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)

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.

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)

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)

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

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.

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