A video of yesterday’s House Democratic Caucus end of session press conference provided by the Missouri House Communications Office:

The transcript:

Representative Jacob Hummel (D), House Minority Leader: Um, you know, we’ve had, uh, we have now historic Republican super majorities and historic dysfunction. Um, it’s been a rough couple of days, um, some personal failings on the part of the Speaker [John Diehl]. Um, you know, I think he did the right thing. He needed to go. He went. I look forward to working with, uh, Speaker Richardson. Um, I think he’s a man of integrity and, uh, hopefully we can work together on some issues in the future and actually get some good things accomplished for the State of Missouri.

Um, I think that we’ve seen that the majority seems to have an agenda of cruelty, uh, towards poor people, poor children especially, um, we’ve eliminated local control, uh, we’ve hurt working families with right to work, we’ve cut unemployment benefits to the lowest in any state in the nation, uh, we’ve failed again to expand Medicaid, we’ve left billions of dollars on the table, we have still yet again failed to pass any type of ethics reform, um, we have failed to properly address Ferguson, Uh, we did pass Senate Bill 5 which made some important and, uh, needed reforms but by treating St. Louis County differently, uh, we’ve put the constitutionality of the bill into question.  Um, once again, we’ve also failed to pass a clean [school] transfer fix. All we’ve actually passed is an expansion of charter schools.  Um, that’s actually all I can think of that’s been done. So, happy to take any questions.

Question: With the deadly force bill there seems there’s some disagreement  in the Democratic caucus about what it would actually address in the issue of deadly force by police officers. Do you think that was a needed change that needed to happen this session?

Representative Hummel (D): Um, I think that public perception is that change needed to happen. Absolutely.

Question: Was that language sufficient?

Representative Hummel (D): I don’t know that it was sufficient, but it was a step in the right direction.

Question: You mentioned ethics reform did not get passed. Um, how serious was the effort to pass that [inaudible]?

Representative Hummel (D): Uh, I believe what I told, uh, a few reporters, uh, a couple of weeks ago that was, that both sides would probably blame the other side for not getting the bill done. I’ve proven that I was absolutely correct in my prediction that they would pretend to get something done and then never actually get anything done.

Question: Also, uh, Speaker Richardson says that some of his caucus have said they want to look at rules regarding interns for anything that can be done with the situation with the former Speaker.

Representative Hummel (D): Sure. Absolutely.

Question: Uh, do you have a plan on that, or what are you gonna [crosstalk]?

Representative Hummel (D): Actually, we talked about that, uh, obviously, over the last few days.  And, uh, I appreciate Speaker, Speaker Richardson saying that. Um, and I look forward to working with him on that over the interim. And hopefully we can do a joint committee. I know that on both sides of the aisle this is a bipartisan issue that needs to be fixed and I look forward to working with him on that.

Question: Speaker Richardson said that he wanted new, uh, a revised policy in place by the time the legislature comes back in January. So, most likely I’m assuming that’s gonna by something you’re gonna be working on throughout the summer.

Representative Hummel (D): Yeah, that, that’s our hope and, and I plan on, uh, getting with him shortly to, uh, see what we can do to work together.

Question: To those thousands that were protesting in Ferguson, um, what do you say to them about a legislature that did not deal with the specific issue that they were raising of police shooting [inaudible] black man?

Representative Hummel (D): I think that the legislature failed them.

Question: And what can the legislature, what can you guys do to prevent that failure next year?

Representative Hummel (D): Well, for one, we could get some of our bills referred to committee. Um, we could get some of the bills heard, some of them actually voted on. Brandon, [Representative] Brandon Ellengton, uh, representative from Kansas City, is chair of the Black Caucus. Brandon, would you like to address that?

Representative Brandon Ellington (D):  Yeah, hopefully next year with our new Speaker we can actually work on some of these bills. Uh, we had over sixty bills that was related to police, uh, uh, police misconduct or, or police reform. None of those bills made it out of committee. Uh, the last Speaker that was here said we would not have a Ferguson agenda and he guaranteed that none of the bills moved out of the committee. Uh, so I look forward to actually working with, uh, uh, Speaker Richardson to address these issues. But like, uh, the Minority Leader said, we have to get these bills moved. And currently the way the system is set up it’s all on the majority to make sure our bills can move or they can kill our bills.

Question:  [inaudible] You had another, uh, part of a bridge close in, uh, Kansas City just recently.  Uh, what will it take for the legislature to pass something transportation related? And what can be done?

Representative Hummel (D):  I think, well, I, I think that we were actually moving in a direction, um, I, I think there was Senator Schaaf (r) I believe and a few others that were filibustering that in the Senate.  I don’t think there’s any question that something needs to be done. Um, what that level is I don’t know. Um, I would have voted for the gas tax increase. I think that was the responsible thing to do. Uh, I mean, certainly I think some people would be willing to look at toll roads. Uh, there has to be some combination of funding, um, we just are not going to be able to maintain, uh, the roadways that we have.

Question:  Does the Governor have any responsibility for coming up with a proposal, a comprehensive proposal?

Representative Hummel (D): You know, it’s, I, I can’t speak for the Governor but it was my understanding that, that, uh, a deal, or compromise was reached, after that debate, after that filibuster and because of what happened with right to work in the Senate, uh, the Senate imploded, um, which they knew was going to happen. Uh, I know that, uh, Leader, uh, Richards said that that was his agenda and that was more important so I guess he got his way. Um, and as a result Missouri is not able to fund their roadways.

[crosstalk]

Question:  Well, that bill was a tenth of what the Transportation Department says it needs. Who’s responsible for coming up with a half a billion dollar or more total transportation package that the department says it needs or roads continue to crumble, bridges continue to be closed?

Representative Hummel (D):  Obviously it’s the legislature’s job to, to enact that change.

Question:  Are the  Democrats gonna come up with a plan for the next session?

Representative Hummel (D):  I would raise the gas tax.

Question:  Well, back in two thousand eight the Governor flatly said he wasn’t gonna raise taxes. And he talked in two thousand twelve about how he didn’t raise taxes [Representative Hummel (D): “Okay.”] and then in two thousand fourteen he didn’t support the sales tax hike. So, doesn’t the Governor bear a little bit of responsibility by painting himself in a corner like a year before he’s leaving office instead of like before the crisis occurred?

Representative Hummel (D):  I mean, I, I can’t speak for the Governor. I think, uh, I think at least right now he seems to be, uh, in favor of some type of gas tax hike, um, or at least some combination of, of fix. So, I, I think he’s at least moving in the right direction now. I can’t speak for his previous, uh, previous stances, but, uh, I mean, at the same time, let’s be honest, the legislature creates the legislation. We file the bills. Nothing’s been done.

Question:  What is your reaction to the House basically stripping off provisions they did not like in bills they passed today because of the Senate’s inaction?

Representative Hummel (D):  Well, I mean, I don’t believe that they stripped them off because they didn’t like them. I think they stripped them off because they had no [crosstalk], because they had no other choice. Um, I think that you can ask, uh, Senator  [Ron] Richard. It was his idea, he decided that that one piece of legislation that he knows is not going to become law, uh, would destroy the Senate. He was right and he got what he wanted. Blame lies at his feet.

Question:  Can the Senate in your opinion, um, take up the veto override of the unemployment comp bill that the House overrode?

Representative Hummel (D):  No, I don’t think they can.

Question:  Missouri state workers have been asking for a pay raise for years. Uh, you guys have mentioned you’ve had a plan but haven’t given details.  Do you have any plans on that?

Representative Hummel (D):  Well, I think next year we’ve, a, a few of us have talked, uh, and we plan to file legislation to increase worker pay. Um, there’s, every year we hear of, there’s going to be a different study, there’s going to be a different study. Missouri workers are the lowest paid in the state, in this country. Um, we need to move the needle. We’ll look at, we will be filing legislation next year to address that.

Okay. Thank you. Thanks everybody. Thanks for a good session.

House Minority Leader Mike Talboy (D-37) took questions from the media

in the House Lounge for the House Democratic Caucus press conference on January 5, 2011.

Note: some of the questions from the media were inaudible on the audio recording – indicated by [….]

Representative Mike Talboy (D-37), House Minority Leader: …If you have any questions just go ahead and, uh, let us know and we’ll get either myself or the appropriate member up here to talk about whatever you have questions on.

Question: How are you guys, it’s a small group, gonna align against the Republicans when they try to steamroll you on everything?

Representative Talboy: Well, quite frankly, in the minority, um, it, it’s no different. We have thirty-five thousand five hundred people in each of the [inaudible] represented . We have fifty-seven districts that expect us to come down and represent what is important to them and we’re going to continue to do that. I think we’re going to hold the majority accountable if we don’t agree with their ideas and we’re going to try to work together to make good ideas better. And I think that is quite possibly, you know, the best we can, we can offer our constituents. And it makes no difference whether we’re in the majority or the minority, we’re gonna do the same thing.

[….]

I, I think any Speaker, whenever they don’t lose the speakership or the majority always thinks they have a mandate.

[….]

I don’t believe that anybody has a mandate on being able to represent the best interests of the State of Missouri….

….Question: Of all what’s outlined in the Showme Initiatives that he [Speaker Tilley] did what parts might you agree with what might you think are objectionable?

Representative Talboy: Well, uh, you know, I, it, it’s one thing of those things the devil’s in the details. I mean obviously this caucus has, has been fairly vocal on a couple of the issues that he’s brought up.  Uh, you know, the first [inaudible] the overall costs you’re talking about, um, what significant programs are actually going to entail, implement, and to actually carry out. I think those are, you know, two of the points. You can talk like, one, about what these programs are gonna be, but if you don’t have a true valuation on those you may actually be spending us, spending us into even further economic problems than we have currently. And, well, I think that if you look at, uh, I know that there was great debate last year on the [inaudible] issue and I think that when you look at the overall cost of that program, while it makes for good headlines, the implementation may be disastrous to our state budget.

Question: What about education? Um, obviously just to talk about a lot of cuts there.  [inaudible] Kansas City, I have a lot of friends there who are concerned about that district losing a lot of money [inaudible].

Representative Talboy: Yeah, I think that, uh, what we have to do is really get into the, the nitty gritty of what happens in the education process and talk about changes or, you know, reform or whatever you want to call it, we need to absolutely positively make sure that we aren’t harming the system in our zeal to try to try something new. And I think that is first and foremost what we need to make sure that we have our education professionals, the Sarah Lampes,  the Genise Montecillos, the Joe Aulls, the Ira Anders and, and everybody in, in my caucus and everybody in theirs sit down and actually talk about what happens when some of these things hit classrooms. And what that effect has, not only on the teachers and the students, but the ability for the students to get to school, learn, and everything in between.

Question: Uh, seems like a pretty wide consensus that job creation/economic development should be the top priority this year. Where do you think this consensus [inaudible] ?

Representative Talboy: I think that in the House we haven’t had much of an issue as far as creating, uh, jobs packages and in getting them out with a  wide, uh, swath of both parties supporting. Those traditionally have failed over in the Senate and, and have bogged down repeatedly over there. I think that now is the time we take a look at every program that has been implemented, that we are currently using, that has been proposed before, new proposals based on either one of those, or coming up with something that is so far fetched, but having that discussion, neither party has a patent on good ideas. And I think that that’s the one thing when you’re talking about job development that we need to make a concerted effort to do is make sure that both parties are at the table, we’re sitting down and examining every possible idea because we are in a very tough spot right now.

Question: Uh, how about the, uh, a lot of industrial business groups were in the capitol yesterday [inaudible] six priorities that [ inaudible] Republicans [inaudible] today [inaudible].

Representative Talboy: You know we haven’t gotten most of the details on some of those, but I, I think that I look forward to having those discussions and I think that we can, uh, talk to them and see where we might be able to agree or where we might be able to make agree, uh, a bill that we disagree with better.

[….]

Uh, I, I think that when you’re talking about a tax increase you can [inaudible] , you know, you have a lot parameters that go along with the tax increase. And when you have say, a cigarette tax has been proposed or some of these other things that have been proposed you have to look at what their overall valuation to the bottom line of our, our state budget and what harm to the folks in the state actually would be. And I think that’s one of ’em where there might be some consensus to talk about. There might be some, I think streamlined sales tax I know that that’s been brought up as far as collecting uncollected taxes and those, uh, states are moving towards implementing a streamlined sales tax for Internet sales. I think those are two things that you have heard a lot about and would be worth discussing.

Question: What are your thoughts about the possibility of giving the House Budget Committee subpoena powers?

Representative Talboy: You know, I , that was a, a new thing for me. I hadn’t heard that one in a while. And, uh, you know, I think that it’s gonna be interesting.  I’m interested to see what act, what Steve and, and the folks in the Speaker’s office want to do with the budget committee and what Chairman Silvey is going to actually do with those subpoena powers and how they’re going to execute them.  You know, throwing out there and saying we’re gonna have subpoena powers, what they’re actually gonna be used for I think is going to be [inaudible] telling than any [inaudible].

Question: [inaudible] understanding what might motivate that proposal?

Representative Talboy: No. That would be a question that I would ask him. I, I probably have the same question you do.

[….]

Well, I think that any time you start talking about, uh, subpoena powers , subpoenaing witnesses, it always, by its very nature, becomes a adversarial type of a, a situation. And I hope that it’s not going to make things more partisan and I hope that if they are going to have the subpoena power that they use it responsibly.

[….]

I, I haven’t experienced any issues having, uh, having a free flow of information, communication lines being open.

Question: Another rule change, uh, the Speaker talked about was, uh, shut
ting off amendments on bills on the floor. What do you think about that?

Representative Talboy: Well, I, you know, it, it’s interesting because I believe in the new Republican, uh, Congress in Washington, D.C. actually got rid of the closing of the bills in the rules committee, uh, after a couple of, of people complained over this last General Assembly that they had about what, uh, what the impact of that was and so I think that might be something we need to talk about.

[….]

No, I think that having the discussion, I’m open to talking about what the, that rationale would be or how you were going to use it, but I don’t think that that is something I would say absolutely positively is, is going to be a good idea to do under rules. And especially if, if you have the folks that just had it implemented on them talking at the national level about what a disaster it was, so much so that they got rid of it. Uh, I think that’s a conversation worth exploring and I, I continue to believe that.

Question: Speaker Tilley also talked, uh, in his speech about, uh, restricting driver’s licenses for people who [inaudible] speak English well enough to understand the test. Um, do you fear that that’s gonna be [inaudible] working legal residents, um, lose their transportation?

Representative Talboy: Absolutely.

[….]

Uh, I think I’m, I, my voting record’s pretty clear on, on that issue. I, this is my, beginning of my fifth year in this, fifth year that I’ve heard [inaudible]. It’s the first time in the Speaker’s address, when I first came down here Speaker Jetton talked about having English as the official language of the State of Missouri and they’ve I think tried to figure out new ways to re, repackage the same deal.

[….]

I, I hope that they don’t use the, the process to be partisan political, uh, with the representation of the 40th District in the State of Missouri. What we, what we know is there are, uh, two levels of, of the courts that have heard this case. They have both adjudicated it. It was a unanimous decision at the Court of Appeals. And unless there’s some evidentiary, uh, arguments that are, are contained that have not been brought forward and, and litigated I, that, that would be news to me.

Question:  Representative Rizzo is here, um, I guess taking part in everything do you have any, uh, concerns that the investigation will lead to him being taken out of his seat?

Representative Talboy: Again, I, I trust our judicial process and I think that when you have those, uh, those justices stand and, and Court of Appeals judges, Circuit Court judges looking at the evidence that is presented to them and applied to [crosstalk]…

Question:  But the in House, uh, with Tilley [crosstalk]…

Representative Talboy: Uh, again, I still think that you, you have to have a, a understanding and a respect for the, the law as written. Aand the evidence that’s been presented has not been able to overturn the law as it’s [inaudible] anything.

Question:  So, so are you basically saying if Tilley starts up a special committee to take a look at this that they should just look at what the court rulings have already been and say that’s it?

Representative Talboy: I think that’s a very good, very good starting point. If they find something that they think is, is there I’m sure that they will discuss it, but I, again, I don’t think with as much media’s attention that has been given this, uh, this election, and it’s an August election, very beginning, we’re still talking about it the next year. Uh, I think that if there was something new under the sun we would have seen it by now and it would have been appealed to the Supreme Court.

Question:  But ultimately it’s the Missouri House that will decide to, to [inaudible][crosstalk]…

Representative Talboy: And that’s, and again, that’s why I hope the process does not become political where you have the Speaker who endorsed the opponent in, in the Republican primary getting into party nomination processes.

Question:  How would you characterize your working relationship with the Speaker?

Representative Talboy: I so far have enjoyed a very, uh, good working relationship. We have very good open lines of communication and I’ve enjoyed it thus far. It’s been, uh, you know, obviously I, I’d like to be Speaker, but. [laughter] But, I, I think that, uh, you know, if he’s, he’s exhibited a distinct change from what we have seen over the last two years and in the working relationship from that office. And, and [crosstalk]…

Question:  The last two years, or last six?

Representative Talboy: Well [crosstalk]…

Question:  Or last, I mean [crosstalk]…

Representative Talboy: I won’t, I won’t [crosstalk]…

Question:  [inaudible][crosstalk]

Representative Talboy: …speak for, for Paul LeVota and to Rod Jetton and their relationship when, when they were there but I do know, being very close to the situation between, uh, Speaker Richard and, and Leader LeVota it was not necessarily the greatest of times.

[….]

Well, I think that you always pick and choose your battles. You don’t want to just argue for the sake of arguing. [inaudible] I don’t, I don’t think that gets us anywhere. I don’t think that’s ever gotten anybody anywhere. I think that what you, we need to do is make sure that if we disagree that we make sure that we express the reason we disagree, viable alternatives, and if we agree, discuss why we agree. And if we have ideas on how to make bills that we disagree or agree with better we need to express those points. Even if we know that they have the votes to pass the bill it doesn’t necessarily mean that we can’t get up and talk about why we think what’s contained in those bills is an issue. And I think that being able to make sure that the citizens know what is in those bills and how that’s going to affect them on a day to day basis is absolutely something that we need to have.

Question:  Do you worry about the numbers at all, like three votes short of an override majority, if three of your members move over they can override the Governor?

Representative Talboy: Well, I think that’s, I, I’ll worry about that when we find something that’s gonna be possibly be overridden as a veto but I, I don’t know, being able to tell you that, if I have any reason to worry. But I believe in my caucus and I believe in my caucus members and if they have an issue with something that they fundamentally and, and deep down in their core needs to be one way or the other then they’re gonna give reasons for it and they’re here to, they’re sent here to do a job and you have to respect the, they know their constituents best.

Thank you everybody. Appreciate it. [applause]

Or man the phone banks?

Yeah, right.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

December 07, 2010

Press Conference by the President

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

2:25 P.M. EST

….Q    Where is your line in the sand?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, look, I’ve got a whole bunch of lines in the sand.  Not making the tax cuts for the wealthy permanent — that was a line in the sand.  Making sure that the things that most impact middle-class families and low-income families, that those were preserved — that was a line in the sand.  I would not have agreed to a deal, which, by the way, some in Congress were talking about, of just a two-year extension on the Bush tax cuts and one year of unemployment insurance, but meanwhile all the other provisions, the Earned Income Tax Credit or other important breaks for middle-class families like the college tax credit, that those had gone away just because they had Obama’s name attached to them instead of Bush’s name attached to them.

So this notion that somehow we are willing to compromise too much reminds me of the debate that we had during health care.  This is the public option debate all over again.  So I pass a signature piece of legislation where we finally get health care for all Americans, something that Democrats had been fighting for for a hundred years, but because there was a provision in there that they didn’t get that would have affected maybe a couple of million people, even though we got health insurance for 30 million people and the potential for lower premiums for 100 million people, that somehow that was a sign of weakness and compromise.

Now, if that’s the standard by which we are measuring success or core principles, then let’s face it, we will never get anything done.  People will have the satisfaction of having a purist position and no victories for the American people.  And we will be able to feel good about ourselves and sanctimonious about how pure our intentions are and how tough we are, and in the meantime, the American people are still seeing themselves not able to get health insurance because of preexisting conditions or not being able to pay their bills because their unemployment insurance ran out.

That can’t be the measure of how we think about our public service.  That can’t be the measure of what it means to be a Democrat.  This is a big, diverse country.  Not everybody agrees with us.  I know that shocks people.  The New York Times editorial page does not permeate across all of America.  Neither does The Wall Street Journal editorial page….

Oh, that’s a really good idea. He finally gets testy with someone – it’s just the people who got him where he is because they sort of believed what he said he was gonna do.

Unlike 2008 the idyllic fall landscapes in 2012 probably won’t be marred by very many people in t-shirts with a spiffy logo handing out campaign literature. Except for the ones wearing a t-shirt with a moose superimposed over a map of Alaska.

I probably need to find a hobby. I figure I’ll have a lot of extra time on my hands in 2012.

“…When our budgets reflect the nation’s commitment to jobs and justice, and peace we’ll keep our eyes on that prize…”

“…I’d rather have a guy calling me a name with no power, than a guy smiling at me that has state’s rights power as the government…”

Reverend Jesse Jackson.

There was a question and answer session with the media at the end of yesterday’s press conference:

….Question: …Dave Helling, Kansas City Star.  Uh, Reverend Jackson, you suggested the tea party resolution was a diversion. What did you mean by that? And maybe some of the other members, uh, could, uh, address today’s pushback, Sarah Palin and others that issued statements calling it divisive, inappropriate, that type of thing, sad. Could you talk just a little bit about the tea party resolution?…

(left to right) Reverend Jesse Jackson, Reverend Al Sharpton, NAACP National Board Member Clayola Brow, NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous, NAACP Vice President for Communications Leila McDowell.

…Reverend Jesse Jackson: My point is the agenda we must address is put America back to work, whether you’re in rural Alabama, whether you’re in Appalachia. Put America back to work.  The economy collapsed because banks were not overseen and to their own greed drove us into a hole. They bailed the banks out without linking it to lending and to saving our homes. That’s the focus. People in West Virginia were killed in a coal mine because workplace laws were not enforced, workplace safety. We have this crisis in the Gulf of Mexico because the environmental protection laws are not honored and mining minerals company got colluded with BP and created this crisis. So while they media has a certain sensational taste for arguing, uh, about other groups our focus is put America back to work. And there’s a sense in which our, we are bailing out, with a plan, Afghanistan, bailing out with a plan, Iraq, bailing out the banks, comprehensive immigration reform. Urban America, unemployment among blacks around twenty-seven to thirty-five percent, um, three times beyond the national average. That’s a state of emergency. We want that emergency addressed. And, uh, we used to sing a song in the South. And there were different groups arguing against our case – Keep your eyes on the prize, hold on, hold on – we’ll focus on that prize in, in that, in that room in that big tent, all Americans.

Question: Uh, Reverend Sharpton, could you talk a little bit about the push back and whether you think it’s a diversion to talk about the tea party?

Reverend Al Sharpton: I was in, uh, Alabama night before last and one of the ministers hosting me showed me the court house of George Wallace. The issue in the fifties and sixties was not that George Wallace may or may not have been a racist, the issue was he that he was the governor and could stand in the school house door as governor and stop people from going to jail. The media wants to concentrate on our saying there are elements in the tea party this is racist rather than saying the philosophy of the tea party is anti civil rights, ’cause they’re promoting pro state’s rights on immigration, pro state’s rights across the board which will turn back the clock of civil rights. So, you got part of the sermon without the text. The context is the tea party as a political philosophy is to reverse what civil rights did and that is say the federal government must protect people, whether it’s in Arizona on immigration, or South Carolina on civil rights. And I don’t think Miss Palin or anyone else can deny that they are supporting states to supersede the federal government in these areas. That is the context that, uh, President Jealous and others said, yes, there are elements in there that’s racist, but if you pull down the race signs, and you still want to return to statehood type of governmental operation you will have reversed what King and Wilkins and them did. So, I think the emphasis, the media likes to get into who called the name. I’d rather have a guy calling me a name with no power, than a guy smiling at me that has state’s rights power as the government. That’s what this is about. And that’s why we’ve called for these gatherings.

Question: But how [crosstalk] do we get to fo…

Leila McDowell, Vice President for Communications for the NAACP: We can, what’s, excuse me, we can take one more question. Go ahead.

Question: Eric Wesson, The Call newspaper. How do you get the focus back now away from the tea party resolution back on jobs [crosstalk] and the things that people are [inaudible].

Reverend Al Sharpton: Easy. You all need to ask them to deny or admit whether they’re for state’s rights and breaking down where labor laws, work to right laws in states, immigration, civil rights, all of that. Since you all got it out there. It’s like getting center stage. You all got it the show set, now tell ’em, sing. Sing on whether or not they agree on state’s rights. You all have limited the debate on whether they called us a name, rather than trying to change the Kingian form of government. So I don’t want you to get off the tea party, I want you to make them answer the right question. I don’t care if they like me.  What I care is they try to change the power equation that’s going to protect us. And that’s what Ben Jealous and all of us said.

Question: Ben, Ben could you talk to us about that a little bit? [crosstalk]

Leila McDowell: Um, okay, I’m sorry [crosstalk] we have other reporters and we have to, after Reverend Jackson we have to end it. I’m so sorry.

Reverend Jesse Jackson: What I want to focus on, there are fifty million Americans that can’t get three meals a day. Forty million Americans are in poverty. Twenty million have no job. We cannot re-fund unemployment compensation, but we’re gonna fund a war with no end in sight. And all across America we’re closing schools and building jails. We focus on racing to the top but we need prenatal care, Head Start, and daycare, bottom up, so not to have jail kind of welfare on the back end. So on August twenty-eighth we, around, will be marching in Washington and Detroit and unemployment offices focusing on jobs and justice and peace. Jobs and justice and peace. When our budgets reflect the nation’s commitment to jobs and justice, and peace we’ll keep our eyes on that prize. And come October second we’ll be there in even greater numbers together. Jobs and justice and peace. We will not be diverted nor otherwise distracted by any other messages except put America back to work. We want jobs and justice and peace. Thank you so much.

Leila McDowell: And we’ll have President Jealous. We’re gonna have President Jealous give the last words.

Benjamin Todd Jealous: The, um, we, we considered seventy, approximately seventy-five resolutions at this convention. There’s only one that the media’s focused on. Sixteen of those resolutions were on criminal justice, more than a dozen were on the issue of, of education.  I gave a forty-two page speech, half of one page addressed the tea party. That’s all anybody’s talk
ed about. We need the media to pay attention to the issues that are most important to this country. It’s fine if you want to pay, focus on one half of one page of a forty-two page speech. But we’d appreciate you focus on at least half the other pages, too. Or, or half of another page. We talked about education, we talked about jobs, we talked about criminal justice. We talked about this march where we have people from hundreds of communities across the country who have been here for days planning for a very big and robust march on Washington to put the focus back on jobs, to make sure that the issue of education is dealt with, to make sure that what Frederick Douglass said about com, uh, about the issue of, of immigration, actually goes into action which is that we base it on human rights principles and not mere expediency. That’s what all of us have been saying.

Thank you and God bless, we’ll see you inside the panel….

Previously:

The 101st NAACP National Convention in Kansas City

NAACP in Kansas City: Benjamin Todd Jealous at the opening press conference

NAACP in Kansas City: EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson at the opening press conference

NAACP in Kansas City: report on the impact of the BP oil spill in the Gulf region

NAACP in Kansas City: Sunday – photos

NAACP in Kansas City: Michelle Obama – photos

NAACP in Kansas City: Representative Sheila Jackson Lee on the tea party and human rights

NAACP in Kansas City: Senator Claire McCaskill (D) – “Now is no time to quit.”

NAACP in Kansas City: Representative Emanuel Cleaver – “Don’t you forget it!”

NAACP in Kansas City: Wednesday afternoon press conference – photos

NAACP in Kansas City: Rev. Al Sharpton – “There clearly is some racial leaves in their tea bag…”

NAACP in Kansas City: Rev. Jesse Jackson – “We want jobs, justice, and education for all.”

NAACP in Kansas City: Benjamin Todd Jealous – “…we all need a testament of hope…”

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.

Representatives Jason Kander (D) and Tim Flook (r) held a press conference on their ethics reform bill on December 14th in the House Lounge at the capitol.

Representatives Jason Kander (D)(left) and Tim Flook (r)(right).

Our previous coverage:

Kander (D) and Flook (r): ethics reform legislation in Jefferson City

Kander (D) and Flook (r): ethics reform legislation in Jefferson City, part 2

Kander (D) and Flook (r): ethics reform legislation in Jefferson City, part 3

The transcript of the last half of the media question and answer session:

….Question: Representative Kander you mentioned that this legislation needs to evolve. Can you give an example of how that would happen or a for instance?

Representative Kander: Well, if I, if I knew, uh, how this legislation needed to evolve I promise you we would have done it. And, and my argument is more that what happens is, you know, fighting public corruption is like fighting any other kind of crime. And it’s, you know what, if people are gonna, are gonna take criminal actions they’re gonna find a way to take criminal actions to go around the laws [inaudible] as they can. And my argument is simply that, uh, that you have to stay one step ahead whenever possible and you have to make them stay one step ahead. You have to look at what needs to be fixed. And I’m simply saying we’re not telling you this is the permanent fix. I don’t want people to see this as the permanent fix `cause in ten years, if people figure out how to get around this I don’t want everyone to go, hey, well Flook and Kander fixed that, we don’t need to address it. Uh, I just don’t think that’s how, how it works in ethics reform legislation….

….Question: A question on the forth bullet, [inaudible] pay for play. If for, if for, if for example one of you was approached by a special interest group and they said we want to get legislation [inaudible] passed and then you say, you know, I don’t want, I don’t think, I don’t like that. And they’re like, well, we’ll give your campaign [inaudible] fifty thousand dollars. And then you’re like, well, I can’t do that `cause this law, send it to the, you know, DHCC or the RHCC. Would that still be considered pay for play?

Representative Kander: Probably be two felonies. It would probably be, the first felony being that you’d be taking a campaign contribution in direct exchange for performing an official act and the second felony would be, it’d be, uh, moving money through committees solely for the purpose of obscuring the original donor.

Representative Flook: And, and, and right now that would be illegal. Right now, under different law. So, um, I think the real focus here is this, uh, changing, changing the discussion. Changing the discussion and to get elected officials, people that are running for office to start campaigning on I will be fully disclosing who supports me. And getting the mindset changed. And, on the issue of, of, uh, everybody will want to write this about pay to play, you know the urge is gonna be there. The fact of the matter is that’s not really what it’s all about. It’s really about disclosure, [inaudible] disclosure. And I’ve been in this caucus now for, this will be my, my sixth year this year. And I’ve been chairman of, of what some consider a powerful committee in the House. I have never been approached with anything like that. Ever. And the rules right now are set up to help deter that. We want to close the circle to make sure it doesn’t happen. And for me, I see this as, as, as a Republican and I, I work with these other Republicans here, and, and, just like Representative Kander works with his Democrat friends. We see a lot of people spending the vast majority of their time trying to follow the rules. And because of a potential loophole there’s accusations that things are going on that aren’t. And then because of existing laws there’s things that appear bad, all right. So, what we’re gonna try to do is zero in on some of these things. Close the loopholes so that if somebody makes an accusation there is a remedy. And you know what that does? That makes people that make those accusations take `em far more seriously, because there’s an actual consequence to the accusation. If you think somebody is violating the law then you need to step up and say it and report it. And you need to follow through. And we’re making sure there’s a law on the books. So when somebody comes up and wants to accuse my Speaker or somebody I work direct, directly with of pay to play, and I know they’re wrong, then I can say to `em, I can look at them honestly and say, here’s the law on the books right here. If you really think that happened, sir, there it is right there, do something about it. [crosstalk] And I think that’s important for public trust.

Representative Kander: Real quick, let me add to that. Um, I have no idea what’s going on with, you know, the FBI and all this stuff, in this [inaudible] like I mentioned, this spectator sport in Jeff City. I have no idea what’s going on with FBI investigations and I promise you that’s the way my [inaudible] wants to say it, right. And that’s how it’s gonna say it. But, and remember Representative Flook says, there’s a law for this already, supported, we’re talking about Federal law, and we’re talking about FBI agents and Federal prosecutors working out of Kansas City and St. Louis, for the most part, and have a lot of fish to fry. And all we’re doing is we’re expanding the jurisdiction of state law to make sure that there are more individuals in the state who have jurisdiction over this and their [inaudible] to [inaudible].

Representative Flook: And we’re gonna model the Federal approach in a lot of ways and create more tools. And, we hope, create more trust in the process.

Representative Kander: Right.

Question: How do you help the public understand, though, the difference between the normal contributions and the pay to play idea. Let me use your example that you already used. You, you support stem cell research, I assume people who support stem cell research have supported your campaigns. How do I tell the difference between those contributions and something that would look like you got extra money because you voted for a specific bill that supports stem cell research?

Representative Flook: Well, I think that if, if, if you reduce the number of intramural committees floating around out there, the ability of somebody to see how donations flow is, is a lot better. I think that’s the best way to describe it. And bear in mind there is a, there is a First Amendment right of association, and the First Amendment right to become involved advocating an issue. So, our ability to wipe out committees doesn’t exist. And, and I, and I, I think in some respects the First Amendment rule is correct, we want people to be able to voice their, their positions, um, we don’t want to stop `em. But, we can, if we can eliminate some of these, some of these committees floatin’ around at a high level that really, really don’t need to be there for First Amendment purposes, their only purpose would be to find the legal loophole to create large donations. Okay.  You know, if you look, whether it’s the governor or any leader in the House or Senate on both sides of the aisle, anybody on politics in this state is gonna raise a lot of money. It doesn’t take a fifth grade education to look at the art at how campaign donations have risen faster than inflation in the last twenty y
ears. That being the case, we think we need to make steps toward more disclosure and more direct disclosures. If you say you’re for campaign finance limits that’s fine, then be for them. And, uh, and don’t take donations that are broken down through multiple committees. If you, if you say that, uh, if you say that, uh, you are not supported by the teachers unions then decline their donation. And if committees receiving that are sending it to you then you’ll have to ask yourself, do I want to receive support from that committee? I know a large part of their, their donation base is coming from this community and do I really support that community or not? And if I take it do I need to change my position?

Question: You’ve mentioned a couple times that most people here are doing the right thing already. Do you see that there’s an ethics problem in the capitol right now?

Representative Flook: Well, I think that for me, I think the problem is perception. The problem is, is perception is, is with these, these incidents around the state over the last, well, just the last six years, say, um, any, any of those incidents can, can be written about in the press, they can be discussed at the kitchen table or at the coffee shops and it casts doubt on what we’re all trying to do down here. And if you get Representative Kander and I on the right topic we can go at it all afternoon, on debate. You know, and, but I, I think that what is lost in all this translation, in all these stories that is, how many people here are really good people trying to do the right thing. And, and while I might disagree with Representative Kander on a long laundry list of political philosophical issues I never doubted his integrity, character down here at all. I know exactly who I’m dealing with, he’s an honest person trying to follow the rules. And that’s what most of us are. And we cannot establish new policy or install good long term healthy economic growth or, or budget management if people don’t have faith in what we’re doing and understand that when they pay taxes and, and render, and render under the government their obligations that we’re in return trying to uphold the highest standards of integrity we can. So we want to eliminate that perception by closing loopholes, or helping reduce that perception, rather, by closing loopholes together, working together.

Question: [crosstalk]

Representative Kander: There’s two things I want to say to that. Um, the first is, it doesn’t really matter whether we believe there’s currently an ethics problem. It doesn’t really matter who we believe might have an ethics problem, if we do. I’m not gonna get into that game because the second I start pointing fingers on either side of the aisle is the second I start creating enemies for this bill. And that doesn’t do anything for the state, it doesn’t accomplish ethics reform, uh, getting to the, to the Governor’s desk getting signed. And the second is, to what Representative Flook’s talking about, about the, the issue of public perception, that’s the second reason it doesn’t really matter whether or not we believe there’s a specific ethics problem in this capitol because the public obviously does. It’s a, I`ve, I’ve been to a place where the public has completely lost faith in their government to, to act in their best interest. And I’ve seen the extreme of that, and I’m not suggesting that that’s what Missouri is gonna look like. But I am suggesting that when people lose faith in their government to act in a legitimate manner they stop volunteering, they stop having hope about what’s gonna happen in their community. And every effort we can make in order to restore that hope and restore that confidence in government, it may not work every time, and it may not work completely, but it’s an effort worth making.

Question:  Rep, representative, to clarify, when you’re talking about incidents across the state are you talking about lawmakers getting arrested and charged with crimes? Or is it broader than that?

Representative Flook: Well, I think it’s staff, but it’s also just accusations. You know it, um, somebody perfectly, with, with, with compliance with the law can set up and use multiple committees. It happens all the time. Um, as soon as somebody does that the party that doesn’t like what that person believes in attacks them. They attack them, say, oh, look how evil he is, he set up all these committees. Well, in fact they follow the law. But, it creates that perception, all right. And for us, what I want is, I want a playing field where people disclose who they’re directly getting support from. And, Representative Kander agrees. So we think that if we can, we can reduce the number of, of, I call `em, intramural committees floating around that that will really help get more legislators to, to approach this issue like, like he and I do. Which is, okay, am I really for this? If I am I need to stand up and be for it or against it and accept or reject support based on that. And it’s, it’s, it’s an important step. That’s what we liked about the Zimmerman, uh, the Zimmerman, uh, Yates bill from last year.

Question: In, in a year like this, of course there have been these incidents and arrests, and at least one of your former colleagues going to jail, you know, the FBI around asking questions. What’s the effect on this body? What’s the effect on people in the capitol, elected representatives, as it relates to their ability to do their jobs, their ability to work with each other? How is this year, uh, affected the overall mood to this building?

Representative Kander: I don’t think we know.

Representative Flook: Well, I, I, I would say, uh, um, we’ll, we’ll see how it progresses. But I think that, uh, on a [inaudible] I think that job creation’s really what matters right now, balancing our budget and, and fighting inflation. And that’s what we’re really trying to do down here every day. I know Representative Kander really cares about that. But ethics legislation has to come up every few years in order to make sure that faith in government can exist. And I can go home and [inaudible] in support of my, of my constituents on, as me as an individual, but if I come down here and, uh, and all the stories are about ethical problems then we’re not, we’re not focusing on what we really need to focus on for the state. `Cause frankly, most people are pretty good people down here. And we are genuinely trying to put people to work and improve the state. And if we need to change the ethics rules a little bit, to help tighten `em up, in order to restore, uh, some, some faith in the system and keep ourselves vigilant on the ethics side, then we should do that. We should do that so we can focus on the bigger issues and put people to work on those types of [inaudible].

Representative Kander: It [inaudible]. We’ve got to be eternally vigilant to make sure the system is sound.

Question: On, on the three people that have stepped, sitting in the legislature, that have stepped down due to pleading guilty to felonies, two of them plead guilty to lying to Federal investigators about their congressional campaign. One of them took bribes, essentially. It seems like those crimes might, would they have been encompassed under this bill? Would they have been caught earlier? It just doesn’t seem like [crosstalk]…

Representative Kander: When you [crosstalk].

Question: …to connect.

Representative Kander: When you talk about, I think it absolutely connects. When you, when you talk about, uh, any Federal indictment that has to do with obstruction of justice you’re talking about had that been a state investigation and they’d obstructed justice that way in that investigation about that, there would not have been a state charge because there’s currently not a state statute for it. What we learned from that incident is that, you know, uh, during the Scooter Libby stuff, regardless of your stripes, Fitzgerald made, that’s why I can remember him saying it, made a very good argument at that time
. People said, why did you charge this person with obstruction justice of justice instead of the underlying crime? And the argument he made about the importance of an obstruction of justice felony provision is that it’s like a baseball game where the guy’s sliding into home and at the same time he throws sand in the umpire’s face. He can’t then say, well the umpire couldn’t call him out or safe, so he must be safe and there’s no consequence. What you can do is you can say, you can’t throw sand in the face of the umpire, there’s a separate crime for that. And when people are scared of a criminal provision, for throwing sand in the face of that umpire, they’re a whole lot less likely to do it. And that’s why, those individuals you talked about, who were convicted of obstruction of justice at the Federal level, had they done the exact same thing, in state law there wouldn’t be a consequence. And we want to make sure that there’s no free pass for lying to investigators [inaudible].

Question: What’s this bill number?

Representative Flook: When we filed, it hasn’t been assigned a number yet.

Question: On the criminal side [crosstalk].

Question: Can we get a copy of it?

Representative Kander: It’s really big, but we’ll give you a copy.

Question: [inaudible]

Question: Do you envision any prosecutor in the state being able to bring these crimes, uh, bring charges for crimes if the occur? Or is this gonna wind up being an extra load here in Cole County because the Ethics Commission is here, the legislature is here, and therefore, theoretically the crime occurred here?

Representative Kander: It can happen in a variety of ways. Um, our focus is on expanding the amount of people who have jurisdiction over this so more people will take action. Basically, all hands on deck, sort of philosophy, right. Well, right now the FBI can investigate any of this stuff, county, city, state. We just want one more entity that can do that. And yes, the Ethics Commission would therefore have jurisdiction to operate under these statutes, but so, too, would, uh, local investigators, so, too, would state, would state prosecutors. And so, too, would the Highway patrol’s investigative division….and it just brings us back to the whole point here, is to say, we don’t have to rely entirely on the FBI to do this, we can also do this in state government.

Question: So is this legislation reactionary to Smith etcetera, and recent [inaudible] going on with the felonies [inaudible].

Representative Flook: No, I wouldn’t say that, because, uh, that implies that, to say it’s reactionary is to say we hadn’t put thought into this prior to the incident, which is not the case. This is, these are concepts that have been around [inaudible] asked questions. What we’re hoping to do is, is that these incidents have shed light on those questions that we’ve been already trying to answer in other legislation in the past. So maybe with these recent incidents we’ll use them as little bit extra energy to move these bills. We know that there’s going to be several ethics bills filed this year, um, some of `em will be, will be, uh, bipartisan, I think [inaudible] ours is probably gonna be the most prominent bipartisan one we know of right now. Um, some of `em are quickly gonna be identified as, as partisan campaign maneuver. Um, we don’t know which is gonna be which, but we do know this, uh, we’ve got [inaudible] people talking about the topic. We’ve got a chance now to do something together and, and really make an effort that everybody can, can, can build on.

Question: If anything’s gonna happen, gonna wind up with some of those bills combined into one larger one?

Representative Flook: That could very well happen. I’ve already talked with the floor leader about this proposal. Um, uh, Steve Tilley would like to see some things added, added to it. I know that, uh, the Democrat, uh, uh, caucus would have some things they want to add. Uh, it’s hard to, it’s hard to put something like this through without having a lot of disagreement and a lot of, uh, a lot of [inaudible]. So, I have time for one more question and then I’m gonna [crosstalk].

Question: To clarify, [inaudible] is this essentially your cau, focus your caucus’ ethics bill? Is this [crosstalk]…

Representative Flook: No [crosstalk]…

Question: You [crosstalk]…

Representative Flook: …I wouldn’t say that. Because, um, [crosstalk] we still have to ask our own caucus members [crosstalk] to, to join with us. We have several people on both sides of the aisle will probably support this. I think on the whole our caucuses are, are genuinely interested in some, some, some real ethics reform. Um, and I think that, to the extent that we can build that body from there we’ll, we’ll keep pushing forward.

Question: But right now you’re independent contractors.

Representative Flook: In some way with the, yeah, but we do have the support of our leadership.

Representative Kander: Right, I mean, Representative LeVota’s already expressed an interest in co-sponsoring the bill, um, I know that Representative Flook’s had positive conversations with the Speaker, so.

We filibuster you guys? You got anything else? All right. Thanks a lot.

Representatives Jason Kander (D) and Tim Flook (r) held a press conference on their ethics reform bill late Monday morning in the House Lounge at the capitol.

Representatives Jason Kander (D)(left) and Tim Flook (r)(right).

Our previous coverage:

Kander (D) and Flook (r): ethics reform legislation in Jefferson City

Kander (D) and Flook (r): ethics reform legislation in Jefferson City, part 2

The transcript of the first half of the media question and answer session:

…Question: Last year, uh, Rex Sinquefield created a number of committees in, in the time that was legal, uh, and, and there were some who suggested that he made those committees so he could get around the existing campaign laws. Does this bill address that in any way?

Representative Tim Flook: Let me answer that. Uh, make sure it’s understood, this bill isn’t about Rex Sinquefield…

…Question: No, I [crosstalk]…

Representative Flook: It’s not…

Question: That’s [inaudible]…

Representative Flook: But I, I will tell you, um, one thing that’s, one thing that, I would frame it this way, uh, Representative Kander point [inaudible]. He and I had this discussion for over a year. That the reality of it is, that, that when you have multiple committees then there’s a temptation from legislators to pick up support here, but not ever admit or talk about it over there. And there’s legal methodologies for doing it. It’s legal. Uh, what Rex Sinquefield, what his, his donations were perfectly legal. Um, but, you know, I believe, and Representative Kander believes with me, that, uh, you should take the donation directly from who you receive support from, the public should be aware of it, and they should be judging you by that.

I support stem cell research. I’ve taken in, in, support from stem cell community. The general public deserves to know that. And if they feel like I, I’m not appropriate elected representative for their area they, they can vote accordingly. Just like my votes are on record. That’s what this is really about.

And one of the, one of the hot topic issues between Democrats and Republicans are campaign finance laws. Um, for, for me, particularly, I voted to remove the limits. I voted to remove them, one, because I believe philosophically you should be able to make whatever donation you want. But at the same time I also felt I would be willing to step up and support legislation like this to eliminate the use of these committees so that whenever you’re taking a large amount of support it’s known, and it’s directly known, and the legislator admits it up front. And, and, you know, for me, If I receive support from a committee I need to be prepared to, to talk about that. And that’s what this is really about. And I think if we eliminate that at, it, it makes the process more straightforward, it makes it more disclosed, and, although there are legal methodologies for donating to committees that can donate to other people, we would like to narrow that down so that we get more direct donations and more disclosure to the public on who and what we’re getting sup, uh, support by.

Representative Jason Kander: And to add to that, to add to that, you know, in essence your question is somewhat about campaign finance limits. Uh, and Representative Flook references it, and I think that is, that really speaks to how bipartisan this bill is. I, I believe that campaign finance limits would be a vital part of ethics reform. Representative Flook and I don’t completely see eye to eye on that issue. And that didn’t stop us from sitting down and saying what can we do to sort of satisfy both sides that, that believe that ethics reform is necessary and get us to the point where maybe we can get, uh, maybe from my side that believes in campaign finance limits, maybe it’ll open more people up on the Republican side to discussing them when we address these issues as well. Uh, I saw in the Independence Examiner I think today Representative Dusenberg said that he’s, he would look favorably now possibly upon a bill, uh, for campaign finance limits. I’m a cosponsor, Representative LeVota’s bill to re-impose campaign finance limits. But I’m not going to allow my advocacy for campaign finance limits to keep representative Flook and myself from getting a lot done this year as well.

Question: Last year we stood here around the same time of year and there was another bipartisan ethics bill, uh, and there was a bipartisan news conference proposing this ethics bill, uh, with some of the same, uh, information. There’s quite a bit different in this bill. What, what’s different, uh, in terms of getting such a bill through the legislature. Last year the ethics bills went nowhere.

Representative Flook: Well, uh, I , are you talking about  Representative Yates and Zimmerman?

Question: Yeah, Yates and Zimmerman.

Representative Flook: Okay, yeah. Well Representative Yates will not be here. He’s taken a job so, uh, which give me opportunity to become involved. Well I’ll tell you what’s, what’s different. Last year we had a lot of priorities we needed to move on. I, what, what has become different is, is that, you know, we’ve had incidents around the state, we have more people asking questions, and we’ve had a year of, frankly, debating these ideas on our own. Um, what, what I would impress upon you as members of the media is to recognize is that just because a bill doesn’t get out to the House floor doesn’t mean we’re not talking about it. Uh, you know, Representative Kander and I have these kind of discussions amongst ourselves and others. We sit around here at night drinking coffee during the, during the, the, the less, uh, sexy pieces of legislation, we sit back in the House lounge and talk to each other. And we talk about common ground. And one of our concerns was is that so much of the time ethics legislation is always turned into campaign politics. And you cannot get anything legitimate off the ground because it’s always being seen as trying to poke the other guy in the eye. You know, my, my philosophical belief and, uh, Representative Kander’s philosophical belief about owning up to who you’re receiving support from has nothing to do with, with anything else going on in the state. It’s a philosophical belief. But, by virtue of, of more questions being asked we see an opportunity to put it back out there and rejuvenate it. We didn’t want the efforts on the part of, of, uh, Representative Yates, Representative Zimmerman that we certainly agreed on, we don’t want to see those die on the vine. And we wanted to make this effort. I mean, we’re in communication with our leadership on both sides of the aisle on this bill. Um, we think it’s a good stepping off point to show that we’re really gonna try to resolve some things. We’ve had incidents in St. Louis, we’ve had incidents in Kansas City, um, you know, we want to make sure that the public understands that there are people down here working together and that, for the most part, we really are trying to do the right thing. The best way to show that is this joining together working on a bill that, uh, that changes the, changes some of the, the laws and close loopholes and help create a little more security and trust in, in our government.

Question: What, what I don’t see here, talk about pay to play, prohibition on the exchange of campaign contributions for legislative action, what I don’t see is specific language that says, uh, no contributions during the session. Uh, you didn’t go there, why not?

Representative Kander: Well, I mean, actually, it’s not a
conversation we’ve had to a great degree but I would speculate in front of everybody, uh, that a lot of it has to do with just, there was a court case that, that had issue with that. And I think what we didn’t want to do was get pretty far down the road and then be faced with a [inaudible] court challenge.

Representative Flook: Yeah, and, and to that point, that, that goes after other things that turns into campaign fodder. And we know we risk that as it is trying to do a legitimate bill. So we, we’re not interested in, in challenging things in the court. We’re not interested in making that kind of noise. What we’d like to do is establish the new laws and get it passed. We want a bill that can build consensus and make it to the House and Senate floor and be passed.

Representative Kander: And to add to that, you mentioned that’s been proposed  in the past, obviously, since there was a court case about it. What we really are focused on in this bill are new ideas. There are people, you know, Tony, you mentioned, uh, Representative Yates, Representative Zimmerman’s bill, Representative Zimmerman is, is more than capable of, of pushing that bill and I’m sure that he will. There’s no need for me to come in and, and retread that. That’s not necessary. There are really capable people with really capable, uh, really great ideas out there. We were not focused on sort of gathering any of those up and pushing them forward.

Question: Representative Flook, what have you heard from Republican leadership about [inaudible] ethics bill or ethics in general?

Representative Flook: Well, you know, I’ll tell you, I, I’m, I believe in my Republican caucus here in the State of Missouri. I think we’ve got a good caucus. And I think we’ve done a good job. And when I, when I approached, uh, uh, our Speaker and members of the caucus and said, you know, I want to work with Representative Kander on, on this bill, you know, they, they obviously had questions about what the bill contained and is this a real serious effort. Um, and, and the answer was yes. You know, so, my, my Republican members are interested in this legislation. There’ll be things they want to tweak or add, uh, just like I’m sure the Democratic caucus, caucus will want to tweak and add things. But, uh, the bottom line is, is that if we have, if we have something we want to improve upon they way to improve upon it is to get people to agree on what a good change is. You don’t start out an effort at teamwork by accusing your team member of being a bad person and telling them that you want them thrown out of office. That doesn’t accomplish anything, in fact, that just guarantees gridlock. Where, as Representative Kander and I realize that we know, we talk to each other all the time in the hallways and in our offices and in the lounge, we know there’s a lot we can agree on. And we know that when a bill I seen as a genuine effort to work together that, that House or Senate members will rally around that bill. And in this particular case this, this bill is gonna make people in my caucus happy, I believe, because it’s gonna answer some of the very things that we’ve talked about amongst ourselves and with the Democrats for years, things we’d like to change.

Question: So, so this legislation would ban a candidate [inaudible] say [inaudible] a candidate committee from receiving money from like a district committee or a political action committee or what, what, what would that part be?

Representative Kander: No, what we do, because going back to the court challenge issue there’s a certain element of the question, whether or not. So, what we do is we simply say that, that district or that individual political action committee, they can’t send money back and forth to one another. If you choose to, uh, you know, an organization, for instance, my wife is on the board of the Greater Kansas City Women’s Political Caucus, they have a political action committee. They obviously have a mutual interest, a reason that they would want to have a political action committee. If they are going to make a contribution to a candidate, obviously they’re making it in the, in the furtherance of their cause. Well, what the Greater Kansas City Women’s Political Caucus does not have is seventeen committees so they can move money back and forth twenty times so that a candidate can come to them and say, hey, I’d really like to take money from this person so that I can do this favor for them and never be caught, so would you just wash the money around until nobody’s really sure where it came from. What we do is we say, if a donor makes a contribution to a committee then that committee turns around and makes a contribution to a candidate then at least, at a minimum in the court of public opinion, when that candidate runs for reelection or runs for election for the first time somebody can make the argument you took money from a, from a committee that, that is funded by this. Instead of, who knows where that, where that committee [inaudible], you know these obscure names, Americans for America and Politicians Who Love Fuzzy Animals, I mean, these kind of joke political action committee names that go back and forth. What we’re trying to do is streamline that process. And furthermore, make it a felony, if you do use the process that exists after our law, to actually obscure the source of [crosstalk]…

Question: How do you approach that, though, if there’s no documentation that says that?

Representative Kander: Same way the Federal government [inaudible]…

Representative Flook: Same way, yeah. It’s the same fight every, every law enforcement officer has, in, in, in mul, different types of cases. Those cases can happen, you, you saw, uh, we saw cases recently in Missouri. You’ll see other types of areas. You know, I think it important to point out, you know, uh, both parties have people out there, um, with committees and those committees handle a lot of money from multiple directions. And to say, to say that it’s one party over another is just simply wrong, it’s simply. You know, you know, Re, Mr. Sinquefield was, was mentioned. Well he’s just one you all wrote about. As far as I’m concerned, I mean, he’s really not a, not a story. The real story is that it goes on all the time everywhere. And for us we just believe one, uh, very simple philosophical principle, and that is, say what you believe in, accept support from those that, that, uh, that support you, accept it openly. All right? You know, I , I support Rex Sinquefields efforts on education reform in the urban core. Absolutely. Check my voting record. I’m probably one of the most consistent ones with him.  [crosstalk] But, you know, I should [crosstalk], I should, like any other issue, if I’m gonna accept support from him and, and work on a [inaudible] he believes in, that’s not illegal. That’s not illegal. But, I should disclose it. It should be known. And if, if you have a lot of support from unions, fine, the public gets to know. If you have a lot of support from lawyers, that’s absolutely fine, but the public deserves to know who’s supporting you. And that keeps you accountable.

Question: But if I’ve got a lot of money, and I’m a reporter so it’s a bad question, but if I’ve got a lot of money [crosstalk]…

Representative Kander: We’ll suspend disbelief.

Question: …and I want to support [inaudible] do you want me to have to give your campaign committee the money directly or will it still be possible for me to give the money also to the Republican State Committee and the Kansas City Area Committee for Do Good Republicans with the, and that money eventually could wind up with you, but the rest of the people in this room may not be able to follow that [inaudible].

Representative Flook: Well I, I think what’ll happen is that this legislation, is that because the intentional hiding of money, you’re involved in intentionally hiding money. And, and an, that’s, I’ll preface it, our law kinda circles around that right now. You already can’t intentionally
launder. We’re just trying to close that circle and make sure that we can close that loophole. And one way to do it is to help eliminate the creation of these other committees. That really closes the circle on it. We’re already almost there. We’re just trying to close it. And, to answer your question, if, if someone wants to make a large donation to the Democrat House Committee, the Republican House Committee they’re still free to do that, all right, they’re still free to do that. And for First Amendment purposes it’d be very difficult to completely eliminate committees. I mean, it just for the, between the court cases and court challenges we couldn’t really do that. Um, and you know honestly, it’s okay to have base donations to the party committees, it’s all fully disclosed. You all can pick that up very quickly. But if we eliminate the number of side committees that are floating around, if we can reduce that number in any kind of significant measure we really start moving down the path further to, to directly, direct line disclosure of where your support comes from. And, honestly, we have to change the conversation to get there, that’s what this joint effort is, we have to begin the dialog and, and create a shift in, in, in the public eye of, of how campaign finance is looked at. And the way you do that is you don’t make it partisan. You don’t make it partisan. I am not here to try and grind a boot heel on some incidents involving Democrats any more than, and Jason Kander is not here to grind a boot heel in on anything or accusations [inaudible] Republicans. This is really about trying to make a cultural shift so that the public says, you know what, these guys are right, we’re gonna support ’em, say what you believe in,  tell us who supports you and be straight up about it.

Question: [inaudible] If I give money to the Kansas City Area Committee Supporting Do Good Republicans the donation should be seen as going to that committee and whatever candidates our causes it chooses to support, not an effort by me to give you more money directly.

Representative Kander: That’s right. And if there’s evidence to the contrary, if there’s evidence that the legislator in question said to you, you know you’re kind of controversial and I don’t want to take your money on record and then you do that and it goes to them, well, then state investigators are going to be interested in that and the prosecutor’s gonna be interested in prosecuting that as a class D felony…

The final portion of the press conference transcript will follow in a subsequent post.

Representatives Jason Kander (D) and Tim Flook (r) held a press conference on their ethics reform bill late yesterday morning in the House Lounge at the capitol.

Our previous coverage: Kander (D) and Flook (r): ethics reform legislation in Jefferson City

Representatives Jason Kander (D)(left) and Tim Flook (r)(right).

The transcript of the opening statements:

Representative Tim Flook: …Good morning. Thank you all for being here. I’m Representative Tim Flook and I’m here with my, uh, friend and Democratic colleague Representative Jason Kander. We’re both of the western side of the city, uh, the state, uh, representing Kansas City, large parts, some other areas. Um, as you know, with virtually every year I’ve been in the Missouri legislature there’s always been a question about ethics and conduct in campaigns. Um, every year that I watched politics as a young man in college all the way until, uh, the time that I was elected I’ve seen the issue come up over and over again. Unfortunately it’s always brought up in the context of partisan efforts to make someone look bad. Um, and unfortunate part of that is, is that it, it creates a lot of distrust among the public for, for the efforts of their elected officials…

…And the fact of the matter is, I can tell you from my experience, um, in my time in the legislature and my time as a, as a citizen dealing with both Republican and Democrat elected officials, it’s been my personal experience that most of the people you deal with are very honest and work very hard to follow the rules. And they are ethical people. But there, there is that few, there is a few that will at times bend the rules. Or, there might be conduct that looks like the, that looks bad even though it doesn’t necessarily violate the rules. Um, and, and those things cast, cast doubt with the public on, on our efforts down here.

And, uh, in the last, in this last summer representative, uh, Jason Kander approached me and asked if I’d be interested in working with him on developing a bipartisan piece of legislation to address some of the, the issues and ethics that have arisen in the last two or three years. And I told him I’d be happy to do it, primarily because, like myself, Representative Kander believes that most people down here are very ethical. And that if we, if we work together we can isolate potential loopholes, we can prevent conduct before it happens, and we can instill some trust in what we’re trying to do down here in Jefferson City. And do so in a way that’s not about campaign, or poking somebody in the eye, or trying to create a, an illusion of an ethical violation when there hasn’t been one, but, but with real direct legislation that actually changes policy for the better.

So, Jason and I, I’ll say Representative Kander, I keep wanting to call him on a first name basis ’cause I consider him a friend, uh, Representative Kander and I began outlining some things, some things that we think that we can get both sides of the aisle to agree upon. And, and to, present those in a bipartisan form. I met with Speaker Ron Richard, um, about these efforts and he supports, he supports this effort. And I, and I, Representative Kander has, has talked to min, Minority Leader Paul LeVota and he’s supporting this effort.

There will be other bills proposed, uh, which will, will have different ideas in addition to those we’re laying out. We’re certainly interested in those ideas and would probably add them to the bill. If they’re good they’re good for everybody.

But I think the main purpose today is, is that we start the ball rolling with legislation that’s bipartisan and, and we let the Missouri public know that the best policy comes from people working together. And the best policies that, creating the best laws result in fairness and aren’t about campaign politics.

So, with that being said I’m gonna let Representative Kander outline specifics of our proposed legislation…

…Representative Jason Kander: Well it’s a pleasure to work with representative Flook. He’s one of the most respected members of this body on either side of the aisle, um, and for good reason. He works hard and he’s very serious about the job. Um, just a few minutes ago most of you were in this room for another press conference with Representative Flook. He’s in high demand bcause he does a good job down here, so it’s an honor having him involved in this issue.

And it’s fitting that this be a bipartisan press conference because we’re trying to create a solution, a bipartisan solution to what is, as representative Flook mentioned, a bipartisan problem. It’s a problem in, in the Missouri system, in our, in Missouri’s laws. This is not an attempt to point fingers at anyone in particular. I’m gonna run through for you some of the major, uh, provisions of the bill and then we’d be happy to take your questions. What we’re doing here is we’re, we’re saying that the, the Jeff City sport of choice, which is speculation about whether the FBI is gonna take action, that needs to not be the sport of choice anymore. We need to do, we need, we need to pass laws that empower state investigators to take action, empower state law enforcement.

First major provision, uh, speaks to the, the practice of money laundering, or the potential for money laundering. Missouri’s anything goes system of campaign finances seems to be built, uh, to encourage, not to deter, the laundering of political contributions. And so that’s why it’s, it’s entirely possible and sometimes common practice for Missouri politicians to wash money back and forth between political action committees and in some cases, possibly, to obscure the original source of, of a, the person giving that money in the first place. This bill will prohibit, uh, party and independent political action committees from washing money back and forth and, furthermore, will make it a felony to transfer political money solely for the purpose of hiding the original donor.

On the subject of disclosure, in order to make it even more difficult to obscure the source, uh, of funds and funnel money through political action committees this bill requires all PACs to file electronically [inaudible] the Ethics Commission, which will make all contributions in the state searchable online for the first time. Now, while the electronic filing change will make it easier to prove potential corruption in the court of public opinion, it doesn’t make it easier to prove corruption in, in the court of law. And so the next provision addresses that.

Uh, this bill will change the law by specifically listing camp, a campaign contribution in, in certain circumstances as a, a potential pay for play situations, potential bribe, which even goes beyond, uh, what’s done in Federal law. It makes it very clear that, given a direct exchange for legislative action or official action, that can, uh, be a, that would be a felony.

Furthermore, on the subject of political money laundering, we say out loud with this bill what is obviously true. That is that there are some people in this state who can act as treasurers in dozens of political action committees at once possibly for the purpose of washing political money. These aren’t treasurers in such cases, they’re bag men. If they do it for that reason that’s what they are. And our bill would prohibit anyone from acting as a treasurer or a deputy treasurer of multiple political action committees at a time.

Also this year we choose to address the issue of conflicts of interest that can be presented in Jefferson City. Now on both sides of the aisle potential conflicts of interest ex
ist and they can occur when those serving in a political campaign role also serve in the office, uh, in the official office of a, of a elected official in the state. Most of the folks who do this, unfortunately, are not currently required to disclose their [inaudible], so as a result there’s potential conflicts of interest but, but the public doesn’t know about it because it may not be the elected member, it could be their staff. And so we simply say that if you want to work for an elected official and be a political consultant at the same time it’s not too much for ask, for us to ask that you publicly disclose your dual roles. This bill makes that change.

Now, outside the walls of this building a bipartisan array of political consultants who  do not hold government positions are free to contract simultaneously both with elected officials and corporations and other organizations that seek to influence the actions of state government. Yet these consultants are not required to register as lobbyists. With this bill we close this sort of stealth lobbyist loophole in state law and we created the category of a de facto lobbyist. And we shed light on these individual’s attempts to influence the course of legislation.

Now, the next part I think is pretty important and it goes into all of these, all of these provisions. If we are to pass new ethics laws this year, or if we just seek to make existing ethics laws mean something more, then we need a state felony provision that applies to anyone who tries to obstruct an ethics investigation. Without an obstruction of justice law we reward politicians who lie to state investigators. This bill includes an obstruction of justice felony modeled upon the Federal statute.

Finally, this bill is truly comprehensive and that it applies these and many existing laws, ethics laws, not just to state government, but to our counties, or cities, our school boards, and various other municipalities.

The proposals put forth by Representative Flook and myself today are among many needed changes and I’m thankful that several of our colleagues have both this year and in the past suggested other ways to stay one step ahead, one step ahead of the small bipartisan minority of individuals who may seek to violate public trust. What we don’t do is stand here today and tell you that these changes are gonna fix the problem permanently. Over time power and influence finds a way to circumvent the law. So it’s our hope, we’ve discussed this, that several years from now two more legislators will reach across the aisle and seek to close any loopholes that may have developed in the legislation passed in twenty-ten, because this is an ever evolving process.

Finally, the reason for that is because fighting public corruption is like fighting the flue, we come up with a vaccine and the flue comes back the next year with a new strain. So, as the flu adapts vac, adapts, a vaccine must evolve with it. Honest governments like healthy societies are the result of eternal vigilance. And so that’s what we’re prepared to do, that’s why we’re trying to do it in a bipartisan manner. And we’d be happy to take your questions…

Transcript(s) of the media Q and A will follow in subsequent posts.