Folks frequently refer to Bill McCellan, a semi-retired columnist for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, as a liberal. It must really be so because he tells us in Sunday’s column that he was cheering for Bernie Sanders. Gotta be liberal, even downright progressive, no?

Well, maybe not. McClellan is more than willing to embrace the GOP’s Hillary Clinton narrative. Hillary’s corrupt they say. How do we know this – it’s got to be true because rightwing shills have been making unfounded allegations for the past twenty years and the news media faithfully echo whatever cons say like it’s big doings. To be fair, a good-sized subset of the Bernie bros and gals also really want to believe this moonshine – more in the interest, I suspect of a Bernie victory than anything else. McClellan, however, unless he’s just pulling our collective leg, seems unusually credulous.

Nevertheless, the column’s shtick is that McClellan will hold his nose and chose the whiff of Clinton corruption over the nightmare of the Republican’s Big Orange Stupid. Big of him I say.

McCellan says Bill was bad, but Hillary is worse, corruption personified. He digs up some of the discredited “scandals” of yesteryear – Whitewater anyone? – and adds some of the more recent GOP fantasies to the list. For example:

I took a look at the Turner Report today in order to find out what’s going on down in Joplin and thereabouts. Guess what I found. A copy of a press release from none other than the  über-conservative dreamgirl, Cynthia Davis, erstwhile GOP legislative pain in the you-know-what and more recently, Missouri Constitution Party doyenne, on the reasons she opposes – yes, you read it right, opposes – the right to farm Amendment 1. Her reason:

Normally, the conservative position is to side with less regulation. However, there is a real threat that the Chinese could buy up our farmland. In that scenario, having fewer regulations could allow us to end up with massive problems like squallier [sic], filth and stench.

Figures that the argument that got to her had to with thwarting those dammed foreigners, but she still gets the main issue right. Corporate farms stand to benefit, not necessarily small farms (she does express a bit of worry about protecting the already amply protected Missouri family farmer). Is this what the Missouri political world would look like if we could cure rightwing delusions and GOP politicians carefully weighed issues based on real, verifiable facts, not hot air, conspiracy theories, and/or which campaign donor stands to benefit the most?

Davis should get some credit for this – the Turner Report post directly below her statement on the issue was that of Missouri House Speaker and money-man Tim Jones, who, predictably asserts that Amendment 1 has been “designed to protect the family farming traditions that are such an important part of our state’s history, and such a vital component of our state’s economy.” Of course, Davis isn’t in elective office anymore – actually, she isn’t even a Republican any more – so she doesn’t have to line up with the GOPers in Jefferson City who have their hands out waiting for Big Ag benefactors to drop some of that green manna from heaven into their grubby paws.

Addenda: Okay. Perhaps I’m giving her too much credit. She doesn’t seem to realize that homegrown, American agricultural corporations are just as likely to create “massive problems like squallier [sic], filth and stench” as the Chinese variety.  

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.

Todd Akin is out with a fanciful new ad. In it he claims that, “federal stimulus spending ‘made McCaskill rich.'” (Not to distract from the main point, but wasn’t she rich before the stimulus?) Apropos the ad, Akin asserts:

…  Claire McCaskill is on record for going through the stimulus line by line, and stated that the stimulus was solely for creating jobs and stimulating the economy, […]. Now we know that McCaskill’s family business received $1 million of taxpayer money from the stimulus bill that she voted for. I voted against this bill because I did not believe it would help the economy and because pork-barrel spending can neither stimulate the economy nor create jobs.

As reported in Politico, McCaskill’s campaign strongly denied the implications of financial impropriety:

McCaskill’s campaign reached out to take strong exception to the charges leveled in the Akin ad, and provided documentation that some of the claims in the commercial are misleading or wrong. The critical data point is that Akin’s ad says McCaskill’s husband, Joseph Shepard, pulled in $1 million from investments in government-subsidized housing projects — but his share of investment in those projects was actually less than 5 percent, leaving him with far less than $1 million in income. What’s more, McCaskill’s campaign says that the payments Shepard received from the government were for contracts that predated the stimulus, and that the government would have been legally required to pay out regardless of whether the stimulus was passed

So much for Akin’s quest to expose a stimulus related scandal. I suspect that if he continues to pursue this line, he may end up feeling a little nostaligic for the “wildcat” McCaskill he credited himself with uncaging. How can it possibly help Akin to make such flimsily-supported allegations of financial irregularities given the recently-revived accusations that he used earmarks for personal gain. The accusations were based on a report published in the the Washington Post:

Across the nation, 33 members of Congress have helped direct more than $300 million in earmarks to dozens of public projects for work in close proximity to commercial and residential real estate owned by the lawmakers or their family members.

Between 2005 and 2009, Akin helped secure $3.3 million to upgrade part of Route 141 in his district west of St. Louis. Less than a half-mile east of Route 141, Akin and his family own nine acres. Akin’s family has applied to construct six homes on the land. His spokesman said Akin’s land had no bearing on his support for the earmarks. “It is going to be helpful as a connector but not helpful for residential property values whatsoever,” he said.

Sound a little fishy to you too? Well then, if you’re interested in still more Akin related dirt, bend your mind around what he said in this video:

I’m in a three-way primary for the US Senate. I’ve gone to people and asked for their support, their help, or their endorsement, and some people say yes. They write me a decent check. I remember that. The people that I thought were friends that tell me to go away because they are supporting someone else, I remember that. You know, I can remember back to 12 years ago. You remember who’s helping you. That’s one way that people get to know congressmen and senators.

The video is titled, “Akin bragged about being a congressman for sale,” and I can surely see how somebody might think that – but could anybody really be that dumb?

But enough of elaborating on the soot that adorms our pot, Todd Akin. I can’t help wondering if this risky new ad has anything to do with desperation. Claire McCaskill’s campaign has just released an internal poll showing her up over Akin by nine points. As Daily Kos’s Steve Singiser observes:

Now that Republican gaffe machine Todd Akin cannot be replaced on the ballot, you have to love the fact that the campaign of Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill decided to lower the boom with a new poll out of the Show-Me State. Her poll shows that she holds a pretty solid 50-41 lead over Akin. But what is even more awesome: it shows that she had a six-point lead in an early September survey. One that…ahem…was never released. Well played, team McCaskill. Well played!

Despite the almost unthinkable damage caused by the gulf oil spill, the GOP really, really wants to stick up for their big oil pals. Why, after all, kill a cash cow – witness the hefty contributions from the energy sector to those who voted against climate change legislation in the House. To date, the GOP line has been subtle – if you overlook Mississippi governor Haley Barbour’s almost comical reluctance to even admit that there is a problem. Now, however, a GOP party line, another variation on drill, baby, drill, is beginning to emerge, one that will allow these patriots to stand up for their oil buddies while putting it to the Democrats in the best let-the-country-be-dammed GOP style.

Just today Think Progress reports that Louisiana’s David Vitter, who has profited very handsomely from his service to Big Oil, has gone on the attack on behalf of British Petroleum (PB) the industry, declaring that the current drilling hiatus “will cost us more jobs and economic devastation than the oil spill itself.” Not to be outdone, Missouri’s Roy Blunt, who has also enjoyed the beneficence of Big Oil, seems to be getting ready to wade out into the same oily waters, as indicated by his smug tweet earlier today:

WSJ reports Obama “facing rising anger on the Gulf Coast over the loss of jobs & income” from his drilling moratorium. http://bit.ly/9KOSFa

Nobody should be surprised that those in the gulf who depend on the oil industry for their livelihood are worried abut what stricter controls will mean. This concern is part-and-parcel of the entire ugly predicament. It is, nevertheless, still a fact that, as President Obama put it in the WSF article Blunt cites above, that the potential and actual environmental and economic harm caused by the unregulated monstrosity that the oil industry became under the Bush regime has to be contained:

What is clear is that the economic impact of this disaster is going to be substantial and it is going to be ongoing …

A repeat of the BP Deepwater Horizon spill would have grave economic consequences for regional commerce and do further damage to the environment

Is it too much to hope that, just once, when this country is faced with a disaster, that politicians like Blunt could put aside their money-grubbing gamesmanship and and try to make common cause with the folks in government who are adult enough to take on the heavy lifting? Why do we have to put up with smirking simpletons like Blunt – who doesn’t seem to be able to restrain his glee that there might be a way to twist the facts so that the suffering of millions in the gulf could mean a political setback for the rival team, not to mention providing a way to grease up the ol’ money-machine?

UPDATE: Another landlocked Republican comes out for more deep-water drilling – after pocketing big bunches of dirty oil money.

Photo of New Orleand BP protest from Infrogmation of New Orleans on Wikimedia Commons.