• About
  • The Poetry of Protest

Show Me Progress

~ covering government and politics in Missouri – since 2007

Show Me Progress

Tag Archives: Ethics Reform

Campaign Finance: it all adds up

30 Thursday Aug 2018

Posted by Michael Bersin in campaign finance

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

campaign finance, CLEAN Missouri, Ethics Reform, lobbying, missouri, Missouri Ethics Commission, open records, redistricting reform

Today at the Missouri Ethics Commission in support of a PAC in Missouri formed to oppose ethics reform (including redistricting reform) petitions which became the CLEAN Missouri initiative (Proposition 1) on the November ballot:

C180099 08/30/2018 Advance Missouri Missouri Republican Party 514 E High Street Suite 31 Jefferson City MO 65101 8/30/2018 $12,000.00

[emphasis added]

Why are we not surprised?

In the past:

C180099 04/30/2018 Advance Missouri Liberty Alliance 7509 NW Tiffany Spring Parkway Ste 300 Kansas City MO 64153 4/30/2018 $12,201.09

C180099 06/01/2018 Advance Missouri Fair Lines America Inc. 2308 Mount Vernon Ave Ste 716 Alexandria VA 22301 6/1/2018 $50,000.00

[emphasis added]

Fair Lines America? What’s that:

[….]On the surface, not much is known about Fair Lines America. The group hosted a workshop on redistricting at the December 2017 conference of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a conservative, corporate lobbying group with a history advocating anti-voter legislation and strong ties to industrialists Charles and David Koch and their political network. Fair Lines America’s connection to ALEC gives it credentials within the conservative movement, but ALEC’s description of the workshop did not give any details on who they are.

A bit more digging reveals that the Alexandria, VA mailing address Fair Lines America listed on Citizens Protecting Michigan’s Constitution’s campaign finance report, P.O. BOX 26141, matches the address used by several super PACs that paid for attack ads directed at Donald Trump in the early stages of the 2016 presidential campaign. The PO Box and the ads were an issue in the 2016 Republican presidential primary and the super PACs were found to be affiliated with Trump foes Ted Cruz and Carly Fiorina.

The PO Box also is connected to Christopher Marston, a Republican attorney, and his campaign finance compliance firm, Election CFO. Among the firm’s listed clients are several Republican members of Congress and political committees.

Fair Lines America also has Twitter account (@FairLinesUSA), although it has never tweeted. At this writing, the Twitter account has exactly one follower: the National Republican Redistricting Trust. This is a group set up by Republican officials to help the GOP in the 2021 redistricting process. According to a Politico article that announced the groups’ formation, the organization “will focus on data and legal efforts” to challenge Democrat-drawn districts. To completely conceal its donors, the National Republican Redistricting Trust is registered as a legal trust instead of a nonprofit or political action committee.[….]

The twitter account:

Fair Lines America @FairLinesUSA A non-partisan, non-profit supporting fair and legal redistricting through education, demography, data analysis, litigation, and reform.
Joined April 2018

You think they wrote that description with a straight face? Just asking.

Some of the (present) seventeen followers of that Twitter account:

Chris Young @ChrisYoungNV ‏ Secure Nevada’s Future | @GOP National Field Director ’16 | @GOP LA State Director ’14 | Team Nevada ’12 | @BobbyJindal ’07 & ’11 | Organizer |

Bobby Jindal, eh? That inspires great confidence.

Stephanie Bell @stephaniesbell ‏ Wife. Mom. Community Builder. Advocate. Lawyer. Conservative. ISTJ. #SoBoCo

Fair Districts La @fairdistrictsla ‏ Fair Districts Louisiana is a grass-roots, non-partisan alliance of citizens advocating for redistricting reform.

Riiiiight.

Trey Trainor @txelectionlaw ‏ Husband, father of six, Catholic, conservative. Advise elected officials, political organizations, and candidates on state and federal election regulations.

StLCountyRepublicans @StLCountyRepub ‏St. Louis County Republicans. Happenings and More. Retweet if you like. Grassroots. News and information. You decide.

Alrighty then.

NRRT @TheNRRT ‏ The National Republican Redistricting Trust

They could form a right wingnut infinite feedback loop. Oh, wait, the Faux New Channel already exists.

Campaign Finance: getting schooled

28 Tuesday Aug 2018

Posted by Michael Bersin in campaign finance

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

campaign finance, CLEAN Missouri, Ethics Reform, initiative, lobbying, missouri, Missouri Ethics Commission, Redistricting

Today at the Missouri Ethics Commission in support of the initiative (Amendment 1) for campaign finance, lobbying, legislative open records, and redistricting reform:

C161298 08/28/2018 CLEAN Missouri National Education Association 1201 16th St, NW Washington DC 20036 8/27/2018 $250,000.00

[emphasis added]

Teachers have long memories. Really long.

Previously:

Campaign Finance: teaching your children well (August 20, 2018)

Campaign Finance: the same fight (August27, 2018)

Campaign Finance: when in Rome…

13 Saturday Jan 2018

Posted by Michael Bersin in campaign finance

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

campaign finance, Ethics Reform, initiative, lobbying reform, missouri, Missouri Ethics Commission, redistricting reform

Thursday at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C171334 01/11/2018 MOVE Ballot Fund Open Society Policy Center 1730 Pennsylvania Ave. NW 7th Floor Washington DC 20006 1/9/2018 $300,000.00

[emphasis added]

Today at the Missouri Ethics Commission for the initiative on redistricting, ethics, lobbying, and campaign finance reform in Missouri:

C161298 01/13/2018 CLEAN Missouri MOVE Ballot Fund 2725 Clifton St Louis MO 63139 1/12/2018 $250,000.00

[emphasis added]

Well, okay.

Pass the popcorn

02 Saturday Aug 2014

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

campaign finance, Club for Growth, Ethics Reform, Lyndall Fraker, missouri, purity, republicans, Rex Sinquefield, Twitter

State Representative Lyndall Fraker (r) on the funding of republican primary challenges in the House:

Rep. Lyndall Fraker ‏@Fraker4Mo

Mo club for growth continues to slander conservative mo house members spending over a 1/2 mil $ in 4 races. #whoarethefiscalliberals? 9:56 PM – 1 Aug 2014

You can thank Rex Sinquefield.

During the next legislative session we’ll be eagerly looking for Representative Fraker’s (r) ethics reform bill limiting campaign contributions.

Previously:

Campaign Finance: when right wingnut isn’t right enough (June 20, 2014)

Campaign Finance: there is another (June 20, 2014)

Campaign Finance: he really likes him (June 23, 2014)

Campaign Finance: Next! (June 24, 2012)

Campaign Finance: same difference (July 22, 2014)

Ed Martin gives us the GOP line on ethics reform in Jefferson City

24 Friday Jan 2014

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

campaign finance reform, Ed Martin, Ethics Reform, HB1340, Jason Kander, Jay Nixon, Kevin McManus, missouri, political corruption

A press release from the Missouri Republican Party Chair, Ed Martin, has given us the GOP response to HB1340, the ethics reform bill sponsored by state Rep. Kevin McManus (D-036) which was written in collaboration with Secretary of State Jason Kander, also a Democrat. Martin’s take, which will presumably inform his fellow partisan’s talking points, is akin to Jesus’ dictum  that only those who are without sin should cast stones (John 8:7). Sadly, Martin is confused not only about what constitutes political sin, but about the distinction between punitive action – the analogue to the Pharisees effort to stone the woman taken in adultery – and proposals for reform that will benefit every honest actor in government – with the emphasis on honest.

First, a little background: It helps to know that Missouri is a wide-open state when it comes to pay-to-play politics; regulation is so minimal it is non-existent for all practical purposes, and, as a consequence, the home of Missouri political life, Jefferson City, has begun to give off a mighty foul stench. If you’re interested in the particulars, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch has detailed some of the abuses in two recent editorials (here and here). Efforts to rectify the situation have been repeatedly stymied, presumably by the gangsters politicians who don’t want to give up the good thing they’ve got going. The Post-Dispatch summed up the process recently, noting that while members of both parties in the legislature are willing  talk a good game when it comes to ethics reform, so far a majority hasn’t been willing to play it out.

The Kander-McManus  bill, however, has real teeth. Do a Google search under the terms “Kander” and “ethics reform” and you’ll see heading after heading calling it a “sweeping reform.” While it may be a descriptive cliche, the label is apt. If adopted, the bill would greatly restrict the most egregious abuses, and represents a good first step toward reform even though it falls short of public-financing. Specifically, it “establishes campaign contribution limits, restricts lawmakers from lobbying or consulting during or immediately following their term, and gives significant new muscle to the Missouri Ethics Commission.”

So what’s Martin on about? Do you think that he might worry that an attack on political corruption could be seen as targeting Republicans? Could that be the reason he’s all “Golly Gee Willikers” about the fact that even Democratic politicians receive campaign donations, sometimes big ones, from supporters:

In 2013, Governor Nixon amassed over $500,000 in contributions over the $5,000 mark. He accepted over $118,045 from trial attorneys and law firms, over $11,000 from unions, and $95,000 from the healthcare industry.

Governor Nixon and Secretary Kander are pushing for stricter limits to current campaign ethics laws, while a noble gesture; they lack the credibility to lead on such reform. Missourians are tired of elected leaders’ talking out of both sides of their mouth,” said Ed Martin, Chairman of the Missouri Republican Party.”

Secretary of State Jason Kander accepted donations 19 times over the course of 2013 above the reforms he supports.

It’s at this point that Martin doesn’t seem to understand just where sin resides when it comes to money in politics. Notice that he doesn’t accuse either the Governor or Secretary Kander of any kind of quid pro quo, and, so far as I know, there’s been no indication of such behavior on the part of either man. It isn’t accepting money that’s bad, it’s selling government in return for that money. That said, it’s clear that there’s a crying need for some pretty strict rules to govern the way the money game is played, and I personally think that rather than invalidating the call for new rules, the fact that the call for reform comes from successful players gives it even more heft.

Which is why Martin’s pièce de résistance, a call for Nixon and Kander to sign a “pledge” promising to forego donations that exceed the limit proposed in Kander’s bill, and to return such large donations that were received in 2013, is so palpably silly. Who in God’s name thinks that unilaterally disarming the reformers would further the goal of reform? At any rate, neither Martin nor anyone else really has to worry about the credibility of the reformers to embrace obvious reforms. If a really “sweeping” ethics bill like that proposed by Kander and McManus, a bill that wields a great big industrial sized broom, is actually adopted, its provisions will apply to Governor Nixon and Jason Kander as well as to every other member of Missouri government. By any measure, when Kander stepped up to lead the ethics reform movement, he was doing just what Martin adjures him to do: trying to put into practice what he preaches.

Sec. of State Jason Kander (D): tell us how you really feel about the prospects for ethics reform

06 Monday Jan 2014

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Ethics Reform, General Assembly, Jason Kander, missouri, Secretary of State

Today, from Missouri Secretary of State Jason Kander (D), via Twitter:

Jason Kander ‏@JasonKander

If it stays this cold in Jeff City, session will begin & politicians will have their hands in their own pockets! 12:50 PM – 6 Jan 14

Chess, anyone? Anyone?

Previously: Campaign Finance: the almighty dollar (January 5, 2014)

Consider the source

30 Friday Nov 2012

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Ethics Reform, General Assembly, missouri, Tim Jones, Tony Messenger, Twitter

Today, via Twitter:

Tony Messenger ‏@tonymess

Says Speaker Tim Jones in a news release: “A strong ethics reform package will be a priority this year.” #moleg 4:16 PM – 29 Nov 12

Tony Messenger ‏@tonymess

Who had Jay Nixon endorsing Medicaid expansion and Tim Jones endorsing ethics reform on the same post-election day in the office pool? 4:25 PM – 29 Nov 12

Richard Martin @partmax

@tonymess and you buy it? Meals? Campaign limits? Consulting practice of public official? What exactly? 4:36 PM – 29 Nov 12

Tony Messenger ‏@tonymess

@partmax He’s endorsing the Jay Barnes proposal, which is a good start. Reducing money laundering. Not enough. But it’s progress. 4:41 PM – 29 Nov 12

Michael Bersin ‏@MBersin

@tonymess The devil is in the details, not the labels. 4:42 PM – 29 Nov 12

Tony Messenger ‏@tonymess

@partmax @mbersin The Dem proposal is clearly more comprehensive. But I take Jones’ flip on the issue as a positive sign. That’s my point. 4:43 PM – 29 Nov 12

Michael Bersin ‏@MBersin

@tonymess No one in politics ever voluntarily gives up an advantage. Unless they perceive a more substantive gain elsewhere. Find the latter 4:51 PM – 29 Nov 12

Tony Messenger @tonymess

@MBersin Of course. But what’s your point? Just stop rooting for ethics reform? I want to see it and it won’t happen if Jones doesn’t budge. 4:53 PM – 29 Nov 12

Michael Bersin @MBersin

@tonymess Slap a label on it and it’s done? There is a difference between hype and substance. We’re all from Missouri, let them show us. 4:58 PM – 29 Nov 12

Indeed. Given past behavior we’re not holding our breath.

Previously:

HCS #2 for SB 844: the republican majority in Jefferson City lays an egg on ethics reform (May 11, 2010)

Rep. Paul LeVota (D): republican ethics reform bill a “sham” (May 6, 2010)

Ethics Reform Legislation in Jefferson City: well, that didn’t go very well (April 27, 2010)

Lucy yanks the football…again, part 2 (April 26, 2010)

The Missouri General Assembly opens the 2010 legislative session, part 2 (January 6, 2010)

Kander (D) and Flook (r): ethics reform legislation in Jefferson City (December 14, 2009)

Kander (D) and Flook (r): ethics reform legislation in Jefferson City, part 2 (December 15, 2009)

Kander (D) and Flook (r): ethics reform legislation in Jefferson City, part 3 (December 16, 2009)

Kander (D) and Flook (r): ethics reform legislation in Jefferson City, part 4 (December 22, 2009)

CCR #3, HCS #2, SB 844: Ethics reform passes

14 Friday May 2010

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Ethics Reform, General Assembly, Jason Kander, missouri, Tim Flook

Representative Jason Kander (D) speaks in favor of the bill during debate on the House floor this afternoon.

Ethics reform legislation finally passes. Representative Jason Kander (D-44) issued the following release:

Statement by Rep. Jason Kander regarding passage of ethics reform bill

Friday, May 14, 2010

This bill represents an improvement over current law, but I will not declare victory over corruption when we have merely tip-toed into the fight. I voted today to limit political money laundering, outlaw the obstruction of ethics investigations, and expand the powers of the Missouri ethics commission.

However, I’m disappointed that we missed an important opportunity to restore campaign contribution limits, to prohibit lawmakers from working as political consultants for one another, to close the revolving door between legislators and lobbyists, or to disclose potential conflicts of interest. That is why I whole-heartedly support the comprehensive, bipartisan ethics bill passed by the Speaker’s special committee on ethics. As I said when I filed a bipartisan proposal last year, my bill alone cannot tackle the ever-evolving and wide-ranging problem of public corruption.

There is lots of work remaining. I will continue my efforts to advance true, comprehensive ethics reform to a vote in the next legislative session.

The Senate breathed new life into ethics reform by stripping the poison pills from the bill and the conference report followed up.

I spoke with Representative Kander this morning in the House side gallery. When I stated that it looked like ethics reform legislation was dead last week he replied that at that point he was not going to give up until the end.

A number of Democratic representatives stated in debate that the bill is far from comprehensive, but it was a good start.

The tally.

Previously:

HCS #2 for SB 844: the republican majority in Jefferson City lays an egg on ethics reform (May 11, 2010)

Rep. Paul LeVota (D): republican ethics reform bill a “sham” (May 6, 2010)

Ethics Reform Legislation in Jefferson City: well, that didn’t go very well (April 27, 2010)

Lucy yanks the football…again, part 2 (April 26, 2010)

The Missouri General Assembly opens the 2010 legislative session, part 2 (January 6, 2010)

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

Kander (D) and Flook (r): ethics reform legislation in Jefferson City, part 4

HCS #2 for SB 844: the republican majority in Jefferson City lays an egg on ethics reform

11 Tuesday May 2010

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Denny Hoskins, Ethics Reform, General Assembly, HCS #2 for SB 844, Kansas City Star, Mike McGhee, missouri, Paul LeVota, Ron Richard, the stenographer

The stenographer in Sunday’s Kansas City Star:

Best ethics bill in the universe? How spacey

….So the bill foundered. Frustrated, Democrats went to their trick bag and pulled out a little-used maneuver to force the bill out of committee without a vote and directly onto the House calendar.

Republicans, who are in the majority, didn’t like that. And that led to last week’s sudden flurry of activity around the bill by Republicans who, some said, were eager to punish Democrats for playing tricks with the bill….

Well, okay, but you neglected to mention this from Speaker Ron Richard (r) on January 6, 2010:

….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….

“…I will support whatever comes out of our bipartisan committee. Whatever comes out…”

Question: Why is it a problem for the republican majority and a sign of Democratic Party partisanship to old media if there’s discharge petition on a bill from a “bipartisan” committee which Speaker Richard said he would support? Just asking.

“…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…” Well, that didn’t go very well.

Not well at all:

….Question: Was any Democrat allowed to actually get up and speak on this bill (inaudible)?

Representative LeVota: No, no Democrat was allowed to speak on heir own behalf or offer any of the amendments to make the bill better…

And how did the republican bill look to the Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal?:

5/10/2010 1:12:00 PM

Ethics bill looks more political than ethical

EDITORIAL

Jack Miles

Editor

…As too often is the case with what should be a straightforward piece of needed legislation, the shameful bill that came out of the House is a perversion of ethics twisted by partisan politics to the detriment of good government.

And how did Representative Denny Hoskins (r – noun, verb, CPA) – in the 121st Legislative District, representing Warrensburg – vote on this bill?:

…On motion of Representative Jones (89), HCS#2 SB 844 was adopted by the following vote:

AYES: 087

Hoskins 121

[emphasis added]

“…the shameful bill that came out of the House is a perversion of ethics twisted by partisan politics to the detriment of good government…”

Let’s take a look at some of the provisions in the actual bill, House Committee Substitute No. 2 for Senate Bill No. 844 [pdf]:

….21.860. There is established a joint committee of the general assembly to be known as the “Joint Committee on Ballot Statements”….

Uh, isn’t that the job of the Secretary of State right now?

….26.016. In the case of any vacancy for any cause in the office of lieutenant governor, the governor shall immediately fill such vacancy by special election as provided in section….

….27.015. In the case of any vacancy for any cause in the office of attorney general, the governor shall immediately appoint an acting attorney general to fill such vacancy until the vacancy is filled by special election….

….28.190. In case of death, resignation, removal from office, impeachment, or vacancy from any cause in the office of secretary of state, the governor shall immediately [appoint a qualified person to] fill such vacancy by special election….

[emphasis in original]

And there are similar provisions for State Auditor and State Treasurer.

Does anyone have an idea what a statewide special election would cost? Just asking.

….105.009. 1. Before taking office and once every two years thereafter, all state elected officials, state executive branch managerial staff, all department directors, and all members, officers, and leadership staff of the house of representatives and senate shall be subject to chemical testing of their blood or urine for the purpose of determining the drug content of the blood. The costs of such testing shall be paid by such official, director, officer, member, or staff member….

If I recall correctly, this one was taken out on the floor. I could be wrong about that. The point is, the republican majority crammed a lot of stuff into a Senate bill and then didn’t allow the Democratic minority to debate it.

….(5) “Legislative lobbyist”, any natural person who acts for the purpose of attempting to influence the taking, passage, amendment, delay or defeat of any official action on any bill, resolution, amendment, nomination, appointment, report or any other action or any other matter pending or proposed in a legislative committee in either house of the general assembly, or in any matter which may be the subject of action by the general assembly and in connection with such activity, meets the requirements of any one or more of the following:…

…(d) Attempts to influence any elected official other than an elected official who represents the legislative district where the person resides. This paragraph shall not be construed to apply to any person who is testifying before any legislative, executive, or

128 administrative committee; or
….

[emphasis in original]

That reads to me if you contact anyone other than your specific representative you’re considered a “legislative lobbysist”. So, if a teacher wants to talk to the chair of an education committee about a bill on education and that chair is not their representative, the teacher is a lobbyist under the bill? That ain’t right.

…105.479. No member of the general assembly, statewide official, or any person acting at the request of a member or statewide official or on the member’s or statewide official’s behalf, shall accept or receive any cumulative expenditures from a lobbyist in excess of two thousand five hundred dollars…

…Any item having a value of less than ten dollars shall not be included in the cumulative determination…

A $2,5000.00 limit on gifts from lobbyists. That’s nice to know.

“…Any item having a value of less than ten dollars shall not be included in the cumulative d
etermination…”
Unlimited free lunches!

…115.427. 1 [Before receiving a ballot, voters] Persons seeking to vote in a public election shall establish their identity and eligibility to vote at the polling place by presenting a form of personal identification to election officials. [“Personal identification” shall mean only] No form of personal identification other than the forms listed in this section shall be accepted to establish a voter’s qualifications to vote….

[emphasis in original]

Ah, a voter turnout suppression clause.

…Section 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, where state or federal law requires elections or designations or authorizations of employee representation, the right of individuals to vote by secret ballot shall be guaranteed….

[emphasis in original]

Ah, employee free choice is not a priority of the republican majority. And how did Representative Mike McGhee (r-122) vote on this bill?:

On motion of Representative Jones (89), HCS#2 SB 844 was adopted by the following vote:

AYES: 087

McGhee

You think organized labor is aware of this?

…Section 4. 1. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, where mandatory dues are collected for membership in any labor organization as defined in section 130.111, a member of such organization shall be entitled to designate that such member’s dues shall not be used for any political activity whatsoever, including but not limited to advocating for the election of an individual candidate for public office or the promotion of a ballot measure. The designation opting out of the use of dues for political activities shall be clearly and conspicuously placed on the requisite card or form for the payment of dues, or shall be provided as a separate document to each member before payment of such member’s dues….

How come there’s no provision requiring corporations to allow stockholders to opt out in the same fashion? Just asking.

Oh, brother, there’s even tenther drivel in the bill:

…Section 5. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 27.060 or any other provision to the contrary, the governor, lieutenant governor, president pro tempore of the senate, speaker of the house, and speaker pro tempore of the house may institute, in the name and on the behalf of the state, any proceeding in law or in equity requisite or necessary to protect the natural or constitutional rights of persons within the state, and may appear or defend in any proceeding or tribunal the natural or constitutional rights of such persons….

And that, folks, is the republican majority in the Missouri General Assembly at work.

Rep. Paul LeVota (D): republican ethics reform bill a "sham"

07 Friday May 2010

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

Ethics Reform, General Assembly, missouri, Paul LeVota

House Minority Leader and Representative Paul LeVota released a video of a press conference this evening in the immediate aftermath of the republican majority’s actions in gutting bipartisan ethics reform legislation:

Representative Paul LeVota (D): …sham omnibus bill that had nothing, that the, uh, bipartisan committee on ethics reform included. They loaded it up at eight o’clock in the morning in one committee, at nine o’clock the next committee, in the Rules Committee. Then on the floor at one o’clock with the supplemental calendar, ’cause they know all the stuff in here is bad. The things in here, the provisions of, uh, requiring a voter ID, uh, disenfranchises people, allows, uh, intimidation of workers that want to organize, uh, all these provisions are just bad provisions. In the, additionally, the thing I’m most frustrated about, it has no campaign finance limits for the members who run for the General Assembly. It has a twenty thousand dollar limit for statewide officials and local officials but it doesn’t deal with, um, the general Assembly. So, I think [crosstalk]…

Question: That was deliberate or [crosstalk]…

Representative LeVota: Oh, absolutely. Absolutely it’s [inaudible]. The language is completely different from every other limit that we’ve seen, the old limit that was reversed, the bills that were, um, passed out of that committee. Very frustrating, it was deliberate.

Question: Was any Democrat allowed to actually get up and speak on this bill (inaudible)?

Representative LeVota: No, no Democrat was allowed to speak on heir own behalf or offer any of the amendments to make the bill better. I mean, it happens all the time. This is the process. The process is, if you don’t like a bill then you have amendments in order to change it. We did that. We were ready to offer those amendments and make this a better bill, but instead of allowing us to do that, they wanted to cut our voice off.

Question: [inaudible] your time in the House when, when, when your party was blocked from speaking or offering amendments on a major issue?

Representative LeVota: Well, yeah, my, my first couple years here tort reform was one, um.

Question: Really.

Representative LeVota: Yeah.

Question: So it’s not a [crosstalk][inaudible]

Representative LeVota: Yeah, yeah

Question: Oh surely you guys were allowed to speak.

Representative LeVota: We weren’t allowed to speak on that one, but this is even, maybe even more, uh, heinous ’cause they choreographed and went after, uh, required random members of the caucus on their opinion, but didn’t deal with the provisions that should be in there. They’re trying to skirt the issue. That was the [inaudible] today. And I think the people of Missouri deserve more.

Question: You angry?

Representative LeVota: Um, yeah, I, I’m angry and I think the people of Missouri should be very frustrated at, um, they are demanding ethics reform and they are demanding accountability in their government and instead they got a show here and a sham.

Question: Do you feel gagged?

Representative LeVota: Um, you know, that, that’s a good question. I guess I, I’m not so surprised because it was supposed to be the number one priority of the Speaker and here we are the, uh, last, second to last week and then we have a sham. So, if it was really a true priority we would have dealt with it in January and got it over to the Senate, but, uh, we knew, we knew when they didn’t move on it it wasn’t a priority for ’em.

Question: Throughout that whole debate you were standing, you were [inaudible], you were raising your hand to be recognized and speak. You were not recognized. Do you feel gagged?

Representative LeVota: Uh, I, I think that people in Missouri and their voice were gagged out, ’cause, uh, they didn’t allow members to have a free and open debate. Um, as far as me, they don’t want me to add the accountability things that I sat to them, so they’ve done it to me before, so…

Previously:

Ethics Reform Legislation in Jefferson City: well, that didn’t go very well (April 27, 2010)

Lucy yanks the football…again, part 2 (April 26, 2010)

The Missouri General Assembly opens the 2010 legislative session, part 2 {January 6, 2010)

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

Kander (D) and Flook (r): ethics reform legislation in Jefferson City, part 4

← Older posts
Newer posts →

Subscribe

  • Entries (RSS)
  • Comments (RSS)

Archives

  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007

Categories

  • campaign finance
  • Claire McCaskill
  • Democratic Party News
  • Healthcare
  • Hillary Clinton
  • Interview
  • Josh Hawley
  • media criticism
  • meta
  • Missouri General Assembly
  • Missouri Governor
  • Missouri House
  • Missouri Senate
  • Resist
  • Roy Blunt
  • social media
  • Standing Rock
  • Town Hall
  • Uncategorized
  • US Senate

Meta

  • Register
  • Log in

Blogroll

  • Balloon Juice
  • Crooks and Liars
  • Digby
  • I Spy With My Little Eye
  • Lawyers, Guns, and Money
  • No More Mister Nice Blog
  • The Great Orange Satan
  • Washington Monthly
  • Yael Abouhalkah

Donate to Show Me Progress via PayPal

Your modest support helps keep the lights on. Click on the button:

Blog Stats

  • 285,855 hits

Blog at WordPress.com.

Cancel