• About
  • The Poetry of Protest

Show Me Progress

~ covering government and politics in Missouri – since 2007

Show Me Progress

Tag Archives: Ethics Reform

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

Ethics Reform Legislation in Jefferson City: well, that didn’t go very well

28 Wednesday Apr 2010

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Ethics Reform, General Assembly, missouri, Ron Richard

After the opening of the legislative session in Jefferson City on January 6, 2010 Speaker Ron Richard (r) took questions from the media in a press conference:

….Question: Speaker Richard, uh, why start, uh, your speech and, and emphasis this ethics committee.

Speaker Richard: It has been the topic of conversation among many members. It’s been a topic of press stories and I thought we’d get to the bottom of it and get working on this issue. And, um, show the people of Missouri that we can, uh, fix perceived problems. And I went to, uh, Representative LeVota and I have got an outstanding group of Democrats and Republicans. I think we can come up with a, uh, solution and I look forward to that. And, uh, bills will be sent to that committee real quick…..

….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….

That was then, this is now:

Speaker Ron Richard has declared the bipartisan ethics reform bill dead because a bipartisan group of legislators demanded a floor debate on the proposal.  Earlier today, 56 Democrats and 3 Republicans signed a petition to place the bipartisan bill — legislation with campaign contribution limits — on the House calendar.  Last night, Republicans on the House Rules committee voted to block the legislation from heading to the floor, preferring a stripped-down proposal. The discharge petition is designed to circumvent the GOP leadership on the Rules Committee….

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

Lucy yanks the football…again, part 2

27 Tuesday Apr 2010

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Ethics Reform, General Assembly, House, Jason Kander, missouri, Obstructionism, republicans

Previously:

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): Missouri ethics reform pop quiz (March 15, 2010)

Representative Jason Kander (D), via Twitter, on the state of ethics reform legislation today in Jefferson City:

I’m in House Rules committee where they are finally discussing the ethics bill. Will they send it to the floor?     about 4 hours ago  via Echofon  

Delaying a bipartisan ethics bill to make it partisan is exactly the kind of politics I hoped to avoid this year.     about 4 hours ago  via Echofon  

Rules cmmte is ground zero for the “cold feet” illness sweeping the Capitol. Ethics reform heads back to cmmte. Absurd.     about 4 hours ago  via Echofon  

Despite obstacles such as today, we’ve gotten pretty far on ethics reform. Redoubling my efforts in the last 3 wks of session.     about 1 hour ago  via HootSuite  

Tony Messenger of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, via Twitter:

According to @jasonkander, House rules committee sent ethics bill back to its House committee. Doesn     about 4 hours ago  via TweetDeck  

Oops, didn’t finish typing. Doesn’t bode well for ethics bill.     about 4 hours ago  via TweetDeck  

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

Representative Jason Kander (D): Missouri ethics reform pop quiz

15 Monday Mar 2010

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Ethics Reform, HB 1434, HB 1727, HB 1838, Jason Kander, missouri

Representative Jason Kander (D-44) produced the following video quiz on ethics reform, stating, “For some time, I have been searching for a concise, entertaining way to promote and explain the need for comprehensive ethics reform in Missouri”:

Previously:

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

Bills on ethics reform co-sponsored by Representative Kander:

HB 1434 Changes the laws regarding ethics and lobbying

Sponsor: Flook, Tim (34) Proposed Effective Date: 08/28/2010

CoSponsor: Kander, Jason (44) ……….etal. LR Number: 3287L.02I

Last Action: House Committee: SPECIAL STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOV ACCOUNTABILITY & ETHICS REFORM

01/26/2010 – Public Hearing Completed (H)

HB1434

Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled

Calendar: Bill currently not on a calendar

HB 1727 Changes the laws regarding ethics, lobbying, and campaign contributions

Sponsor: Zimmerman, Jake (83) Proposed Effective Date: 08/28/2010

CoSponsor: LeVota, Paul (52) ……….etal. LR Number: 4291L.02I

Last Action: House Committee: SPECIAL STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOV ACCOUNTABILITY & ETHICS REFORM

01/28/2010 – Public Hearing Completed (H)

HB1727

Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled

Calendar: Bill currently not on a calendar

HB 1838 Prohibits elected officials of the state or any political subdivision or their staff from registering or acting as a lobbyist for one year after leaving office or employment with certain exceptions

Sponsor: Zimmerman, Jake (83) Proposed Effective Date: 08/28/2010

CoSponsor: Molendorp, Chris (123) ……….etal. LR Number: 3822L.01I

Last Action: House Committee: SPECIAL STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOV ACCOUNTABILITY & ETHICS REFORM

02/04/2010 – Public Hearing Completed (H)

HB1838

Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled

Calendar: Bill currently not on a calendar

And, public campaign financing!:

HB 2164 Establishes a public campaign financing system for state elections which allows candidates to voluntarily agree to campaign finance limitations in exchange for public funding

Sponsor: Holsman, Jason R. (45) Proposed Effective Date: 08/28/2010

CoSponsor: Oxford, Jeanette Mott (59) ……….etal. LR Number: 4769L.02I

Last Action: 02/17/2010 – Read Second Time (H)

HB2164

Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled

Calendar: Bill currently not on a calendar

An ironic race between the Missouri General Assembly and a Federal grand jury? Which happens first, ethics reform legislation gets passed or someone gets indicted for “pay to play”?

Karma strikes again

02 Tuesday Feb 2010

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

anti-porn bill, bribery, Ethics Reform, Matt Bartle, missouri, Rod Jetton

Looks like karma has finally caught up with the odious Rod Jetton.  Via TPM:

Rod Jetton, the former Missouri pol charged with assault after a November sexual encounter, is now reportedly under scrutiny in an FBI probe into the killing of a bill to regulate strip clubs.

…

No question there’s interest in Rod Jetton,” former lawmaker Bob Johnson, who was interviewed by three agents, told the Star. “That’s all they wanted to talk about.

We learn from Fired Up! Missouri that when Republican State Senator Matt Bartle testified before a federal grand jury today, he likely discussed a 2005 anti-porn bill he supported that was killed after opponents donated $35,000 to a political committee with links to Jetton – who, like all his Republican brethren, liked to talk out of the right side of his mouth about “family values.”  Mike Mahoney adds:

Rumors of a federal probe have prompted lawmakers on both sides and the Governor to call for major ethics reform.

Don’t you just love how everybody gets so reform-minded when somebody gets nailed for doing what everybody knew everybody else was doing all along? I’ll believe there’ll be reform when I see it – but meanwhile, karma couldn’t blow-back on a more deserving member of the fraternity of evil clowns that seems to want to congregate in Jefferson City.

The Missouri General Assembly opens the 2010 legislative session, part 4

09 Saturday Jan 2010

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

2010, budget, Ethics Reform, General Assembly, missouri, Paul LeVota

After the opening of the legislative session on Wednesday the House Democratic caucus held a press conference in the House Lounge in the capitol following the earlier republican press conference.

Previous coverage:

The Missouri General Assembly opens the 2010 legislative session

The Missouri General Assembly opens the 2010 legislative session, part 2

The Missouri General Assembly opens the 2010 legislative session, part 3

The House Democratic Minority Floor Leader, Representative Paul LeVota, at the podium in the House Lounge.

Representative Paul LeVota: Thank you very much for, uh, the time today with you guys as the House Democrat [inaudible] prepare for this next session. Um, I’ll be very brief and I’d be interested in your questions and, uh, what we think is the priorities for this session. Um, as I stated on the floor I do agree with the Speaker about some of the priorities that he outlined. And I’m proud to say the House Democrats have been championing these things for many years. First, when it comes to creating jobs, we need to get our economy going again, we need to do those tangible things that make sense for small businesses and the growth and expansion of, of new businesses, uh, in the State of Missouri. We should be focused on that, what we can, to create jobs. That’s challenging. And a separate point that we’re gonna focus on is the budget. As revenue is, has been a downturn we’re gonna have a very challenging session. We look forward to working very closely with the majority and with the administration to really identify what are the top priorities in this budget cycle. We’ve always, we’ve always done that. Uh, third, ethics reform. House Democrats, for seven years, have introduced ethics reform measures and those ethics reform measures now have the attention of the majority. The things that we’ll be pushing for are, are things that’ve been outlined. But number one on that list is the reinstating of campaign finance limits. We believe that comprehensive ethics reform has to include the reinstation of campaign finance limits. You look about what the people of Missouri wanted, in nineties they voted, about seventy-five percent, that they wanted the limits. Now in the State of Missouri it’s perfectly okay to give a candidate for state representative a hundred thousand dollar donation where you can’t give a candidate for President of the United States. That has [inaudible] limits. We think the money that comes through needs to be stopped, it needs to go back to what the people of Missouri think, and that has to be included in anything that was gonna be called comprehensive ethics reform. And finally, we’re gonna be very well aware of this, the Federal government and Congress is working on a health care reform bill. We have been the champions of increasing access to health care for years. We will be waiting for Congress with that bill and we will be prepared to do what we need to do to implement it in Missouri. My fear is that we’re gonna have a idea that the federal government’s gonna do something [inaudible] pass a bill and all the work is done. We know to really make sure that we’re helping people in the area of health care, helping small businesses reduce their, um, costs on that, that we need to make sure that we’re doing, um, our part to implement the Federal program. I don’t know what the Federal program will be, but I’m pretty confident that there will be something. So, with that, I agree with the Speaker, I’m glad that he’s picked up on some of the priorities that we’ve been pushing for years. It’s gratifying when years ago we’ve been pushing some of these things and, with no response, but, uh, persistence, persistence, persistence. So with that I’ll, um, be glad to answer your questions, or any of my members of my caucus….

….[crosstalk]

Question:…this caucus is a no vote on any ethics bill that does not contain campaign finance reform [inaudible]?

Representative LeVota: We’re gonna look at all the ethics reform, uh, in fact the Governor came out last week with four pillars. Um, you know, I , I had a bill, we’ve had champions in this caucus who have had all these different bills. We’ll look at each one of those measures and decide and vote. But, we are convinced that it’s not gonna be called, it can’t be called comprehensive ethics reform unless you do have this, those campaign limits. Uh, we can pass a bill, but if it doesn’t include that we’re missing out on the really important part of it.

[crosstalk]

Question: What are your thoughts about, on the Special Standing Committee rather than funneling it [inaudible] some other committee?

Representative LeVota: What are my thoughts on that? Interesting. I found out about this late last night. Uh, uh, a few months ago, uh, the Speaker’s quoted, I think in the Joplin paper, that nah, they didn’t really have any thoughts on, on ethics. As we continue to push it and the Governor’s continued to push it all of a sudden there’s a, there’s a need for this, a committee. Whatever gets a bill passed that helps renew the accountability of this government, we’re for. Uh, I appointed some members and I think they’re gonna be outstanding and, and it’s a, it’s a, uh, good arena. I’m not sure why he decided to do a different committee, but, there you go.

Question: To follow up on what…was asking, it, Charlie Shields is just all but said campaign finance limits is dead in the Senate. Do you believe that you can reach agreement first in the House and then get it through the General Assembly [inaudible]?

Representative LeVota: That’ that’s very good question. I think we can reach agreement in the House. Um, the question I have is, will, um, the Republican leadership allow us to vote on that on the floor? ‘Cause, if you remember in two thousand and eight the limits were off, were picked off, the last hour of the last day of session by one vote. Since that time, you know, I’ve, I’ve had a bill for two years, I have, uh, a handful of Republicans who have, uh, co-sponsored that bill. I think there’ll be other ones. I think some, some Republican members are even in the press saying the wish they would have voted differently. So, I think we can get to eighty-two that way. Um, will the question come up? As far as the Senate though, I think we need to do what’s right, [inaudible] we need to go after real comprehensive reform. And, and again, I’m, this caucus is stickin’ to the fact that that is, has to be included on comprehensive reform so let’s try and get it out of the House and hopefully the Senate will say the same thing.

Question: But you, you base the count, a lot [inaudible]…There are twenty-five Senators who voted to rescind limits, including Senator [inaudible] nor either, Victor Callahan. {representative LeVota: “Uh, huh.”] Aren’t you just setting yourself up to fail by [inaudible] pass that now?

Representative LeVota: Well, you know, I mean, that’s interesting question. I think what we, what the people of Missouri want us to do is have comprehensive ethics. And they want us to have those limits. So we have to continue to do that. Ethics in any form, lobbying ban on the revolving door, gifts from lobbyists, was never brought up at all by Republicans and we’ve introduced it for years. So finally they, they’ve come around to that. So, my point is, we’re gonna continue to fight for the things that we think improve accountability and, uh, hopefully we can get through.

Question: Are you convinced the Republicans sincerely want [inaudible]?

Representative LeVota: You know, I, I  don’t [crosstalk], yeah, I, I don’t question, I don’t question their sincerity. I, I do question their method in, um, I, I just think that the fact, uh, unlimited campaign donation, up to a hundred thousand dollars is, is one I saw, it just is the wrong message to send to the people of Missouri who want limits. And I think if we’re really gonna be, uh, saying that we want comprehensive reform we have to include that.

Question: [inaudible]…Does that create additional urgency in [inaudible]?

Representative LeVota: That’s a very good question. Um, the, the former members who are having legal troubles today, uh, they heightened the awareness. I do want to say again that House Democrats have [inaudible] proposing these ethics reforms long ago. Um, and with that said I, I am simply embarrassed by members of my caucus who betrayed the trust of, of the public. It sends the wrong message and that’s why I think we need to be even more vigilant, to renew that accountability and continue to push for these things that bring comprehensive ethics reform. That’s why [inaudible] we need to do it. Now those things had nothing to do with the, uh, with the capitol but, perception is there and, and we care about what the people of Missouri think.

Question: The, uh, House GOP plans to actively, um, oppose the cap and trade legislation in Washington. Uh, does the House Democrats have a position on that or will they be doing anything in response to the House GOP’s actions?

Representative LeVota: Our position is clear that, um, the, we’ll let the Congress do what their, their bailiwick and we’ll do with ours.

Question: There are a number of people both in the Republican and Democratic caucus who are term limited, they’re either leaving state politics altogether, or in the case of the House they’re running for, uh, higher office or state senate. I asked this of the Speaker and I [inaudible]…What effect do you think that this has on the ebb and flow of the House and do you perceive that causes disruption of, of how things are done?

Representative LeVota: Well I, I guess I’ll start with my optimistic answer. As, as many people are term limited out it’s a, it’s a real opportunity to define our legacy here and to do the things that are beyond, uh, partisan bickering and do the right thing and move Missouri forward.  My hope is that, uh, everyone rises that level. Um, it is interesting that, that you have the majority caucus who has been lock step behind rep, er, Speaker Richard and Speaker Jetton, um, for all these years vote exactly in line as, as the party goes. Well that’ll be interesting when you have two of those guys running against each other for senate. Will that break down? Um, I hope it does. I, um, to my chagrin sometimes, members of the Democrat Party in the House are very independent and they vote their district. And I would like to see some of the Republicans do more of that and maybe their competition will help them do that.

Question: Did you, uh, make Representative Lampe the, uh, ranking member on budget to provide a more strident counterpoint to the Republican, uh, view of the budget or what, what was your thinking?

Representative LeVota: Well we, we just kind of juggled around some things. I asked Representative Kelly to be on the Judiciary Committee. Some of the issues and, and there’s no, there’s no greater expert in, in some of the things that will be happening. And, uh, if I could I would duplicate Chris Kelly so we had a whole bunch of him around here ’cause of his knowledge, but we can’t, so they’re so different responsibilities. We asked, I asked Representative Lampe to be the ranking member to help educate our caucus to this difficult budget cycle, make sure that we’re informed and, uh, lead that. As far as strident I think that, um, is she here? [inaudible][laughter] You’re not gonna, you’re not gonna find anyone in the legislature more dedicated to reaching out, doing the right thing, being very educated and I think, um, her leadership on that budget committee will be, will be great. And we’ll be working cross aisles, um, to make sure that we have the right priorities for the State of Missouri.

Anyone else? All right. Stay warm. Thank you.

There was a visible reaction and an audible gasp from members of the Democratic caucus on the media question characterizing Representative Lampe as “strident.”

The Democratic caucus press conference was much less subdued (at least on the part of the representatives in attendance) than the earlier republican press conference.

The state budget looms large on everyone’s horizon.

Unlike their republican counterparts, the Democrats in the Missouri House are not intent on stepping in on Congressional business in Washington.

Talkin' about ethics reforms

30 Wednesday Dec 2009

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Campaign Donation Limits, Ethics Reform, Jason Kander, Jay Nixon, Steven Tilley, Tim Flook

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.

← Older posts
Newer posts →

Recent Posts

  • Mark Alford (r): baseless scare tactic
  • Fall Color – November 1, 2026
  • Wasting all that money – at the last minute
  • A conversation
  • Mark Alford (r): Is somebody going to tell him?

Recent Comments

Wasting all that mon… on Campaign Finance: no quarter
Wasting all that mon… on Campaign Finance: Next
Campaign Finance:… on Campaign Finance: more from wo…
Campaign Finance:… on Campaign Finance: off to the r…
Campaign Finance:… on Campaign Finance: off to the r…

Archives

  • November 2026
  • October 2026
  • September 2026
  • August 2026
  • July 2026
  • June 2026
  • May 2026
  • April 2026
  • March 2026
  • February 2026
  • January 2026
  • December 2025
  • November 2025
  • October 2025
  • September 2025
  • August 2025
  • July 2025
  • June 2025
  • May 2025
  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • 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
  • Congress
  • Democratic Party News
  • Eric Schmitt
  • Healthcare
  • Hillary Clinton
  • Interview
  • Jason Smith
  • Josh Hawley
  • Mark Alford
  • 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

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org

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

  • 1,098,350 hits

Powered by WordPress.com.

Loading Comments...