Sure enough, we went directly to Josh Hawley’s (r) October 2018 Federal Election Commission [FEC] campaign finance report and there it is:
Travis Brown and Kelly Brown each contributed $2612.50, in kind, dated September 24, 2018 to Josh Hawley’s (r) U.S. Senate campaign. The memo on the contribution report states: “In Kind: Air Charter 9-20-18”
Well, slap my face and call me a republican lobbyist, I’d never consider such a thing possible, given Josh Hawley’s, you know, lack of insider contacts and his apparent aversion to air travel.
Gee, they’re both “self employed” in the “government relations” business. “Government relations” is FEC report talk for “lobbyist”. Charter plane flights not always included.
Travis Brown, Travis Brown…wait a minute, we’ve run into that name before. At the Missouri Ethics Commision [lobbying search]:
Principal: PELOPIDAS, LLC 1034 S. BRENTWOOD BLVD, STE 1700 SAINT LOUIS , MO 63117 […]
Lobbyist: Travis Brown 1034 S. Brentwood Blvd, Ste 1700 Saint Louis , MO 63117 […]
Why, that’s the same address listed for the in-kind contributions to Josh Hawley (r) in the FEC report. Go figure.
It’s not like a lobbyist’s plane hasn’t been an issue in the past:
Yesterday evening, from Representative Vicky Hartzler (r):
Rep. Vicky Hartzler @RepHartzler
The Senate has done its due diligence in investigating Judge Kavanaugh, and they have found no evidence against him. Furthermore, this was turned into an embarrassing display of partisan vitriol. I support his confirmation and am pleased the Senate has acted accordingly. 4:03 PM – 6 Oct 2018 from Washington, DC
Some of the responses:
Weird how you were silent while the same Senate ignored the lawful nomination of Merrick Garland. Kind of like how you were silent while Trump was caging children and tearing families apart.
You make astonishingly immoral decisions, Congresswoman.
I cannot wait to vote for your opponent, and I’m hoping and praying there are many more like me that are disgusted with the GOP’s gross misuse of power. I voted you in to office, but you have proven that to be a mistake. #VoteBlue
My 3 week old could do a more thorough investigation than the FBI
Care to tell us why money was borrowed from China for your farm bill?
Get out and vote!
Your opinion won’t matter after you are voted out. Hope you enjoyed your time
I hope she didn’t enjoy it.
And won’t enjoy it after, when she’s scorned for life for being complicit in the criminal corrupt Trump regime.
You sold out your soul to the Republicans and now you are trying to invoke the moral high ground? Women like you make me feel ashamed of my own gender.
I am your constituent, living in MO-04, You will be voted out on Nov 6th, SHAME on you for taking side of sexual predator.
Vicky, here’s hoping we get an actual investigation of Kavanaugh once congressional control changes. The man I saw freaking out on television should not be making such momentous decisions.
“Due diligence in investigating”? “Found no evidence”? You haven’t been paying attention, Vickster [….]
Oh shut it. This investigation is a sham and you are a smear on America
“embarrassing display of partisan vitriol” You Say
This is so very much nicer then shit show.
But then I’v never been accused of being overly nice when reacting to an obvious shit show…
That’s probably a vote against in November.
The GOP party of Vicky Hartzler, Roy pedophile Moore. Donald pussy grabber Trump. Gym I watched boys getting molested Jordan and now Brett sexual predator Kavanaugh. You hang with some great people Vicky.
By The Editorial Board | Posted: Monday, November 8, 2010 9:00 pm
Just days after Missouri voters approved tough new restrictions on puppy mills, Missouri lawmakers are talking about amending or overturning them.
In most states, such contempt for voters would be shocking and surprising. In Missouri, it’s old hat.
Last May, seven months before voters had their say, rural legislators tried to preempt the vote by prohibiting citizen initiatives involving any aspect of agriculture. It was blatantly unconstitutional. But no fewer than five bills containing similar language were introduced.
Now that Proposition B, the so-called Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act, has been approved, lawmakers are gearing up to override it….
…Agribusiness interests say the bill does nothing to boost enforcement and is a feint by the Humane Society to increase its leverage against big livestock.
“The dog-breeder issue is simply the beginning, we feel, of what can happen in the future with a broader agenda relating to agriculture,” said Estil Fretwell, spokesman for the Missouri Farm Bureau.
Agribusiness recently formed Missourians for Animal Care to fight the initiative. The chairman is the director of the Missouri Pork Association.
The Humane Society’s Pacelle said the puppy mill bill had nothing to do with livestock and that the industry used the same false argument about threats to farmers before Missourians approved a cockfighting ban in 1998….
The statewide vote:
Unofficial Election Returns
State of Missouri General Election – November 2, 2010 General Election
…Several media figures have seized on Osama bin Laden’s newly released audiotape to denounce critics of the Bush administration’s conduct of the war in Iraq. Explicitly asserting comparisons between bin Laden and prominent war critics…
No disrespect should be shown to the flag of the United States of America; the flag should not be dipped to any person or thing. Regimental colors, State flags, and organization or institutional flags are to be dipped as a mark of honor…
…(d) The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery. It should never be festooned, drawn back, nor up, in folds, but always allowed to fall free. Bunting of blue, white, and red, always arranged with the blue above, the white in the middle, and the red below, should be used for covering a speaker’s desk, draping the front of the platform, and for decoration in general….
Okay, Chapter 10, as iterated on the non-governmental site above, is not enforceable.
…Especially pertinent to this case are our decisions recognizing the communicative nature of conduct relating to flags. Attaching a peace sign to the flag, Spence, supra, at 418 U.S. 409″]409-410; refusing to salute the flag, Barnette, 319 U.S. at 632; and displaying a red flag, 409-410; refusing to salute the flag, Barnette, 319 U.S. at 632; and displaying a red flag, Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359, [p405] 368-369 (1931), we have held, all may find shelter under the First Amendment. See also Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566, 588 (1974) (WHITE, J., concurring in judgment) (treating flag “contemptuously” by wearing pants with small flag sewn into their seat is expressive conduct)…
…Although the Flag Protection Act contains no explicit content-based limitation on the scope of prohibited conduct, it is nevertheless clear that the Government’s asserted interest is “related ‘to the suppression of free expression,'” 491 U.S. at 410, and concerned with the content of such expression. The Government’s interest in protecting the “physical integrity” [p316] of a privately owned flag [n5] rests upon a perceived need to preserve the flag’s status as a symbol of our Nation and certain national ideals. But the mere destruction or disfigurement of a particular physical manifestation of the symbol, without more, does not diminish or otherwise affect the symbol itself in any way. For example, the secret destruction of a flag in one’s own basement would not threaten the flag’s recognized meaning. Rather, the Government’s desire to preserve the flag as a symbol for certain national ideals is implicated “only when a person’s treatment of the flag communicates [a] message” to others that is inconsistent with those ideals. [n6] Ibid. [p317]…
…Even assuming such a consensus exists, any suggestion that the Government’s interest in suppressing speech becomes more weighty as popular opposition to that speech grows is foreign to the First Amendment…
Yeah, those are flag burning cases, but the big picture is that government can’t dictate behavior or any orthodoxy about what is “correct” patriotic behavior or speech. This is not a new phenomenon in America, either:
…If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us…
In a time of war, no less.
Ask yourself, what would the political right be saying if it was Barack Obama standing in that same pose instead of Sarah Palin?
So, it all comes down to the political right’s view of what is patriotic orthodoxy. At this point they’re definitely not consistent about it, either. We’ll just have to go with *IOKIYAR.