Reading through the latest “After 8 years, we’re finally moving forward on this idea to help you out” proposal about drivers tests in Missouri and there are some quotes that stick out.

“If you are on the roads and you can’t read the signs, it is a public safety issue, period,”

Examples of the drastic difference between road signs in Mexico and Missouri:

The far-left Missouri Highway Patrol weighed in there:

With road sign colors and symbols based on an international standard, Hull said, the patrol sees no safety issues for drivers who are not well-versed in English.

Dude, that curve is not exactly the same, I barely figured it out (sarcasm off)

And every rose has a thorn, and every Republican party has a Cauthorn:

“The average guy on the street hates Spanish, and it is everywhere”

Ok, so if the Spanish is everywhere, the average guy is either not a Spanish speaker, or self-hating. Which should tell you what John Caut– I mean the average guy really thinks about Mexicans. If I knew enough Spanish to make John Cauthorn jokes, I would. But i’ll stick to English, because that’s the way the Republican General Assembly wants us to speak.

The odds of the Republican General Assembly doing a lot for ESL education this session? No bueno, mi amigos

Good thing unemployment isn’t a problem in Missouri or anything.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hmmm… let’s dig deeper here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hey, I know those names for some reason!

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

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

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

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

Update: Jay Nixon’s letter to legislators (.pdf file)

Seems like Governor Jay Nixon has some ideas about ethics reform too:

In a conference call with reporters Wednesday, Nixon outlined four components of what he would support in terms of reforming government:

— Restoration of campaign donation limits in the neighborhood of $1,200 to $1,300 for statewide candidates in primary and general elections.

— A ban on the practice of shifting campaign funds among committees in an effort to disguise the original source of the funds.

— A waiting period between when a lawmaker serves in office and then becomes a lobbyist.

— A prohibition of the practice of a lawmaker receiving money to act as a political consultant.

Good luck on getting point A enacted. The Republican General Assembly seems to think that allowing 5-digit campaign donation checks makes things more open and ethical.

Meanwhile in today’s campaign finance news, the House Republican Campaign Committee reported a $16275 donation from a St. Louis man and Jay Nixon reported a $25K donation from the “Lewis & Clark Regional Leadership Fund” (which apparently donated $50K to Kenny Hulshof last year). The fun never ends in the Texas-era of Missouri campaign finance. Big money big money no whammies.

Should be exciting to see how watered down the Republican “reform” bill ends up being.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Amendment text is under the fold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. This section shall not be construed to:

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

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

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

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

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

Answers to some previously asked questions, from ethics champion Steven “Air” Tilley

I asked “3) How long will former legislators be barred from lobbying? a year? two years? longer?”

“A moratorium on serving as a legislative lobbyist for 180 days after a member leaves the general assembly”

HA HA HA HA. Wait, that’s not some joke before you reveal a moratorium with teeth?

That means that legislators who leave office due to term limits on January 5th(?), 2011 can lobby the legislature on July 4th, 2011. Which means that there is maybe a year break if the lobbyist doesn’t find veto session work. But if a term-limited legislator were to resign on November 2nd, 2010, he could lobby the legislature on May 1st, 2011. Just in time to work on the most important days of the 2011 session.

Not that legislators, who have already resigned early for various reasons (moving on to a new position, giving their anointed successor a leg up) would eveeeeeeeeer notice that resigning in the fall, when they have no more work to do, would get them work lobbying the legislature in May 2011. Never.

BTW, nothing about that seems to prevent a legislator lobbying one of the three other non-legislative bodies for “on the job training” before going back to their old work place.

And I asked “2) How far will gift bans really go? and how blatant will the loopholes be? Will Lobbyists be able to co-own valuable items with legislators to stretch a gift ban?”

“An end to lobbyist gifts and meals to individual members of the legislature”

Still not answered. But then again, does that mean that gifts to the entire body or more than one legislator would be allowed?

“Tilley said he approached the legislation with three criteria in mind:

1. “It must be comprehensive.”

2. “It must be fair.”

3. “It must make an impact and prove effective.””

When we see the text, we can see how Tilley’s bill does under Tilley’s criteria. We’ll also see if poking the bill with sharp sticks produces answers to pressing questions.

(h/t to Fired Up! Missouri for the Turner Report link)

When the opening arises and/or when it is obvious, I am willing to admit making a mistake in judgment, prediction, or insight. It is with that preface that I will admit that I was probably a bit too snarky towards former State Rep. Brian Yates after his sudden resignation. I say this after reading his remarks in Prime Buzz about the Republican General Assembly (which you can also find quoted just down the page). Sure, Yates’ own ties don’t make him out to be perfect. But the intraparty clashes of the Republicans entertain me, until I realize that these guys run a huge chunk of the state government.

But don’t worry about ethics, Republican Leader Steve “Air” Tilley is proposing an ethics package. Which would be a great joke, if it’s not going to be taken seriously by Republicans and newspaper writers as being reform.

At least Five questions worth asking about a Tilley ethics bill in order to figure out if it’s going to be reform or synthetic reform.

1) Will lobbyists and special interests write the Tilley bill or just provide an outline of acceptable limitations?

2) How far will gift bans really go? and how blatant will the loopholes be? Will Lobbyists be able to co-own valuable items with legislators to stretch a gift ban?

3) How long will former legislators be barred from lobbying? a year? two years? longer?

4) Will a bar on political consulting while in office really mean much other than the person doing the consulting not directly earning money for his efforts? (In other words, will it be a symbolic ban where the majority pats themselves on their backs at the end)

5) How much of this bill will ultimately get scrapped or fused onto the Shields bill?

But any ethics bill that fails to address the Texas-style campaign contribution laws we have on the books is not complete. Any bill that thinks you can clean up politics in the Missouri General Assembly while allowing prominent legislators to keep receiving six-digit long checks from power brokers and special interests is a bill built on a surplus of optimism, hope, and delusion.

Campaign finance limits are more likely come about as a result of proposition circulated by voters. If there’s one thing that Missouri voters consistently approve of in amendments and propositions, it’s limiting politicians. The 1994 proposition limiting contributions passed 1,186,113 to 418,630. A percentage margin of 74%-26%. A similar proposition would pass in 2010, 2012, or any other year. Just waiting for someone else to get arrested or convicted to actually inspire campaign finance limits is not quite enough.

5 checks of $100,000 or more for candidates or House/Senate campaign committees have been reported in 2009. Two went to Steven Tilley (from the Missouri Leadership Committee and Rex Sinquefield). Two went from Steven Tilley to the House Republican Campaign Committee. One went from David Humphreys to the HRCC. Six other six-figure checks were written, Three went to “Vote Yes to Stop Double Taxation” from Realtor groups. The others went to the Life Sciences Fund, Healthpac, and the Civic Progress Action Committee.

The reality is that the only ways that giant checks would get any newspaper/television media coverage is if someone involved got in trouble. Much like how legislators repealing a state law supported by such a wide percentage of voters didn’t backfire on those legislators, because it wasn’t big news to the newspaper/television media and wasn’t shocking news to the masses of disconnected voters who rightly don’t trust elected officials.

Fortunately someone will touch upon this topic. Blogs exist because reading information for free from your lap is easier than reading a newspaper for a fee in your chair and because founding your own newspaper is expensive.

Here’s some excerpts of interest from the letter (published on Prime Buzz) and it’s not complimentary towards the idea of Speaker “Air” Tilley.

Our Missouri Republican House is full of hard-working, industrious legislators who are doing their best for Missouri.

But our attempts to build a better and stronger party are being held back by the waste and greed of select individuals who have directed the party’s resources to advance their own agendas. It began with Rod Jetton, and continues today with Steve Tilley.

(…)

Through their multiple political connections, Tilley and Jetton are inexorably connected. After Jetton left the HRCC, his leadership committee was given a jump-start of $15,922.00 by a PAC connected to Tilley. Tilley has directly employed Jetton’s consulting services, and their indirect relationships are too numerous to count here. Through them, Tilley has been linked to many of the same controversies that have embroiled Jetton.

I am unable to sympathize with them. They took an institution designed to help Republican candidates and used it to promote themselves. The Missouri Republican Party does not need and cannot afford the type of leadership that hides from the public view and operates in the shadows.

We need new leadership in the House.

For a member of the Missouri House to stand up and demand this change is unusual, but given the circumstances I see no other choice. I certainly never imagined myself doing this, but now I find myself disappointed for not doing it sooner.

We need to demand new leadership to retain our majority.  Speaker Jetton was obviously corrupted by power.  We are entrusted by the people to do what is right.  As painful as it may be for some, we need to disavow Speaker Jetton and his associates.  We are the party of values, not this disgusting behavior.  We need to clean up our House before the Democrats attack us and take the majority.

Signed,

Anonymous

Amongst the questions and comments

1) How did Kraske and/or Prime Buzz get this letter? through a sender or one of the recipients who leaked it quickly to the media? and unless the Rep created a new e-mail account for the occasion, they know who he is and it’s only a matter of time, really.

2) Is the leaking of this letter to Prime Buzz a reason to suspect that a Western MO rep sent this letter? or is Prime Buzz just quicker than the Political Fix?

3) As for disavowing. Former Jetton clients have taken the grueling step of saying they’d never hire a company that no longer exists (Jetton & Associates) or that they’d never hire them when they’re probably never running for office again (Rob Mayer, who saw around $80K disappear into Jetton’s hands). That’ll be enough to quite a few of them.

4) The one thing worse than wrongdoing amongst the Republican political establishment is pointing out wrongdoing. So I’d be surprised if this letter causes them to change their ways. The true believers really believe that they’re the party of values, no matter how many scandals they’re involved in, and that they don’t need to change.

And when you think about it, perhaps we can say that the State of Missouri does not need and cannot afford the type of General Assembly leadership that hides from the public view and operates in the shadows. Thanks for the inspiration, anonymous Republican. We wish you the best in moving that giant boulder by yourself.

Update 4: Quoted from ChadLivengood’s Twitter

“Rep. Sue Allen was on Rod Jetton’s clients list. But Rep. Allen says she just had Jetton send out invitations to the inaugural ball for her. / “I don’t know how my name got on the list. He wasn’t consulting with my campaign,” Rep. Sue Allen tells me.”

Of course the client list is exaggerated, J&A was trying to get more money. And the story is on Talking Points Memo.

Update 3: And Rod Jetton will be closing down his political consulting business in order “to deal with false allegations and spend time with his family” (his lawyers words). Not a stunner.

Update 2: Rod Jetton’s mug shot suggests that there were no combs in the Cole County Sheriff’s office last night. And that Rod didn’t pay Tom DeLay for consulting on how to look for a mugshot.

Update 1: RodJetton.org has gone offline, and a link to the Google cache of that page has been posted to replace that link in this post.

Former Representative Jetton is innocent until proven guilty. But realistically, his public influence amongst Jeff City Republicans is gonna vaporize. The Republican General Assembly may be arrogant and overconfident, but they’re not that stupid.

It’s for the purposes of posterity  and public knowledge that the Representatives who have paid Jetton & Associates in the year 2009 (and what they paid for) are displayed for you, the reader, and their constituents to know.

Sue Allen: $214, mailing

Chuck Gatschenberger: $160, invitations

Timothy Jones: $3599.95, consultant services, mailing costs

Shelley Keeney: $788.50, consulting

Rob Mayer: $734, consulting

Brian Nieves: $188, consultant

Don Ruzicka: $189, expenses

Dwight Scharnhorst: $1000, fundraising expenses

Shane Schoeller: $5405.69, fundraising event, mailing/postage, consulting

Jason Smith: $613, direct mail

Steven Tilley: $46806.67, lots of stuff (23 entries, so far)

Will the guy who could be the next Speaker of the Missouri House continue his hand-in-hand relationship with Jetton & Associates in the year 2010? You don’t need a political consultant to figure out the answer to that question.

It’ll be around a month from now before we figure out the 4th quarter spending from candidates to J&A. Will Floor Leader Tilley (R-da plane da plane) top $50K in payments to Jetton in 2009? Can’t wait to see.

Addendum: Reaction #1 is from Shane Schoeller:

“This is barely two hours old. I’m not going to be making any hasty decisions, These are serious allegations that have been made. And obviously, if it’s true, we’ll part paths.”