It seems that the State Senate is doing something to try to put the kibosh on all the recent talk about corruption in the Missouri legislature. Wednesday they approved a bill (SB11) that would close a loophole that allows lobbyists to “wine and dine” groups of legislators without reporting the individuals who drank and dined on their dime. If the bill makes it to and through the House in its present form, it would also prohibit legislators from going to work as lobbyists until after a two-year “cooling” off period.

Efforts to amend the bill to eliminate or control lobbyists gifts and to cap campaign donations were discarded via procedural means or defeated through voice votes, both mechanisms that allow lawmakers to avoid going on the record in support of corrupt practices. So essentially, the Missouri Senate voted only for “transparency,” which is Missouri legislative speak for saying that now we will probably get to know more about who has bought our politicians although we can’t do much about it. Whoopeee! Oh, and special interests have to wait to buy statehouse influence in the form of ex-pols.

There is, though, one more provision that is especially interesting. The bill, sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Ron Richard, would prohibit out-of-state travel paid for by lobbyists with the exception of “a nonprofit organization hosting an educational event.” Sounds benign, doesn’t it? But think again.

I suspect entities like the corporate funded American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) qualify as such a nonprofit organization. But ALEC also offers a “corporate-funded scholarship program” that flies “politicians across the country for ALEC conferences at luxury hotels, where they are wined and dined by lobbyists.” These meetings are often justified as “educational.” Would ALEC’s non-profit status protect the relationship it has with many Missouri legislators?  The organization claims it has ties to at least 57 Missouri lawmakers. According to NPR:

ALEC is sort of almost a dating service between politicians at the state level, local elected politicians, and many of America’s biggest companies. It brings them together much as a dating service would do. It sits them in rooms behind closed doors where three times a year they come together to think about what should be the next wave of state-based legislation and they have presentations from the companies that say what they would like to see done legislatively in states right across America. Then they have a vote and the legislators begin. Hundreds of state legislators across America belong to ALEC and come to these meetings.

ALEC pays for legislators to attend meetings where, as Progress Missouri puts it, “corporations hand Missouri legislators wish lists in the form of ‘model’ legislation that often directly benefit their bottom line at the expense of Missouri families,”  and  our representatives then “pass-off the bills as their own ideas and important public policy innovations without disclosing that corporations crafted and pre-voted on the bills at closed-door meetings with legislators who are part of ALEC.”

Two such ALEC-type bills have just been introduced into the Missouri House. Rep. Eric Burlison (R-133) and Rep. Courtney Curtis (D-073) are fronting classic ALEC right-to-work bills. Both bills would “disallow labor unions from charging non-union members fees for representing them when workers collectively bargain.”

Burlison mouths the standard ALEC line; he claims that he’s interested in saving “jobs” and contends that asking non-union workers to pay their share for their union-secured benefits scares off those elusive and fragile job-creators conservatives keep telling us about. He does  have a novel if somewhat logic-challenged response to the charge that right-to-work depresses wages: he asserts that his right-to-work  “might cut those wages that are ‘artificially inflated’ by unions, but denied the policy might hurt an employee’s bottom line.” Hnnnh? Curtis, on the other hand, claims that his interest in right-to-work stems from concerns about racial discrimination by unions – in spite of the fact that in hearings on the bill African-American labor union members contested his assertions.

Neither of the sponsors acknowledge a debt to ALEC. However, Progress Missouri analyzed both bills, HB116 and HB569, along with similar ALEC model legislation and the resemblance is notable. Burlison has been explicitly identified as one of the Missouri ALEC acolytes.

If my reading of the provision concerning out-of-state travel is correct in regard to corporate-funded entities such as ALEC, the legislation that the Missouri Senate just passed would do nothing discourage lawmakers like Burlison who are willing to shill ALEC wares in our statehouse. The 47-57 Missouri lawmakers with ALEC ties will continue to attend ALEC meetings, often on the ALEC dime, and bring home ALEC’s wishlist which they will then visit on the unsuspecting citizens of the state.

Apropos of the efforts to amend his legislation to make it strong enough to be meaningful, Senator Richard asserted that “ethics bills had died for the last four years because they attempted to cover too many issues.” If that is the case then his bill should pass easily since it does practically nothing except possibly, in some cases, shine a little more light on who’s making it big at the corporate swap-meet in Jefferson City.

*Paragraph beak added between 2nd and 3rd paragraph from the bottom.

   

It’s been a “generous” month, since money is no object. Via the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C101236 08/26/2014 WIELAND NOW Committee to Elect Ron Richard PO Box 2523 Joplin MO 64803 8/25/2014 $10,000.00

C071094 09/04/2014 MISSOURI SENATE CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE Committee To Elect Ron Richard PO Box 2523 Joplin MO 64803 9/2/2014 $25,000.00

C071094 09/18/2014 MISSOURI SENATE CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE Committee to Elect Ron Richard PO Box 2523 Joplin MO 64803 9/17/2014 $30,000.00

C071094 09/23/2014 MISSOURI SENATE CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE Committee to Elect Ron Richard PO Box 2523 Joplin MO 64803 9/22/2014 $25,000.00

C101236 09/23/2014 WIELAND NOW Committee to Elect Ron Richard PO Box 2523 Joplin MO 64803 9/22/2014 $15,000.00

[emphasis added]

That is what happens when a candidate has no opposition in the General Election:

State Senator – District 32

Republican

Name Mailing Address Random Number Date Filed

Ron Richard 3611 W NOTTING HILL CIR JOPLIN MO 64804 291 2/25/2014

The Attorney General’s office released a list of the worst charities in Missouri. Worst being defined by how little the charity actually does for charitable purposes. The #1 worst charity? Missouri Chapter of the United States Navy Veterans Association

Now, the USNVA caught my eye for a reason I will reveal shortly.

The Missouri Attorney General’s office Check-A-Charity page for the Missouri Chapter of the USNVA has a pretty low-key notice at the bottom

So, if you followed the encouragement, you would find this:

A man who falsely identified himself as “Bobby Thompson,” director of the U.S. Navy Veterans Association, is wanted by Ohio authorities, and Attorney General Richard Cordray is turning to Ohio veterans – the group that the imposter cheated – to help find him.

“There are almost one million veterans who live in Ohio,” Cordray said. “Those are men and women who put their life on the line for our country. The man who presented himself as ‘Bobby Thompson’ traded on their honorable reputation and service to benefit himself.”

Hmmm… let’s dig deeper here.

“Bobby Thompson” (name presented in quotation marks due to his lack of a known real name).. now if you look him up in relation to the USNVA, you find that the St. Petersburg Times had their own reporting on this matter:

The Navy Veterans group lists 85 officers in its national headquarters and state chapters, but the Times could only find one of them, Bobby Thompson, who operated out of a duplex in a low-income area of Tampa.

Ok, so a charity, with problems with fraud and identity theft.. and one where 80+ people are listed but only one may have actually run things.. but I know where I know the name “Bobby Thompson” from… America’s Most Wanted!. Yes, if your charity is headed by a fugitive from justice who was featured on America’s Most Wanted, it’s probably a good candidate for “worst charity”.

But while searching around for more info on “Thompson” and Missouri, I found this list of “Bobby Thompson” political contributions, including the following lines.

5/6/2009 Friends of Steve Tilley for Missouri House $2,000

5/15/2009 Ron Richard for Missouri House $2,000

6/15/2009 Kevin Engler for Missouri State Senate $2,000

Hey, I know those names for some reason!

So, three of the most powerful men in the Missouri legislature got checks from this guy from Florida, who made no other Missouri contributions, probably never lived here (under any identity), and who operated a fraudulent charity with a Missouri chapter. You can go to the Ethics Commission site, search under the name “Bobby Thompson” in 2009 donations, and verify the reporting of the St. Petersburg Times about the donations.

And that’s where the storyline goes cold. Why did someone whose activities have led him to become a nationally-featured fugitive wind up donating money to the Speaker of the House, the House Majority Floor Leader, and the Senate Majority Floor Leader? Admiration of the 2009 session? Random chance? Did “Thompson” feel one of the bills being considered at the end of the 2009 session by the House had relevance to his operations? “Thompson”‘s political contributions mainly focused on his home state of Florida, and Virginia where he’s also suspected of lobbying for passage of a bill to loosen rules on charitable solicitation, and where recipients of his money gave it to legitimate charities.

The USNVA is under investigation in Florida, Hawaii, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, and Virginia. With 41 state chapters, there’s likely to be more investigating to be commenced in regards to a person whose fraud may have come close to 9 digits (“Since 2002, the U.S. Navy Veterans Association has reportedly raised nearly $100 million nationally”)

Considering the time of the year, and what we now know about Mr. “Thompson” and his activities. I think some charitable giving of $6,000 by 3 officials would be in order.

I drove an hour and a half through steady rain and arrived at the Capitol a little after 9:15 a.m. I made my way to the House Communications Office and checked in with the director. Shortly before the start of the day’s session he escorted me to one of the side galleries on the floor and later introduced me to one of the doorkeepers.  I set up my camera on a tripod and then watched and photographed the proceedings.

Representative Luke Scavuzzo (D-124) (center, seated) in conversation on the House floor while other representatives (standing in the background) wait to be recognized by the Speaker.

Over the course of the day I was able to have a number of brief conversations with representatives and longer conversations with others. At this point in the session votes can come fast and furious. There is a constant hubbub of conversation and activity taking place barely below the debate and action on the floor.

Representative Mary Still (D-25) (center, standing at microphone) in debate on the “sexually oriented businesses” bill – HCS SS SCS SBs 586 & 617.

HCS SS SCS SBs 586 & 617 [pdf] on “sexually oriented businesses” was originally sponsored by Senator Matt Bartle (r). A earlier iteration of this bill in a previous session was killed in a House committee and those circumstances have been the subject of a federal investigation and grand jury.

The tally on one of several votes on the “sexually oriented businesses” bill – HCS SS SCS SBs 586 & 617.

Curiously, during today’s proceedings (and reportedly during yesterday’s, too), debate on the “sexually oriented businesses” bill was not subjected to a previous question vote (a parliamentary procedure designed to end debate and move to a vote) as quickly as other bills.

Speaker Ron Richard on the dais (center, right) and Minority Leader Paul LeVota (D-52) on the floor (right, standing). The press gallery is directly above the dais.

The stenographer in Sunday’s Kansas City Star:

Best ethics bill in the universe? How spacey

….So the bill foundered. Frustrated, Democrats went to their trick bag and pulled out a little-used maneuver to force the bill out of committee without a vote and directly onto the House calendar.

Republicans, who are in the majority, didn’t like that. And that led to last week’s sudden flurry of activity around the bill by Republicans who, some said, were eager to punish Democrats for playing tricks with the bill….

Well, okay, but you neglected to mention this from Speaker Ron Richard (r) on January 6, 2010:

….Question:  Senator Shields has proposed a ban on contributions from lobbyists during the session. Is that something that you would support?

Speaker Richard: I will support whatever comes out of our bipartisan committee. Whatever comes out.

Question: What is the advantage [inaudible] the ethics proposals [inaudible]?

Speaker Richard: Uh, I want to make sure that both sides have the ability to, uh, have a dialog. And we go to the House, the floor, for [inaudible], you know as well as I do there’ll be several hundred amendments from all different sizes and shapes. Um, but I think that dialog is necessary and we’ll have an open dialog and, uh, we’ll get something to the Senate, uh, in a prompt basis….

“…I will support whatever comes out of our bipartisan committee. Whatever comes out…”

Question: Why is it a problem for the republican majority and a sign of Democratic Party partisanship to old media if there’s discharge petition on a bill from a “bipartisan” committee which Speaker Richard said he would support? Just asking.

“…I want to make sure that both sides have the ability to, uh, have a dialog. And we go to the House, the floor, for [inaudible], you know as well as I do there’ll be several hundred amendments from all different sizes and shapes. Um, but I think that dialog is necessary and we’ll have an open dialog and, uh, we’ll get something to the Senate, uh, in a prompt basis…” Well, that didn’t go very well.

Not well at all:

….Question: Was any Democrat allowed to actually get up and speak on this bill (inaudible)?

Representative LeVota: No, no Democrat was allowed to speak on heir own behalf or offer any of the amendments to make the bill better…

And how did the republican bill look to the Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal?:

5/10/2010 1:12:00 PM

Ethics bill looks more political than ethical

EDITORIAL

Jack Miles

Editor

…As too often is the case with what should be a straightforward piece of needed legislation, the shameful bill that came out of the House is a perversion of ethics twisted by partisan politics to the detriment of good government.

And how did Representative Denny Hoskins (r – noun, verb, CPA) – in the 121st Legislative District, representing Warrensburg – vote on this bill?:

…On motion of Representative Jones (89), HCS#2 SB 844 was adopted by the following vote:

AYES: 087

Hoskins 121

[emphasis added]

“…the shameful bill that came out of the House is a perversion of ethics twisted by partisan politics to the detriment of good government…”

Let’s take a look at some of the provisions in the actual bill, House Committee Substitute No. 2 for Senate Bill No. 844 [pdf]:

….21.860. There is established a joint committee of the general assembly to be known as the “Joint Committee on Ballot Statements”….

Uh, isn’t that the job of the Secretary of State right now?

….26.016. In the case of any vacancy for any cause in the office of lieutenant governor, the governor shall immediately fill such vacancy by special election as provided in section….

….27.015. In the case of any vacancy for any cause in the office of attorney general, the governor shall immediately appoint an acting attorney general to fill such vacancy until the vacancy is filled by special election….

….28.190. In case of death, resignation, removal from office, impeachment, or vacancy from any cause in the office of secretary of state, the governor shall immediately [appoint a qualified person to] fill such vacancy by special election….

[emphasis in original]

And there are similar provisions for State Auditor and State Treasurer.

Does anyone have an idea what a statewide special election would cost? Just asking.

….105.009. 1. Before taking office and once every two years thereafter, all state elected officials, state executive branch managerial staff, all department directors, and all members, officers, and leadership staff of the house of representatives and senate shall be subject to chemical testing of their blood or urine for the purpose of determining the drug content of the blood. The costs of such testing shall be paid by such official, director, officer, member, or staff member….

If I recall correctly, this one was taken out on the floor. I could be wrong about that. The point is, the republican majority crammed a lot of stuff into a Senate bill and then didn’t allow the Democratic minority to debate it.

….(5) “Legislative lobbyist”, any natural person who acts for the purpose of attempting to influence the taking, passage, amendment, delay or defeat of any official action on any bill, resolution, amendment, nomination, appointment, report or any other action or any other matter pending or proposed in a legislative committee in either house of the general assembly, or in any matter which may be the subject of action by the general assembly and in connection with such activity, meets the requirements of any one or more of the following:…

…(d) Attempts to influence any elected official other than an elected official who represents the legislative district where the person resides. This paragraph shall not be construed to apply to any person who is testifying before any legislative, executive, or

128 administrative committee; or….

[emphasis in original]

That reads to me if you contact anyone other than your specific representative you’re considered a “legislative lobbysist”. So, if a teacher wants to talk to the chair of an education committee about a bill on education and that chair is not their representative, the teacher is a lobbyist under the bill? That ain’t right.

…105.479. No member of the general assembly, statewide official, or any person acting at the request of a member or statewide official or on the member’s or statewide official’s behalf, shall accept or receive any cumulative expenditures from a lobbyist in excess of two thousand five hundred dollars…

…Any item having a value of less than ten dollars shall not be included in the cumulative determination…

A $2,5000.00 limit on gifts from lobbyists. That’s nice to know.

“…Any item having a value of less than ten dollars shall not be included in the cumulative d
etermination…” Unlimited free lunches!

…115.427. 1 [Before receiving a ballot, voters] Persons seeking to vote in a public election shall establish their identity and eligibility to vote at the polling place by presenting a form of personal identification to election officials. [“Personal identification” shall mean only] No form of personal identification other than the forms listed in this section shall be accepted to establish a voter’s qualifications to vote….

[emphasis in original]

Ah, a voter turnout suppression clause.

…Section 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, where state or federal law requires elections or designations or authorizations of employee representation, the right of individuals to vote by secret ballot shall be guaranteed….

[emphasis in original]

Ah, employee free choice is not a priority of the republican majority. And how did Representative Mike McGhee (r-122) vote on this bill?:

On motion of Representative Jones (89), HCS#2 SB 844 was adopted by the following vote:

AYES: 087

McGhee

You think organized labor is aware of this?

…Section 4. 1. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, where mandatory dues are collected for membership in any labor organization as defined in section 130.111, a member of such organization shall be entitled to designate that such member’s dues shall not be used for any political activity whatsoever, including but not limited to advocating for the election of an individual candidate for public office or the promotion of a ballot measure. The designation opting out of the use of dues for political activities shall be clearly and conspicuously placed on the requisite card or form for the payment of dues, or shall be provided as a separate document to each member before payment of such member’s dues….

How come there’s no provision requiring corporations to allow stockholders to opt out in the same fashion? Just asking.

Oh, brother, there’s even tenther drivel in the bill:

…Section 5. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 27.060 or any other provision to the contrary, the governor, lieutenant governor, president pro tempore of the senate, speaker of the house, and speaker pro tempore of the house may institute, in the name and on the behalf of the state, any proceeding in law or in equity requisite or necessary to protect the natural or constitutional rights of persons within the state, and may appear or defend in any proceeding or tribunal the natural or constitutional rights of such persons….

And that, folks, is the republican majority in the Missouri General Assembly at work.

After the opening of the legislative session in Jefferson City on January 6, 2010 Speaker Ron Richard (r) took questions from the media in a press conference:

….Question: Speaker Richard, uh, why start, uh, your speech and, and emphasis this ethics committee.

Speaker Richard: It has been the topic of conversation among many members. It’s been a topic of press stories and I thought we’d get to the bottom of it and get working on this issue. And, um, show the people of Missouri that we can, uh, fix perceived problems. And I went to, uh, Representative LeVota and I have got an outstanding group of Democrats and Republicans. I think we can come up with a, uh, solution and I look forward to that. And, uh, bills will be sent to that committee real quick…..

….Question:  Senator Shields has proposed a ban on contributions from lobbyists during the session. Is that something that you would support?

Speaker Richard: I will support whatever comes out of our bipartisan committee. Whatever comes out.

Question:  What is the advantage [inaudible] the ethics proposals [inaudible]?

Speaker Richard: Uh, I want to make sure that both sides have the ability to, uh, have a dialog. And we go to the House, the floor, for [inaudible], you know as well as I do there’ll be several hundred amendments from all different sizes and shapes. Um, but I think that dialog is necessary and we’ll have an open dialog and, uh, we’ll get something to the Senate, uh, in a prompt basis….

That was then, this is now:

Speaker Ron Richard has declared the bipartisan ethics reform bill dead because a bipartisan group of legislators demanded a floor debate on the proposal.  Earlier today, 56 Democrats and 3 Republicans signed a petition to place the bipartisan bill — legislation with campaign contribution limits — on the House calendar.  Last night, Republicans on the House Rules committee voted to block the legislation from heading to the floor, preferring a stripped-down proposal. The discharge petition is designed to circumvent the GOP leadership on the Rules Committee….

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

After the opening of the legislative session on Wednesday the House republican leadership (along with members of their caucus) held a press conference in the House Lounge in the capitol.

Previous coverage:

The Missouri General Assembly opens the 2010 legislative session

The Missouri General Assembly opens the 2010 legislative session, part 2

With sincere apologies to Atrios.

Speaker Ron Richard: Good afternoon. As, uh, outlined in our speech, uh, a few minutes ago we, uh, started the Special Standing Committee on Government Accountability and Ethics Reform. Uh, Representative LeVota and I again appointed, uh, Representative Bruns, Lipke, Day, Nolte, Brandom, Burnette, Witte, Morris, Wallace, and Curls. Kevin Wilson and, uh, were chair, and, uh Sally Faith vice chair. Um, we’ll pass no tax increases, that’s, I think I said that twice. I think I’ve said that a couple times every year and that is final. Um, we will practice fiscal discipline in the, in our budget process and balance the budget. It’s not that tough. It’s, uh, what we’re supposed to do with the Constitution. So we will do what we are charged with. And course we will have a economic development package second to none. That’s what we do and we’ll try to get the other side in a timely basis. Hopefully we can get it passed before the last day, as we did last year. Steve Hobbs will be chair of Insurance, replacing Representative Yates who went on to greener pastures. Representative Charlie Denison will chair Special Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Transportation, replacing Steve Hobbs. Questions….

From left to right (foreground), Representative Steve Tilley (r), Speaker Ron Richard (r), Representative Bryan Pratt (r).

….Question: Speaker Richard, uh, why start, uh, your speech and, and emphasis this ethics committee.

Speaker Richard: It has been the topic of conversation among many members. It’s been a topic of press stories and I thought we’d get to the bottom of it and get working on this issue. And, um, show the people of Missouri that we can, uh, fix perceived problems. And I went to, uh, Representative LeVota and I have got an outstanding group of Democrats and Republicans. I think we can come up with a, uh, solution and I look forward to that. And, uh, bills will be sent to that committee real quick.

Question: What are you hoping a special standing committee can do as opposed to funneling it through, uh, one of the regular house committees.

Speaker Richard: I want to focus the issue on the special committee and I want to make sure that you all and the State of Missouri is watching the progress. And I think that’ll help us focus the issue. The leadership team has agreed. And, um, the other committees have plenty of work. And, uh, uh, Elections Committee, you know, they’ll be working on voter ID and early voting, some other issues we think is important, So, uh, we, we think this committee’s important, [inaudible] have an issue and we look for a solution that is bipartisan and, uh, we’ll see.

Question: Why wouldn’t you use the existing, uh, Ethics Committee to take on [crosstalk] this legislation?

Speaker Richard: It, it, it only takes, uh, Representative Tilley, it only takes complaints, it doesn’t do much [crosstalk] legislation…

Representative Steve Tilley: Tra, traditionally it’s only been used for people [voice: “Okay.”] that file ethics complaints. It’s the one committee in the House that has an even split. And so, we wanted to, I think the Speaker wanted to treat it like, uh, any other bill and refer it to a committee that is designed to deal with those kind of issues.

Question: You just in your, you, just referred to perceived problems, uh, in ethics. Do you think that there are real problems out there that need to be addressed or is it a problem of perception?

Speaker Richard: I’ll let the committee decide. Anyone else.

Question:  This [inaudible] the former Speaker today due to appear in court and one of your colleagues [inaudible].

Speaker Richard: Ethics is like elections, is like economic development, is like, uh, [inaudible] is tweaked and adjusted and hearings to make sure that we’re current. And, uh, that’s what we’re doing.

Question:  Mister Speaker, uh, several people…[crosstalk]

Speaker Richard: Congratulations on you moving.

Question:  Thank you very much [inaudible][laughter]. Uh, you and several other people in the House leadership are term limited and thinking ahead possibly of [inaudible] state senate. How is that going to affect decision making ebb and flow in the House and Senate.

Speaker Richard: It makes no decision. We will do the right thing as we always do in the House. And we will work bipartisan when we can. And when we can’t we’ll still do what we think’s the best interest of Missouri on the budget priorities, fiscal discipline, tax issues. But we’re open to a lot of solutions and, uh, Representative LeVota and I have an open dialog and we, we talk from time to time. We started this morning with a breakfast with leadership, uh, of both sides of the aisle and we had conversations that we hope to work together on a lot of issues.

Question:  Well, you don’t, your predecessor really lost a lot of interest midway through his last year. Do you plan on avoiding that, and if so, how?

Speaker Richard: I will do what is in my gut to do the right thing. And I, it’s not right in my heart and my gut I will not [inaudible].

Question:  Senator Shields has proposed a ban on contributions from lobbyists during the session. Is that something that you would support?

Speaker Richard: I will support whatever comes out of our bipartisan committee. Whatever comes out.

Question:  What is the advantage [inaudible] the ethics proposals [inaudible]?

Speaker Richard: Uh, I want to make sure that both sides have the ability to, uh, have a dialog. And we go to the House, the floor, for [inaudible], you know as well as I do there’ll be several hundred amendments from all different sizes and shapes. Um, but I think that dialog is necessary and we’ll have an open dialog and, uh, we’ll get something to the Senate, uh, in a prompt basis.

Question:  Mister Speaker, I noticed you didn’t talk about the autism bill in your opening speech.

Speaker Richard: I’ve already gave ’em my word to Missourians it’s our first bill out. And will be, that will be sent to committee Thursday.

Question:  Okay, uh.

Question:  Which committee?

Speaker Richard: Kevin Wilson’s committee.

Question:  Economic development. What do you think is a, is something that could, that is a reasonable proposal you think you can get out, can get out of both chambers this year? Given the budget. [crosstalk]

Speaker Richard: We will have an energetic forward thinking program. We’re gonna have a conversation with the Governor. And, um, uh, Tim Flook and Representative Komo, uh, are making presentations to me and we will, uh, we’ll be aggressive I’m sure.

Question:  Governor wants to give tax incentives, tax credits to existing Missouri businesses [inaudible]…

Speaker Richard: I support whatever it takes to get Missouri through this tough time, um, you know, we have an issue with the other side of the building on tax credits. We’ll have to resolve that, some level. We’re open to all issues, it’s, uh, it’s a little early to start throwing down a line in the sand what we will or will not do. But, uh, the House has always been aggressive and, uh, Representative Flook will be aggressive.

Question:  Do you think the, the debate on tax credits is gonna create the same obstacles it did a year ago?

Speaker Richard: It will not create any obstacles in the House.

Question:  I, I mean, but [inaudible] you mentioned [crosstalk]…

Speaker Richard: I don’t, I don’t know, I don’t think so. We’ll see, uh, Representative Tilley and Representative Pratt have, have a dialog with the leadership on the other side of the building. They’ll bring recommendations what both sides can live with, Senator Callahan. So, you know, we’re, we’re gonna talk all and, and, you know, we’re gonna start out the way we always do, the way we did last year, uh, and, uh, we’re still gonna press forward in a energetic and faithful. Missourian’s hurting, we understand it, and we’re gonna do [inaudible].

Question:  Mister Speaker, I understand that at least the Senate is planning on taking up some resolutions to send some messages to D.C. about cap and trade legislation, about the health care legislation. Is that planned in the House as well, early in the session?

Speaker Richard: Um…

Representative Tilley: Yeah, I mean I think it’s something the Speaker is, is and, and Representative {Speaker Richard: “You two (inaudible)”] Pratt have, have, have talked about. I think, uh, a lot of our members have a lot of concern on some of the things that are going on in D.C. And, and for that matter a lot of Missouri citizens have concerns with what’s going on and their overreaching, uh, in D.C. And so I think it’s important as representatives of the citizens of this state that we let D.C. know what our constituents think. And so it’s certainly on the table.

Representative Pratt: Folks don’t feel like their voices are being heard in Washington, D.C. It’s our job to make sure their voices will be heard.

Speaker Richard: Anything else?

Question: So is this in the form of resolutions, uh, [inaudible]?

Speaker Richard: I suspect they will. Anything else? Thank you for your time and feel free to come by any time.

The transcript of the Democratic caucus press conference with Minority Leader Paul LeVota will follow in a subsequent post.

Previous coverage:

The Missouri General Assembly opens the 2010 legislative session

The session opened with, interestingly enough, an invocation. So, again, this is redundant:

…that the General Assembly and the governing bodies of political subdivisions may extend to ministers, clergypersons, and other individuals the privilege to offer invocations or other prayers at meetings or sessions of the General Assembly or governing bodies…

There was a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. New Representative Stacey Newman was sworn in. Then, Speaker Ron Richard addressed the House:

….Honored guests in the side gallery, please come to order. Members please take your seats.

Today I welcome the representatives and guests to the opening of the second session of the ninety-fifth General Assembly. It is my honor to have former Representative Fred Kratky, [inaudible] he and I were close, uh, with me in the day. He was with me and I [inaudible] again. So, Representative, former Representative Kratky, thanks for coming and honoring me today. [applause]

Today we stand at the precipice of the future. Immense uncertainty faces all of us. We are at a time in Missouri history where few have been. Let us work together as never before. Times demand it. We must never forget we sit in the people’s chamber and our sacred duty as their elected officials is the maintenance of the integrity and sanctity of the Missouri House of Representatives. We are here to make our state a better place for all our citizens to work and live. With every vote we take we must never forget the trust Missouri has put in all of us. We, as members, expect nothing less than the highest integrity in this chamber and the people of the state deserve nothing less. [applause]….

….Many members have filed legislation that would reform ethical standards. Today I will create a Special Standing Committee on Government Accountability and Ethics Reform. Representative LeVota and I are appointing the members of outstanding character to this committee. Representative Kevin Wilson and Representative Sally Faith have agreed to serve as chair and vice-chair. The committee also includes Representatives Bruns, Lipke, Day, Nolte, Brandom, Burnett, Witte, Morris, Walsh and Curls. [applause] Their task is simple, I will send all ethics reform legislation to their committee so they may create one bipartisan piece of legislation that will restore the public’s trust in our chamber by seeking to remove even the appearance of impropriety.  Regardless of party affiliation we can all agree that the sanctity of this body is important. From this point forward we commit ourselves to gain and hold the faith that the people of Missouri have in their elected representatives.

We are also here because we believe in forging a bright future for Missouri which is first and foremost in our minds when, when we walk into this chamber each day. Economic woes threaten to dampen our future. The economic downturn has left no community or household in Missouri untouched. Nine point five percent of Missourians are out of work and the House of Representatives must continue to lead the way, as we have in the past, to, uh, towards a complete economic revitalization in Missouri. [applause]

There are those who say that economic recovery will not be tied to job growth. This is unacceptable in Missouri. We must also work to protect the tools that have been successful at bringing jobs and business into our state. This year we must also continue our work helping small business. They are the economic engine of Missouri. The [applause], the economic recovery of this state and nation will not be carried on the backs of government, but be, but will be instead led by the forces of personal initiative and free market. [applause, cheers, whistle] Missouri citizens will bring our state to a new level of economic prosperity through hard work. It is our duty to set the framework that allows them to thrive.

One important precept of our state government is that we must spend within our means and we cannot run budget deficits like the federal government. [applause, shouts, whistles, cheers] In a time of economic uncertainty we must work together to make the necessary decisions for our citizen’s future that will allow Missouri to grow. I will commit to you one thing. We must not and we will not raise taxes on working Missourians. [applause, cheers, whistles] Families across the state are finding ways to stretch their dollars and we will work to follow them. With an ever increasing financial burden being placed on Missourians by the actions of the federal government we must do what we can to decrease and cut taxes in Missouri. [voice: “Right.”] Fiscal discipline and prudence will become the bywords of this session. The people demand nothing less with their tax dollars and we will give them nothing less. We will commit ourselves to being prudent fiscal managers of public monies.

Our House is composed of responsible hard working members and I know this will be a productive session that all Missourians can be proud of. To all the members, let us remember we are all here representing the people of our great state and we will all share the same common goal for a strong and confident Missouri that is a great place to live, work, and raise a family. May God bless you and God bless our great State of Missouri and let’s get to work. [applause, cheers]….

After the partisan applause lines the republican side of the House stood to offer their encouragement. The Democratic side tended not to.

This was a much more austere occasion then the previous openings of session I have attended.

Our friends at Fired Up, via Twitter:

RT @tonymess: Some lawmakers said Capitol was more somber today. Definitely a different feeling than some recent past opening days.    about 8 hours ago   from DestroyTwitter  

Tomorrow there will be a “technical session” – a significant number of House members were heading home this evening due to the incoming inclement weather.

I don’t blame them.

The view from the train at the stop in Sedalia.

The winning HJR is HJR 57, beating out HJR 48 (Sponsored by Cynthia Davis, backed by Nieves, Ruestman and McGhee) and HJR 50 (backed by Doug Ervin). HJR 57 was “introduced” by Timothy Jones and cosponsored by 75 of 87 House Republicans. So that’s 76 right there.

It’s easier to publish the names of the Republicans not currently sponsoring this amendment than to publish the cosponsors.

The 11 non-sponsors are Jason Brown (termed out), Gary Dusenberg (termed out, running for the Senate), Doug Ervin (termed out, sponsored HJR 50), Steve Hobbs (termed out), Denny Hoskins, Scott Lipke (termed out), David Sater, Tom Self (termed out), Ryan Silvey, Maynard Wallace (termed out), and Billy Pat Wright.

Oh yeah, HJR 48, HJR 50, and HJR 57 are the exact same bill.

The Senate Bill SJR 25 probably the exact same too, but House and Senate duplication is to be expected.

Three identical versions of the same amendment? Wow. Hope the lobbyist and/or thinktank member who wrote this amendment gets his credit too.

The Amendment needs 82 votes in the House and at least 17 in the Senate (the Senate bill has 18 members aboard and the Senate is 23-11 Republican). No Gubernatorial approval is necessary.

The Amendment text is under the fold.

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring therein:

That at the next general election to be held in the state of Missouri, on Tuesday next following the first Monday in November, 2010, or at a special election to be called by the governor for that purpose, there is hereby submitted to the qualified voters of this state, for adoption or rejection, the following amendment to article I of the Constitution of the state of Missouri:

Section A. Article I, Constitution of Missouri, is amended by adding one new section, to be known as section 35, to read as follows:

Section 35. 1. As used in this section, the following terms shall mean:

(1) “Direct payment” or “pay directly”, payment for lawful health care services without a public or private third party, not including an employer, paying any portion of the service;

(2) “Health care system”, any public or private entity whose function or purpose is the management of, processing of, enrollment of individuals for, or payment for, in full or in part, health care services or health care information for its participants;

(3) “Lawful health care services”, any health-related service or treatment to the extent that the service or treatment is permitted or not prohibited by law or regulation that may be provided by persons or businesses otherwise permitted to offer such services;

(4) “Penalties or fines”, any civil or criminal penalty or fine, tax, salary, or wage withholding or surcharge or any named fee with a similar effect established by law or rule by a government established, created, or controlled agency that is used to punish or discourage the exercise of rights protected under this section.

2. To preserve the freedom of citizens of this state to provide for their health care, no law or rule shall compel, directly or indirectly or through penalties or fines, any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in any health care system. A person or employer may pay directly for lawful health care services and shall not be required to pay penalties or fines for paying directly for lawful health care services. A health care provider may accept direct payment for lawful health care services and shall not be required to pay penalties or fines for accepting direct payment from a person or employer for lawful health care services. Subject to reasonable and necessary rules that do not substantially limit a person’s options, the purchase or sale of health insurance in private health care systems shall not be prohibited by law or rule.

3. This section shall not be construed to:

(1) Affect which health care services a health care provider or hospital is required to perform or provide;

(2) Affect which health care services are permitted by law;

(3) Prohibit care provided by any provision of this constitution or valid law of this state relating to workers’ compensation;

(4) Affect laws or rules in effect as of January 1, 2010; or

(5) Affect the terms or conditions of any health care system to the extent that those terms and conditions do not have the effect of punishing a person or employer for paying directly for lawful health care services or a health care provider or hospital for accepting direct payment from a person or employer for lawful health care services.