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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   

Corruption in Jefferson City? What do you think? Today the AP writes that:

Campaign finance and ethics reform have taken a secondary position at the Capitol, where much of the focus has been on economic development, taxes and the state’s Medicaid health care program for the poor. Lawmakers have about a month left before their mandatory adjournment.

Currently, anyone with a legislative ax to grind can donate whatever they want to the lawmakers of their choice. The sky’s the limit. GOPers claim that that’s okay as long as folks know where the money’s coming from, but transparency rules are, in fact, not only very easy to evade, but, the evidence suggests, often evaded.

So, if the GOP lawmakers, the folks who currently control what gets done in Jefferson City, are both honest and serious about letting us know that everything is aboveboard, why aren’t they willing to let Democratic backed legislation to cap campaign donations make it out of committee? Are they afraid to publicly debate the question? And why do GOPers, many of whom are living high on lobbyists’ hogs, dismiss ethics legislation as just some airy-fairy nonsense that they may get around to when they aren’t busy with really important issues?

According to House Speaker Tim Jones, “lawmakers are focused on other issues this session that ‘impact Missourians more than an inside the Beltway ethics discussion.'” This dismissive attitude is mirrored by the Senate President Pro Tem, Republican Tom Dempsey, who claims that:

“We’ve been working on our business, pro-growth strategies, and I’m not sure we’re going to be able to address those items – at least as Senate legislation this year,” said Dempsey, R-St. Charles. “But we’ll continue to take a look at them.”

Dare I suggest that one might ask about the “impact” on Missourians of empty conspiracy fads like the the United Nations Agenda 21 (a U.N. sustainability planning initiative, not ratified by the U.S. and with no bearing on U.S. law – although Senator Brian Nieves is sure that the federal government has rezoned land belonging to a couple of his constituents as part of its enforcement), or the nefarious efforts of the Department of Revenue to, according to various black helicopter enthusiasts, implement the federal real ID and/or register Missourians’ guns through the “back door.” All topics taken up by legislators who are too busy to deal with the perception of egregious ethics violations on their part.

Of course, the more important point is that the GOP’s putative “pro-growth” agenda, which is cited by Senator Dempsy, heavily favors corporate interests. And while I might be missing something, aren’t these the very entities that usually write those big, unlimited campaign checks and fund many of the lobbyists who ply Missouri statehouse denizens with fancy meals, tickets to sporting events and other thoughtful and expensive trinkets, spending in the process an amount in the vicinity of $1 million a year?  

To a casual observer, it looks like those corporate interests are getting what they pay for. Consider the on-going effort to pass right-to-work bills, to take down prevailing wage laws, etc., all of which stiff the little guy to the benefit of those who hold the strings of the purses that pols depend on. Kansas City Star Jefferson City correspondent Jason Hancock writes:

Take, for example, the roughly $8,200 spent by a handful of lobbyists to treat lawmakers to meals last July in Salt Lake City at the convention of the American Legislative Exchange Council [i.e. ALEC], a conservative organization that has drawn criticism in recent years for its efforts to bring together corporations and lawmakers to craft bills for introduction in legislatures nationwide.

Which lawmakers made the trip to Utah and attended those get-togethers was not disclosed. Each of the lobbyists reported the gifts as going to the “entire General Assembly.”

No matter how you cut it, it doesn’t look good when several Missouri politicians manage to hide their cozy relationship with ALEC, which has been called “a corporate bill mill,” and which, according to Progress Missouri, has been responsible for more than 30 corporate-friendly bills introduced into the Legislature over the past decade.

Does any of this suggest that we’re dealing with more than the appearance of corruption, and that, at the very least, we should be concerned about who’s in the driver’s seat in Jefferson City?

And they’re off. The Missouri General Assembly has started prefiling bills for the 2013 session. Here’s one in the Senate which will ruffle quite a few feathers:

SB 38 Institutes a lobbyist gift ban for the members of the General Assembly and their candidate committees

[….]

Current Bill Summary

SB 38 – This act bars members of the General Assembly and their family, employees, and staff from receiving any tangible or intangible item, service, or thing of value from a lobbyist and bars lobbyists from delivering such items to such individuals.

Lobbyists shall not make contributions in the form of food, entertainment, lodging, or travel to general assembly member candidate committees and such committees shall not receive such items.

This act is similar to HB 1080 (2012).

[….]

SB 38 was filed by Scott Sifton (D), newly elected in the 1st Senate District.

Today’s St. Louis Post-Dispatch quotes the new Missouri House Speaker, birther Tim Jones, about why he sees no need for ethics legislation to guide Missouri lawmakers:

I don’t see this culture of corruption in Jefferson City. There’s too many eyes, ears and camera phones to do anything wrong anymore.

Jones is taking over as Speaker from former Rep. Steve Tilley a few months early. The see-no-evil Jones might profit from a serious consideration of Mr. Tilley’s behavior, which earned a few words from the Post-Dispatch in an editorial yesterday on the topic of – you guessed it – ethical lapses:

Less than a month ago, Mr. Tilley, formerly a Republican state representative from Perryville, quit his office so that he could openly begin accepting cash from his former colleagues as a political consultant. Mr. Tilley, though, isn’t content to give election advice from his new Chesterfield-based office.

He’s also going to lobby for corporate clients, following the ethically questionable path established by Republican strategist David Barklage. See, if you can control some access to corporate dollars, help set public policy by writing and lobbying for bills, and direct a cadre of elected representatives by being their chief political adviser, well, let’s just say there’s money to be made.

But as the Post-Dispatch notes, that’s only the half of it:

Were Mr. Tilley simply entering the lobbying revolving door, and following the example set by many lawmakers in both parties before him, that wouldn’t be much of a story. It’s old hat in Missouri, and until a new batch of lawmakers decide to join most other states and Congress and implement a one- or two-year moratorium on lawmakers doing precisely what Mr. Tilley is doing, then Missouri’s ethical free zone is their fault.

On the other hand, if any of the new lawmakers coming into office in January are worried about this revolving door, we suggest they check Mr. Tilley’s campaign finance records, as the Post-Dispatch’s Virginia Young did last week.

Ms. Young found an interesting flow of money from Mr. Tilley’s million-dollar campaign account, which Missouri law allows him to keep as long as he pretends he’s running for future office.

During the recent election cycle, Mr. Tilley gave campaign donations to a number of politicians.

At least three of those politicians, Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder, Rep. Rick Stream, R-Kirkwood, and Sen. Mike Parson, R-Bolivar, turned around and paid Mr. Tilley’s new political consulting firm, Strategic Capitol Consulting, fees for various advice or services.

One doesn’t have to be a cynic to follow the money and see it for what it is. Mr. Tilley has found a way to use his campaign cash to fund the start-up of his new business.

Of course, to Mr. Jones this is probably all hunky-dory since it doesn’t provide any substantive gist for the eyes, ears and camera phones in Jefferson City. However, to those of us who lack that conservative “fire” that Mr. Jones alludes to in the Post-Dispatch article when describing himself and his pursuit of right-wing ideals, it sounds like a money-laundering scheme that would do the Columbian cartel proud.

The Post-Dispatch article tells us that Jones and his family gather regularly for a “four-wheel-drive competition thrugh mud pits and obstacle courses,” dubbed the “Jones Mudfest.” Given Mr. Jones beliefs about what constitutes corruption, it’s likely we’ll soon be having another type of Jones Mudfest in Jefferson City.  

Plutocracy takes a tiny step backwards:

Judge blasts tax plan ballot descriptions

By Rudi Keller

Saturday, April 14, 2012

Wealthy conservative activist Rex Sinquefield’s plan to overhaul Missouri’s taxes would cost the state treasury $7.5 billion annually with no guarantee of replacement revenue, a Cole County judge said Friday in a ruling rewriting two proposals’ ballot descriptions.


Circuit Judge Patricia Joyce ruled that neither Secretary of State Robin Carnahan nor State Auditor Tom Schweich had captured the full impact of two nearly identical proposals in the language voters would see if either was placed on the ballot.


The ruling was especially hard on Schweich. She called his analysis “insufficient, unfair and prejudicial….”

….Joyce also ruled that Let Voters Decide and Travis Brown, the consultant who employs Tomicki at his consulting firm, Pelopidas, lacked standing to intervene in the case because she heard “no evidence” that Brown or Let Voters Decide “are citizens or taxpayers and has no basis to conclude that they are.”

So much for having a rock star as State Auditor. Who’s credible now?

From the Missouri Ethics Commission:

LOBID:L000946 Received Date:12/31/1998

Lobbyist’s Name Travis Brown Termination Date:

Lobbyist’s Address 5297 Washington Pl

Lobbyist’s Address2

Lobbyist’s C/S/Z St Louis, MO 63108

Telephone: (314) 540-5515

Telephone (2): 314-367-2842

[….]

Principal(s) listed by Lobbyist

[….]

LET VOTERS DECIDE

308 EAST HIGH STREET STE 301

JEFFERSON CITY MO 65101

(573) 634-2500 A 4/22/2011

[….]

PELOPIDAS, LLC

912 EAST BROADWAY, SUITE 207

COLUMBIA MO 65201

573-256-1322 A 7/12/2007

REX AND JEANNE SINQUEFIELD

NINE HORTENSE PLACE

ST. LOUIS MO 63108

314-359-9951 A 7/12/2007

[….]

THE BROWN LOBBY FIRM, LLC

912 EAST BROADWAY, SUITE 208

COLUMBIA MO 65201

314-540-5515 A 12/18/2006

They’ll go back to the drawing board. They always do when they have a lot of money to spend.

Sarah Steelman, who is running against Todd Akin (R-2) to be the GOPer who opposes Claire McCaskill, is proposing that the “super-committee” appointees, who will determine just who budget austerity kicks the hardest, pledge not to take lobbyist money:

“Thousands of lobbyists are just waiting to cut their special deal to preserve their piece of the pie,” Steelman said. “The leaders of both parties should only appoint members who agree to this pledge prior to serving on the committee.”

“This is not the time for our representatives in Washington to crawl back into their smoke-filled rooms and cut deals that put powerful special interests ahead of the people,” Steelman said.

Of course, if you follow the implications of this statement, all congresspersons should refuse to take lobbyist money all the time. If it’s wrong in this case, it’s wrong whenever legislators are making decisions that affect our lives and well-being. But that would be campaign finance reform, and I bet Steelman isn’t willing to go there.

It’s also instructive to note that she’s only calling on Claire McCaskill to join her in this pledge; not a word about her primary opponent, Todd Akin, or GOP Senator Roy Blunt. Maybe she knows a lost cause when she sees it?

Slightly edited for clarity.

Wouldn’t you love it if you could put fifty bucks into the stock market and pretty reliably expect a return of $10,000–every year. That’s the approximate value of any investment in the Office of Public Counsel, which defends consumers in utility rate cases and lobbies legislators every time utilities get some Republican stooge to file their latest godawful idea for a bill. But trust me, the utilities don’t make it easy for the OPC to get consumers an even break. They take advantage of all the spare cash lying around in their fat bank accounts–money we gave them–not only to hire a raft of lawyers to plead their cause in rate cases but also to contribute to campaigns and–here’s the point I want to focus on–to hire top flight lobbyists.

Corporate lobbyists might seem like the lesser of two evils when democracy is being hijacked by campaign contributors, but in fact lobbying is sometimes more of a threat to the public interest. And that fact holds true whether we’re talking about bills that benefit utilities, bills that stave off lawsuits against Tyson and Premium Standard Farms, or bills about any high stakes legislation. I mean, who are you more likely to go out of your way to please: an ATM that forked over the cash for last night’s dinner at a pricey restaurant or a friend of yours who always treats? Admittedly, you wouldn’t want that ATM card snatched away, so of course we know that campaign contributors do have their sway over legislators. But I still remember calling Sen. Jeff Smith three years ago to ask why he had accepted $9750 from a Rex Sinquefield shell committee pushing vouchers.  Smith pointed out that the week after taking the money, he had deep sixed a pro-voucher nominee for the state Board of Education. He had no qualms about putting a finger in his donor’s eye.

Indeed, Sinquefield has spread millions around and knows that such rude ingratitude will be fairly common. He has sunk a fortune into campaign contributions without so far getting the lege to do any serious legwork at getting his (un)Fair Tax adopted. He may not be loved, but he persists.

The best lobbyists, though, have an emotional connection with the legislators they cultivate, a hook that no “Pay to the order of” piece of paper can match. It isn’t just that they’re intelligent and can persuasively argue their case–though that certainly is true. It’s that, in the case of high profile bills, lobbyists are hired to match particular legislators. They’re charming, sure, but they’re so much more than merely hail fellows well met. They likely share the same interests as the legislators they target. Perhaps they like the same music and know instinctively which concert tickets will be gladly accepted. Or if a state rep loves baseball, she’ll find herself befriended by a good-natured baseball fan–who happens to know a lot about a particular issue that she will be voting on. And the lobbyist will be feeding her that info along with filet mignon before a ball game he bought the tickets to.

Term limits are the lobbyist’s friend, for a new rep or senator will have had less time to acquaint herself with the intricacies of, say, utility regulation than someone who, in the old days, might have been around Jeff City for twenty years or more and become expert on the topic. The lobbyist stands ready, eager, to fill in those gaps in her knowledge. And she may not immediately cotton on to the reason she has hit it off so well with this particular habitue of the capitol. Given time, she might well learn to keep some distance between herself and lobbyists. But if, at the start of what must be a relatively short career in the legislature, she doesn’t foresee the need for that, then vote time comes, and it’s tough to disappoint her friend.

She never set out to choose moneyed interests above her constituents. It’s not like that at all. She saw nothing sinister in listening to a lobbyist argue his case and was pleasantly surprised to find herself enjoying his company so much. And if she was the least bit conflicted about which way she ought to vote, the deciding factor might be the guilt of betraying her friend.

Because in the end, campaign contributors are numbers on a spreadsheet. Lobbyists are people you like.

Photo courtesy of SEIU on Flickr