Previously: Sen. Ed Emery (r): if you want Medicaid move to another state (May 19, 2014)

In the Missouri Constitution, in not one, but two places:

Missouri Constitution

Article I

BILL OF RIGHTS

Section 7

Public aid for religious purposes–preferences and discriminations on religious grounds.

Section 7. That no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect or denomination of religion, or in aid of any priest, preacher, minister or teacher thereof, as such; and that no preference shall be given to nor any discrimination made against any church, sect or creed of religion, or any form of religious faith or worship.

Article IX

EDUCATION

Section 8

Prohibition of public aid for religious purposes and institutions.

Section 8. Neither the general assembly, nor any county, city, town, township, school district or other municipal corporation, shall ever make an appropriation or pay from any public fund whatever, anything in aid of any religious creed, church or sectarian purpose, or to help to support or sustain any private or public school, academy, seminary, college, university, or other institution of learning controlled by any religious creed, church or sectarian denomination whatever; nor shall any grant or donation of personal property or real estate ever be made by the state, or any county, city, town, or other municipal corporation, for any religious creed, church, or sectarian purpose whatever.

Senator Ed Emery (r) on higher education yesterday, via Facebook:

Ed Emery

[….]

“Let every student be plainly instructed, and earnestly pressed to consider well, the main end of his life studies is, to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life.” – Harvard University Original Mission Statement, 1636

During this legislative session, as seen with passing both the student transfer bill and the Common Core bill, education was a top priority for the General Assembly. As the graduation season is upon us, many students will be preparing to head to college this fall.

During the session, we heard a higher education bill, which included performance funding – meaning that starting in 2016, a certain amount of state funding – based on performance – will be distributed, holding these schools accountable for the quality of education they provide. It is common for parents to be unaware of what their child is learning when they are away from home, but it is crucial that parents stay involved. In a recent report published by Phyllis Schlafly, she discusses the drastic shift on college campuses and the breakdown of traditional values among students. Schlafly makes some startling observations and passionate admonitions which are summarized below.

Before you send your child off to college, think for a moment about the quality of education you are getting for the $20,000-$50,000 a year. To get a glimpse into what your child will be learning, visit a university bookstore and browse through the required text books. Many of the history books give a one-sided perspective of the United States being a bully that is exploiting third-world nations and paints the Founders as racist slave owning elites who only declared their independence to preserve their own wealth and social status. Many text books describe big government as the only humane way in which a country can be ruled and claim that it is the duty of the government to provide for everyone, rather than protect their lives, liberty and property.

The problem is the way this information is being taught. If a student takes a history class in which they learn about Marxism, they may study and fulfill all of the requirements to pass without ever being challenged to think critically about the topic. For example, students learn about the ideas of Socialism and the basis on which it is built, but they seldom learn of the instances throughout history where this ideology has been tried and failed, from the pilgrims to Zimbabwe to the USSR. Schlafly’s research points out that at Columbia Teachers College, students learn that non-Socialist societies are the root cause of all violence.

Today on many campuses, students are given the opportunity to take a variety of classes including those on gender studies, many of which teach that the traditional roles of male and female are learned behaviors which can be changed if the person so chooses. In Schlafly’s report, she talks about a course at the University of Missouri-St. Louis that uses a textbook entitled Women’s Voices, Feminist Visions. She states that this textbook explains to students that heterosexuality only exists because of socially imposed stereotypes and homophobia, and has nothing to do with nature or morality. It teaches students that the oppression of minority groups is one of many ways for the majority to keep its special privileges. Frequently those expressing their own belief in traditional values are condemned as being ignorant or unaccepting. Even at the simplest levels, students are kept from expressing traditional ideas.

The outcry for “equality,” as opposed to exceptionalism on college campuses, has created a gross double standard. To teach traditional values or concepts is considered politically incorrect and students who want to live by these values find themselves persecuted. In Schlafly’s article, she describes a situation at Rollins College in Florida which recently ruled that Christian student clubs, who require student officers to be Christian, are in violation of the school’s “non-discrimination policy” and will not receive any university funds allotted to student organizations. Many often forget that most universities were founded as Christian learning institutions. Harvard’s original motto was “Truth for Christ and the Church,” and Yale University was originally founded to train Christian ministers. As you can see, today’s universities have exponentially strayed from this idea.

For many students, college can be a time in which their faith and values are tested. It is important as parents to help your student select a college carefully and to arm them with the tools they need to remain strong in their beliefs and values. Education forms the future. We cannot leave the future of Missouri or this great nation in the hands of the amoral education elite. Parents must take charge, and that requires involvement-not just in K-12, but in every institution that either forms or conforms the minds of our children.

“Let every student be plainly instructed, and earnestly pressed to consider well, the main end of his life studies is, to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life.” – Harvard University Original Mission Statement, 1636

Uh, you do know that Harvard University was and still is a private, not state, institution, right?

“….During the session, we heard a higher education bill, which included performance funding – meaning that starting in 2016, a certain amount of state funding – based on performance – will be distributed, holding these schools accountable for the quality of education they provide. It is common for parents to be unaware of what their child is learning when they are away from home, but it is crucial that parents stay involved….” [emphasis added]

Uh, once an individual is eighteen years of age or older (achieving the legal age of majority) parents have no right to be involved:

The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99) is a Federal law that protects the privacy of student education records. The law applies to all schools that receive funds under an applicable program of the U.S. Department of Education.

FERPA gives parents certain rights with respect to their children’s education records. These rights transfer to the student when he or she reaches the age of 18 or attends a school beyond the high school level. Students to whom the rights have transferred are “eligible students.”

[emphasis added]

And:

[…..]

Section 99.31(a)(8)  Prior Consent Not Required for Disclosures to Parents of a Dependent Student

The Secretary clarifies that educational agencies and institutions may disclose education records to the parents of a dependent student, as defined in section 152 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, without the student’s consent. An educational agency or institution may disclose education records to either parent of a dependent student, regardless of which parent claims the student as a dependent.

[….]

[emphasis added]

The language is permissive, not mandatory.

“…Schlafly’s research points out that at Columbia Teachers College, students learn that non-Socialist societies are the root cause of all violence…”

Uh, the Teachers College, Columbia University is a private institution:

Columbia University was founded in 1754 as King’s College by royal charter of King George II of England. It is the oldest institution of higher learning in the state of New York and the fifth oldest in the United States.

Controversy preceded the founding of the College, with various groups competing to determine its location and religious affiliation. Advocates of New York City met with success on the first point, while the Anglicans prevailed on the latter. However, all constituencies agreed to commit themselves to principles of religious liberty in establishing the policies of the College….

“…In Schlafly’s article, she describes a situation at Rollins College in Florida which recently ruled that Christian student clubs, who require student officers to be Christian, are in violation of the school’s “non-discrimination policy” and will not receive any university funds allotted to student organizations….”

Rollins College?:

Founded in 1885 by New England Congregationalists who sought to bring their style of liberal arts education to the Florida frontier, Rollins is a four-year, coeducational institution and the first recognized college in Florida.

Uh, Rollins College is a private institution.

That “performance funding” thing in Missouri, from SB 492 [pdf]?:

[….]

….Each public four-year institution, each community college, and the state technical college shall utilize the five institutional performance measures it has submitted to, and that were approved by, the coordinating board for higher education as of the effective date of this act, for performance funding under sections 163.191, 173.1540, and 178.638.

[….]

[emphasis added]

Performance funding in SB 492 applies to public institutions in Missouri.

“….Many often forget that most universities were founded as Christian learning institutions….As you can see, today’s universities have exponentially strayed from this idea…”

Not according to the Missouri Constitution as it applies to public institutions in the state. Unless, of course, one has difficulties with reading comprehension and critical thinking.

Gee, the University of Missouri, St. Louis has a course that uses a textbook that Phyllis Schlafly and Senator Emery (r) don’t like. Apparently that qualifies the institution and its entire curriculum as enablers of heresy. Except it is a public institution, not one operated as an instrument of “Christian learning”.

“…We cannot leave the future of Missouri or this great nation in the hands of the amoral education elite…”

That says it all, doesn’t it?

This weekend, via Twitter:

Ellis ‏@cole3llis May 17

@sophieslater my sister got a letter back from our Ed Emery from the pp petition she signed: he said she should move to another state. [….] 9:24 PM – 17 May 2014

Ellis ‏@cole3llis

[….] here it is for your reading pleasure! pic.twitter.com/NTw8pchIjr 9:43 PM – 17 May 2014

The text of Senator Ed Emery’s (r) constituent letter:

[….]

Missouri Senate

[….]

ED EMERY

31ST DISTRICT

May 13, 2014

[….]

I received your form letter about Medicaid expansion. Thank you for contacting my office. Although it is seldom possible to please every constituent, it is valuable to know what my constituents are thinking. I will not support Medicaid expansion in Missouri for several reasons. First, it does not deliver on its promises. The Oregon Medicaid experiment confirms what common sense would conclude – neither access nor health outcomes are improved.

Secondly, it has a significant negative impact on choice. Medicaid expansion represents contraction of choice. The state, not the individual, decides what treatments can be provided and by whom. Individual liberty is important to me and I understand my oath of office as a commitment to defend it.

There are additional reasons why Medicaid expansion is wrong for Missouri that you may discover with further study. They will also become more obvious as those state who have taken that course will begin to experience the consequences. Nevertheless, an invaluable aspect of our federation of states is that each state is like a laboratory for government policies. We live in a nation and an era that facilitates physical moves between states. Individuals and families are free to consider moving to states with differing and even contrasting government policies. That is the beauty of federalism.

Thank you for your input and allowing me to explain my position.

Sincerely,

s/

Ed Emery

“I received your form letter about Medicaid expansion…”

Irony challenged, eh?

“…Secondly, it has a significant negative impact on choice…”

Oh, definitely irony challenged.

“…Medicaid expansion represents contraction of choice. The state, not the individual, decides what treatments can be provided and by whom….”

Uh, people who need Medicaid and don’t have access to health care because they don’t have Medicaid and resources do have two choices. The first, do without and suffer. The second, when their medical condition gets bad enough, go to an emergency room and get medical treatment at its most expensive. Who pays for that?

“…There are additional reasons why Medicaid expansion is wrong for Missouri that you may discover with further study…”

Uh, it’s generally considered a bad idea to tell a constituent in a letter that you think they’re ignorant.

“…We live in a nation and an era that facilitates physical moves between states. Individuals and families are free to consider moving to states with differing and even contrasting government policies. That is the beauty of federalism…”

“Move elsewhere” now appears to be the embodiment of tenther philosophy.

Let’s take a look at the “Oregon Medicaid experiment”:

Here’s what the Oregon Medicaid study really said

By Ezra Klein

May 2, 2013 at 3:11 pm

The Oregon Medicaid experiment is an academic miracle born out of a human tragedy.

A few years back, Oregon found the money to add 10,000 residents to the state’s Medicaid program. The only problem was that there were 90,000 residents who qualified for the program and desperately wanted in. So the state held a lottery. Welcome to the American health-care system. Greatest in the world, folks.

But 80,000 Oregonians’ loss was science’s gain. The lottery gave researchers an opportunity that’s almost never available in policymaking: They could create a randomized controlled study — the absolute gold-standard of experimental design — comparing the health outcomes of the lucky Oregonians who received Medicaid to those who didn’t. It would be the first time that kind of study had even been used to compare the insured and the uninsured.

The initial batch of results was released in August 2012. The data covered the first year of the Medicaid expansion and found that the folks on Medicaid were getting more care, reporting better health (both physical and mental), and seeing fewer financial problems than the people who weren’t on Medicaid.

The second set of results was released Wednesday. The data now covers two years and, importantly, includes clinical measures of health rather than relying on the reports of the study participants. These results are more mixed, but also more telling.

Here’s what we can say with certainty: Medicaid works as health insurance.

That might seem obvious. It’s actually not. A big criticism of Medicaid is that it pays doctors so little that it’s essentially worthless because no doctor will see you. But the Oregon residents who won the Medicaid lottery got much more health care — including preventive health care — than the residents who lost it. They also saw catastrophic health costs basically vanish.

[….]

“…The Oregon Medicaid experiment confirms what common sense would conclude – neither access nor health outcomes are improved…”

“…the Oregon residents who won the Medicaid lottery got much more health care — including preventive health care — than the residents who lost it. They also saw catastrophic health costs basically vanish…”

Uh, getting “much more health care – including preventative health care” qualifies as increased access.

And:

The Oregon Experiment – Effects of Medicaid on Clinical Outcomes

[….]

We found no significant effect of Medicaid coverage on the prevalence or diagnosis of hypertension or high cholesterol levels or on the use of medication for these conditions. Medicaid coverage significantly increased the probability of a diagnosis of diabetes and the use of diabetes medication, but we observed no significant effect on average glycated hemoglobin levels or on the percentage of participants with levels of 6.5% or higher. Medicaid coverage decreased the probability of a positive screening for depression (−9.15 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, −16.70 to −1.60; P=0.02), increased the use of many preventive services, and nearly eliminated catastrophic out-of-pocket medical expenditures.

[….]

“…increased the use of many preventive services, and nearly eliminated catastrophic out-of-pocket medical expenditures…”

What effect do you think that would have on the quality of one’s life? Just asking.

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has been in the news lately. The Guardian Newspaper managed to get hold of a trove of ALEC documents that have helped to cast more light on the activities of the secretive, corporate-funded group that has sponsored tight relationships with state legislators in order to push preferred rightwing policies. ALEC has gone so far as to actually  author “model” legislation it then presents to tame legislators so that they can file it under their own names.

Among the documents the Guardian exposed was, tellingly, a loyalty oath intended for ALEC-recruited representatives in state government. As the Kansas City Star‘s Barbara Shelly describes it:

One of the most interesting documents is a proposed job description for the legislators designated to head up their state delegations. Along with striving to increase membership in ALEC by 10 percent a year and informing the group of all public information requests that include ALEC documents, it was proposed that state chairs take a loyalty oath: “I will act with care and loyalty and put the interests of the organization first.

What? These are elected officials. They are to put the interests of their states and constituents first. Apparently at some level people realized that, because the draft job description was never adopted. But the very suggestion demonstrates ALEC’s eagerness to control these lawmakers.

Shelly goes on to observe that several lawmakers in both Kansas and Missouri are active ALEC collaborators. And, in Missouri at least, one can conjecture with a fair degree of confidence that few state pols known to be complicit with ALEC would have had any qualms about signing a loyalty oath. Even if they balked at the bald statement of priorities in the pledge, most of our Missouri ALEC-ites seem to be spiritually in sync with its intention. When it comes to ALEC and Missouri Republicans, it’s a love match, no pre-nup needed.

Take for instance, Missouri GOP State Senator Ed Emery, the state chairman for ALEC in Missouri. He is, to put it bluntly, upfront about the role that ALEC plays in Missouri government:

… In the world of term-limits, an association like ALEC is invaluable in assisting state legislators by assembling the private and public expertise that can effectively identify and clarify even the most complex issues.

In other words, poorly informed legislators can chillax and let corporate dogsbody ALEC do all the heavy lifting. ALEC surely has the best interests of Missourians at heart after all, no self-interest there.

Of course, ALEC doesn’t stop at doing the legislator’s work for him or her – they’re quite willing to pay for the privilege. Just ask House speaker Tim Jones who, according to blogger Randy Turner, received a total of $2,672.58 from ALEC in 2013 2012. Turner also observes that while other members of the  legislature likely received gifts from ALEC, they managed to keep them under wraps. Writing about reports filed by lobbyists in the wake of the 2012 ALEC convention in Salt Lake City, Turner notes:

Not one Democrat and only a handful of Missouri Republicans attended the national American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) meeting in Salt Lake City, Utah, in July, but Missouri Ethics Commission documents that went online Saturday indicate that state lobbyists are crediting most of their expenses to the entire General Assembly.

By doing so, the expenses are not credited to any particular legislator, though those attending the convention may have received as much as hundreds of dollars worth of gifts from lobbyists representing special interests that are trying to curry the favor of the legislators.

The fact that lobbyists and pols alike try to hide the possible quid pro quo says it all. That legislators’ ALEC ties aren’t a statewide scandal would be incomprehensible in a sane political climate. Surely folks who rant and scream about how a moderate health care reform represents a horrific incursion of big government into individual life ought to be up in arms when they learn that state government is being abandoned – maybe even sold – to corporations looking only to enhance their bottom lines.

 

The GOP House Speaker, John Boehner says the shutdown crisis “isn’t some damn game,” but there’s no doubt that the Republicans in Congress are indeed playing a game, and a very dangerous game it is. And what’s worse, Republican leaders are aware that what they are doing is suicidal as far as their party is concerned and homicidal as far as the nation goes. It’s happening because of a few yeast-brained fools who think that they’re making a grand stand for principles that even they are hard put to describe in meaningful terms. E. J. Dionne puts it perfectly; it’s “the Seinfeld Shutdown: It’s about absolutely nothing, at least where substance is concerned.”

How, you may be forgiven for asking, can responsible legislators lead the country into disaster to satisfy continually shifting and politically undigestable demands? The answer: consider the people doing the demanding. And you don’t have to go far to do it since we have here in Missouri more than a few legislators that suffer from the same delusions as the would-be leaders of the attempted GOP coup d’état in Washington D.C.

Let’s start with state Senator Ed Emery (R-31), who exemplifies the constitutional fetish common to so many GOP legislators who were agitating for the shutdown. To give you an idea about how bad it is, Emery holds that the vetoed gun bill, HB436, widely deemed by legal experts to have egregiously violated the Constitution, was “the most constitutional bill this year, not just in Missouri’s Legislature, but in any state.” Not surprisingly, he also insists that despite the contrary opinion of the Supreme Court, Obamacare is not only unconstitutional, but constitutes an overweening threat to God and Country:

One need know little about the origins and history of America and the origins and history of Obamacare to know that this fight is not about the survival of Obamacare or of a political party, it is about the survival of the Republic. …

I’m willing to bet that this poor schmuck, like plenty of the D.C. Tea Party contingent, really believes this sort of tripe. It’s based on an attitude that views the Constitution as a magical, quasi-religious icon that codifies the deepest wishes of ignorantly genuflecting true believers, rather than a mental construct that has to be intellectually apprehended. How else could Senator Emery ignore the constitutional authority of the Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare? Garrett Epps  points out some of the most common rightwing Constitutional errors and identifies some purely non-existent passages and words that are commonly bandied about by these folks, all of  which allow them, in Epps words, to wave the Constitution “about like great-grandpa’s Confederate cavalry sword to demonstrate that we can’t have health care, or environmental protection, or whatever other policy they oppose today.”  

Not surprisingly, you get a heaping serving of the stupid when you leaven this faux-constitutional fervor with the simplistic economic cliches current on the right – beautifully exemplified by state Rep. Mike Kelley (R-126), who baldly states that “the federal government is shutdown today and the last few days because it’s out of money!” That, of course, is untrue in general terms, and untrue when it comes to the claim that we cannot afford Obamacare; in fact, repealing Obamacare would actually increase the deficit.

So what we’re confronted with are a gang of none-too-bright legislators with a poor grasp of economics, tons of inbred prejudices, and heroic yearnings focused on a poorly digested understanding of the Constitution. In short, ripe for plucking.

And plucked they have been, as the the New York Times made clear in a recent article on the evolution of the shutdown which traces its roots to months of planning on the part of rightwing groups such as Americans for Prosperity, Heritage Action for America and others, all generously funded by titans of industry like the Koch brothers, and happily steering the equally dim-witted federal analogues of Emery and Kelley into our current disaster. The goal? To destroy any legislation that would slow progress towards a United States of America that more closely resembles those third-world, free-market paradises where many of these “job-creators” have already gone to do their low-cost creating.  

A brief but important comment published by Robert Reich at Salon (h/t Daily Kos):

Suppose a small group of extremely wealthy people sought to systematically destroy the U.S. government by (1) finding and bankrolling new candidates pledged to shrinking and dismembering it; (2) intimidating or bribing many current senators and representatives to block all proposed legislation, prevent the appointment of presidential nominees, eliminate funds to implement and enforce laws, and threaten to default on the nation’s debt; (3) taking over state governments in order to redistrict, gerrymander, require voter IDs, purge voter rolls, and otherwise suppress the votes of the majority in federal elections; (4) running a vast PR campaign designed to convince the American public of certain big lies, such as climate change is a hoax, and (5) buying up the media so the public cannot know the truth.

Would you call this treason?

If not, what would you call it?

And what would you do about it?

Strong words. But maybe not too much so – simply consider these tidbits of recent Missouri political news:

1. First comes the Missouri GOP pols’ contribution to the effort to gum up the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). As we noted yesterday, Senator Roy Blunt is prominently engaged in Republican efforts to sabotage the ACA, with shrill support from various Missouri House members like Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-4). The congressional chorus is backed up by an advertising campaign, chock full of blatant lies, and funded by the Koch brothers. Together the one percenters and their congressional GOP lackeys, including our Missouri guys, are attempting to launch a mini coup d’etat:

Instead of trying to make the law of the land work, instead of doing the hard job of governance – like seriously considering a recent business-backed bill that would’ve tweaked the employer mandate – they’ve chosen the path of partisan sabotage. They continue to attack the law […], behaving as if it’s still 2009 (when the cry of “death panels!” led the league in lying). Worse yet, they’re actively working to prevent the public from learning more about what the law actually says.

2. At the state level, The Turner Report published a revealing report authored by State Representative Ed Emery (R-31) in which he discusses the role of the corporate-funded American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in Missouri government:

Missouri has a representation on each of the [ALEC] task forces, and our involvement ensures that Missouri’s interests and perspectives are a part of every deliberation. Federalism makes each state a laboratory, and ALEC involvement provides Missouri state government the best opportunity to develop effective government policies and avoid harmful ones. I hope you approve.

ALEC brings corporate lobbyists and state legislators together (on ALEC’s dime) and has been behind much of the slew of anti-worker, anti-union, anti-teacher, anti-tax and pro-privatization initiatives produced by Missouri’s legislators this session, at times even providing model legislation for our legislators to crib from. Emery may not be the brightest light in the room, but he is at least open about the role of the usually secretive organization and its influence buying operation – which may, of course, be exactly because he isn’t the brightest light in the room.

3. The Turner Report also noted the $1.2 million dollars Rex Sinquefield contributed to a group dedicated to overturning Governor Jay Nixon’s veto of legislation passed this session that would have cut Missouri’s corporate taxes almost to nothing, decimating the revenue stream that ensures government functioning. This donation joins Sinquefield’s other very sizeable donations to groups that support his anti-tax, pro-educational privatization goals. Just this summer, Sinquefield has already put down almost two million dollars to bolster the down payment he’s already paid out in his effort to purchase the state.

And bear in mind that these examples are the result of twenty minutes cursory searching. One can only imagine the length of this piece were I to try to be comprehensive. What is clear is that when Reich paints a picture of politicians doing the bidding of the very wealthy for the benefit of the very wealthy, selling out government to do what is best for corporations and at the behest of rich ideologues, and sabotaging laws that these rich poobahs don’t like, Missouri’s GOP political class could have provided the model.

My question: Are we sending traitors to Washington D.C. and Jefferson City, or just borderline felons? And along with Robert Reich, I wonder what we’re going to do about it.

 

The Missouri General Assembly is back in session. We get more tenther drivel on the first day.

The laugh is on you, Missouri.

Is anyone surprised?:

SB 119 Creates the State Sovereighnty [sic] Commission

Sponsor: Emery

LR Number: 0545S.02I

Last Action: 1/9/2013 – S First Read–SB 119-Emery

Effective Date: August 28, 2013

Current Bill Summary

SB 119 – This act creates the State Sovereignty Commission. The role of the commission shall be to identify federal legislation that infringes on Missouri’s sovereignty, make recommendations to the General Assembly regarding state legislation that would preserve the principles of the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, conduct inquiries with Missouri Congressional members regarding votes cast on federal legislation which may affect Missouri’s sovereignty, and refer cases to the Attorney General when the federal government requires the state or a state officer to enact or enforce provisions of federal law outside Congress’ enumerated powers.

The Commission shall consist of seven members appointed by the various branches of government. The members shall serve two-year terms.

[….]

Because jobs are so important.

Previously: Todd Akin: “legitimate” rape victims don’t get pregnant (August 19, 2012)

Todd Akin, the republican nominee for the U.S. Senate, held several campaign rallies with supporters across the Kansas City metro area yesterday. At the rally held at a park in Raymore yesterday evening (r) there were equal numbers of protesters and attendees at the rally (approximately fifty each, as related by a protester via Facebook). We received several photos from an individual who attended the protest:

Protesters.

Todd Akin (r) (foreground, center left), taking a peek.

Todd Akin supporters under the park shelter – the line of protesters is in the background.

“Todd Akin, resign from the Science Committee!” – note the “Fair Tax” yard sign.

Ed volunteers as Executive Director of Missouri Fair Tax.

That would explain the “Fair Tax” yard signs.

Ed Emery (far right), the republican nominee in the 31st Senate District, walking past protesters into the Akin rally.

It must be nice to have out of state supporters with an apparently endless supply of checks. Today, at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C121090 09/04/2012 CITIZENS FOR ED EMERY Sarah Atkins 4713 Rock Spring Road Arlington VA 22207 Consultant 9/4/2012 $25,000.00

[emphasis added]

This is not a new thing for this republican candidate and one other. Since the beginning of the year:

C091011 04/02/2012 CITIZENS FOR BRAD LAGER Sarah Atkins 4713 Rock Springs Rd Arlington VA 22207 Requested Requested 3/31/2012 $100,000.00

C121090 07/16/2012 CITIZENS FOR ED EMERY Sarah Atkins 4713 Rock Spring Rd Arlington VA 22207 Self Employed 7/16/2012 $50,000.00

[emphasis added]

Whoa. That’s getting into Sinquefieldian territory.

Previously:

Campaign Finance: throwing down the crazy gauntlet (April 23, 2012)

Campaign Finance: throwing down the crazy gauntlet – the prequel (April 24, 2012)

Campaign Finance: sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don’t really have a choice (June 16, 2012)

Signs: sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don’t really have a choice (June 20, 2012)

Campaign Finance: print more signs! (July 3, 2012)

Campaign Finance: a sign on every lawn (July 16, 2012)

Campaign Finance: global thermonuclear war – republican primary – 31st Senate District (August 1, 2012)

Democracy is so much more efficient when you don’t have to ask a thousand people for $25.00 (August 25, 2012)

In the 31st Senate District. Yesterday, at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C121090 08/24/2012 CITIZENS FOR ED EMERY Ethelmae Humphreys 2505 East 11th Street Joplin MO 64801 Tamko Bldg. Products 8/24/2012 $25,000.00

[emphasis added]

And, it’s so much easier to recharge the campaign coffers, too.

Previously:

Campaign Finance: a microcosm of the struggle in the republican universe – 21st Senate District (August 1, 2012)

Campaign Finance: global thermonuclear war – republican primary – 31st Senate District (August 2, 2012)

They’re recharging the republican campaign accounts. This past weekend, at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C121090 08/11/2012 CITIZENS FOR ED EMERY Dempsey For Senate Two Westbury Dr Saint Charles MO 63301 8/11/2012 $5,025.00

C010192 08/12/2012 PEARCE FOR SENATE Dempsey For Senate Two Westbury Drive St Charles MO 63301 8/11/2012 $5,025.00

[emphasis added]

Right wingnut or “establishment” republican, they get the same amount.

Remember this?:

An attack piece directed at Senator David Pearce (r) who faced (and won) an August primary with Mike McGhee (r) in the 21st Senate District.

Now, they’re all one and the same.

Apparently all is forgiven to the tune of $5,025.00.