the state’s landmark climate change law.

In a letter to Holder on Tuesday, Steinberg, D-Sacramento, and Pérez, D-Los Angeles, asked the Justice Department to determine whether the Adam Smith Foundation is illegally funneling campaign contributions from third parties to support the rollback measure, Proposition 23….

Our good friends at Fired Up have even more detail.

Our question in April:

Where did that $498,000 that the Adam Smith Foundation contributed come from? Just asking.

There’s got to be a really interesting answer somewhere.

Missouri’s Adam Smith Foundation contributed $498,000 toward the effort to repeal California’s greenhouse gas law.

Obviously, they must believe their work in Missouri is done.

Assembly Bill 32, directed at reducing greenhouse gases in California, was passed and signed into law by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2006.

Missouri group gives $500,000 to AB 32 repeal effort

By Anthony York | 04/19/10 12:00 AM PST

Adam Smith’s invisible hand has found its way into California politics.

Last week, a nonprofit group called the Adam Smith Foundation, based in Jefferson City, Missouri, gave $498,000 to the campaign to repeal California’s greenhouse gas law. That’s quite a contribution, considering the group’s entire revenues for the last two years were just $30,000 per year.

What’s more curious is how the donation fits in with the group’s stated mission. According to documents filed with the Internal Revenue Service,  the Adam Smith Foundation describes itself as “an advocacy organization committed to promoting conservative principles and individual liberties in Missouri. The Adam Smith Foundation was created to defend judicial reform, government accountability, education reform, tax and spending reform and protecting private property.”

So how did the fight to repeal AB 32 get on the foundation’s radar? And who gave money to the foundation to give to the campaign in California? Unfortunately, federal records don’t show us that. The phone number on their federal forms has been disconnected, and an e-mail sent through the group’s Web site Monday was not returned….

The Adam Smith Foundation filed its annual report with the Missouri Secretary of State on July 17, 2009. Its officers and board:

Pres: John Elliott, Smithville, MO

Asst Sec’y: Thomas J. Shupe, Jr., St. Louis, MO

Board of Directors:

Kurt Killen, Platte Woods, MO

William Clark Hardin, IV, St. Charles, MO

John Elliott, Smithville, MO

The Adam Smith Foundation’s registered agent is Registered Agent, Ltd. at the address of Lathrop & Gage in Kansas City, Missouri.

Oh what a tangled web we weave when it comes to right wingnut causes and contributions:

Detailed Summary of Contributions And Loans Received

Committee: SHOWME BETTER COURTS

Report Date: 4/13/2010

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

James Harris Jefferson City MO01/01/2010 $100.00

David Humphreys Joplin MO 03/09/2010 $75,000.00

American Democracy Alliance Kansas City MO 03/17/2010 $100,000.00

Gordon Kinne Springfield MO 03/22/2010 $5,000.00

J Michael Conoyer St Peters MO 03/24/2010 $5,000.00

David Humphreys Joplin MO 03/29/2010 $75,000.00

Lt. Col. John Robert Harris II Washington MO 03/29/2010 $30.00

Lois Linton Ballwin MO 03/31/2010 $20.00

Missouri Federation of Animal Owners Eldon MO 03/31/2010 $10.00

Lewis and Karen Strange Eldon MO 65026 03/31/2010 $10.00

Thomas and Beverly Shupe St. Louis MO 03/31/2010 $10.00

( 8. TOTAL: ITEMIZED CONTRIBUTIONS THIS PERIOD : $260,180.00 )

9. AMOUNT OF ITEM 8 THAT WAS RECEIVED AS MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS $260,180.00

10. AMOUNT OF ITEM 8 THAT WAS RECEIVED AS IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS $0.00

B. NON-ITEMIZED CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED

11. TOTAL CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED AT FUND-RAISERS AS REPORTED IN LINE 8 ON FORM CD 1A $0.00

12. TOTAL ANONYMOUS CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED FROM PERSONS GIVING $25 OR LESS $0.00

13. TOTAL MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED FROM PERSONS GIVING $100 OR LESS $0.00

14. TOTAL IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED FROM PERSONS (NOT COMMITTEES) GIVING $100 OR LESS $0.00

C. LOANS RECEIVED

NO LOANS RECEIVED

21. TOTAL:  ALL IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS (SUM 10 + 14) $0.00

22. TOTAL:  ALL MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS (SUM 9, 11, 12 & 13) $260,180.00

23. MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS AND LOANS RECEIVED REQUIRING A RECORD OF NAME AND ADDRESS (SUM 9, 13 & 20) $260,180.00

[emphasis added]

That’s it for contributions this quarter. Uh, you think that handful of small dollar contributions are there for a reason?

But, wait, there’s more. The same PAC filed a required 48 hour report for contributions over $5000 on April 16th [pdf]:

SHOWME BETTER COURTS 4/16/2010

Herzog Contracting Corporation St. Joseph, MO 4/16/2010 150,000.00

That’s serious cash for people like the rest of us who aren’t in the top 1%.

There’s even more (we did a little digging):

Detailed Summary of Contributions And Loans Received

Committee: CITIZENS AGAINST FOREVER TAX – DEBT SERVICE

Report Date: 9/3/2009

John Elliott Smithville MO Self Employed Data Base Specialist 07/29/2009 $600.00

American Democracy Alliance Kansas City MO 08/03/2009 $12,000.00

Adam Smith Foundation Jefferson City MO 8/12/2009 $2,500.00

[emphasis added]

And what did they oppose?:

Detailed Summary Of Direct Expenditure Report

Committe: CITIZENS AGAINST FOREVER TAX – DEBT SERVICE

ReportDate: 9/29/2009

B. BALLOT MEASURES

Shall Platte County impose a 1/2 Cent Sales Tax for parks and storm water drainage? 08/04/2009 Oppose $25,628.87

How do you get from opposing a public works project on a county-wide ballot to advocating the repeal of the greenhouse gas reduction law in California? Just asking.

The board members of the Adam Smith Foundation don’t appear to be big buck contributors:

C031160 FRIENDS OF TILLEY KURT KILLEN PLATTE WOODS MO COLLEGIATE PRINT TECHNOLOGIES 03/16/2009 $20.00 APRIL – COMMITTEE QUARTERLY REPORT

C010795 JASON BROWN FOR SENATE Kurt Killen Kansas City, MO 64151 self-employed 10/13/2009 $100.00 OCTOBER – COMMITTEE QUARTERLY REPORT

C091196 CITIZENS FOR RON SCHIEBER Kurt Killen Platte Woods, MO 12/31/2009 $100.00 JANUARY – COMMITTEE QUARTERLY REPORT

C091196 CITIZENS FOR RON SCHIEBER Kurt Killen Platte Woods, 3/12/2010 $200.00 APRIL – COMMITTEE QUARTERLY REPORT

Where did that $498,000 that the Adam Smith Foundation contributed come from? Just asking.

Demonstration at the J.C. Nichols fountain in the park at 47th and Main in Kansas City on November 15, 2008.

They cut the baby in half.

May 26 2009 S168047 Strauss v. Horton 5/26/09 SC

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA…

…For the third time in recent years, this court is called upon to address a question under California law relating to marriage and same-sex couples…

…Accordingly, we conclude that each of the state constitutional challenges to Proposition 8 advanced by petitioners and the Attorney General lacks merit.  Having been approved by a majority of the voters at the November 4, 2008 election, the initiative measure lawfully amends the California Constitution to include the new provision as article I, section 7.5…

…Finally, we consider whether Proposition 8 affects the validity of the marriages of same-sex couples that were performed prior to the adoption of Proposition 8.  Applying well-established legal principles pertinent to the question whether a constitutional provision should be interpreted to apply prospectively or retroactively, we conclude that the new section cannot properly be interpreted to apply retroactively.  Accordingly, the marriages of same-sex couples performed prior to the effective date of Proposition 8 remain valid and must continue to be recognized in this state…

Our previous coverage of public demonstrations:

Proposition 8 rally in Kansas City

Proposition 8 rally in Kansas City – more photos

Join the Impact in Saint Louis

You can bet there’ll be more.