Previously: Campaign Finance: Voter Protection Alliance (April 14, 2011)

Yesterday, at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

CONTRIBUTION OF MORE THAN $5,000.00 RECEIVED BY ANY COMMITTEE FROM ANY SINGLE DONOR – TO BE FILED WITHIN 48 HOURS OF RECEIVING THE CONTRIBUTION

C111073 YOUR VOTE COUNTS! 5/26/2011

The Humane Society of the United States

700 Professional Drive

Gaithersburg, MD 20879

5/26/2011

$25,000.00

[emphasis added]

Apparently the “Voter Protection Alliance” which was formed in March to promote a constitutional amendment to make it more difficult for the General Assembly to overturn the results of ballot initiatives, this in reaction to the puppy mill initiative, has changed its name to Your Vote Counts!

As I wrote in April:

….However sympathetic to the original cause we may be, there is significant concern that an increasing reliance on governing by initiative petition institutionalizes this cumbersome process at the expense of direct representation. Just ask everyone in California how that’s worked out over the past few decades.

Maybe it’s a symptom of our collective laziness that we can’t be bothered to pay enough attention to what out representatives and senators do and how they vote in the General Assembly, but we’ll get outraged at the end result while still reelecting them anyway….

While it could be more difficult to individually go after the legislators who voted against the wishes of the voters in their districts I much prefer that political strategy over the proffered constitutional super majority. The potential for unintended consequences in the latter is too great.

Senate Bill 113, which seeks to amend Proposition B, will go before the House Agriculture Policy Committee today. SB 113 passed in the Senate earlier and is now before the House – which already voted in favor of an identical House bill, HB 131 last month.  Sadly, SB113 is probably a done deal – although when the stakes are high, as they are for the animals affected, one should never give up. This, according to an email urging action that I received today, is what SB113/95  and HB 131 would do:

*Remove the provision ensuring that female dogs get a rest between breeding cycles and replace it with an unenforceable vet recommendation provision. 50 breed clubs including the AKC recommend rest between breeding cycles.

* Remove the requirement that the dogs receive an annual exam by a vet and replace it with “two visual inspections” instead.

* Eliminate the exercise provision.

* Remove the provision ensuring continuous access to unfrozen, clean water.

* Make stacked cages lawful again.

* Allow dogs to be confined in cages with only 6 inches of space again.

* Eliminate the cap on having more than 50 adult, sexually intact breeding dogs at a commercial breeding facility.

* Replace the straightforward misdemeanor provisions in Prop. B with allowances for criminal prosecution after repeatedly violating the the law and the violations posing a substantial risk to the dogs

So much for “improving” the bill – which is what our Republican legislators disingenuously claim they want to do. I admit that the pork industry (e.g., Smithfield Farms), for instance – which fears Prop. B as a potential Trojan horse – probably thinks the lege has improved it in just about the right way, and to that effect has been more than willing to exercise some of that dollar- greenback colored speech that the Roberts Court is so fond of.

So go ahead and call your representative – although it’s not likely to do much good. What big agribusiness wants, it gets from Missouri’s GOP legislature. That’s the ironclad rule that the lege has proved once again by their prompt action to undo Prop. B.

Certainly, the legislature is not responding to public opinion. At a meeting of state Democratic representatives  a few weeks ago, all of the lawmakers present noted that they had heard more outcry about the efforts to nullify Prop. B than any of the other issues coming before the legislature this year.  They all also noted that that the outcry was bipartisan in nature – so much so that it occasioned a little bitterness from some of the Democrats – Jill Schuupp, for instance, lamented:

… we have received more information on puppy mill legislation than any other piece of legislation, and I know people love their animals and I support that love for animals, but, my gosh, we have a lot of people out there hurting too and I sure wish people would … stand up and get that involved when it involves other people too.

I sympathize with Rep. Schuupp and share her frustration about the seeming lack of concern for the people who will suffer because of the GOP determination to pursue a destructive legislative agenda. However, I also understand why the plight of puppy mill animals generates a larger and more intense response.

There is at least a perception that human beings who are threatened by the actions of our business/corporate dominated GOP legislature can speak for themselves, but animals can never, under any circumstances, speak for themselves. And while conservatives may buy into the rightwing dogma that presents poverty, deprivation and injustice as the result of poor choices on the part of individuals, nobody, left or right, thinks that dogs live out miserable lives in breeding factories because they have made poor choices. Many of us live with dogs – they’re ideologically neutral – which is why opponents of Prop. B must resort to misrepresenting the concern about conditions in breeding kennels as sentimental excess on the part of those who don’t know better.

While we have probably lost the immediate battle, it is possible to continue the campaign. We can publicize just exactly what happened, refuse to let pols blather about “improving” or “tweaking” Prop. B, and make sure that the memory remains fresh next election. We can ensure that there are consequences.

Legislators who put the dictates of corporate agribusiness before their human obligation to mitigate unnecessary suffering deserve to be held accountable. Businesses, like Smithfield Farms, deserve to hear from consumers who do not appreciate their meddling in unrelated areas of animal husbandry. Finally, in response to those politicians who whine about the hardship that Prop. B would cause “good” breeders, we need to be emphatic that those puppy breeders who cannot conform to the minimal strictures of Proposition B deserve to be put out of business – the sooner the better.

 

Some time ago I wrote a post about the colossal arrogance of the Tea Party and other members of the 27 percenters who insist on usurping the label “We the People” and employing it in almost every other sentence to express their minority demands.  Missouri’s GOP-dominated legislature shares that We-the-Teople arrogance. They too seem to have an outsized conception of their importance, specifically as it pertains to the will of the rest of the people in the state. I am referring, of course to their willingness to use the power that we have vested in them to undercut popularly passed ballot propositions.

Exhibit one: the hearings that began yesterday to repeal or amend out of existence Proposition B, the puppy mill bill that passed with a 51.6% majority. Opponents of this measure had ample time to make their case and failed. Cue Missouri legislators to ride to the rescue of the Puppy Millers and the deluded farmers who were led to believe that humane treatment of dogs is the first step on the slippery slope towards enforced vegetarianism.

Just as egregious a show of contempt for the will of the people was perpetrated earlier this week when the State Legislature’s Joint Committee on Administrative Rules (JCAR) voted to gut an important component of Proposition C, the Missouri Renewable Electricity Standard that was passed in 2008 with a 66% majority. The proposition mandated that 15% of the energy provided by state utilities come from renewable energy sources.

A PUC implementation that JCAR is attempting to circumvent provides that those clean energy sources be located within or near Missouri and was intended to spur growth of clean energy businesses within the state along with the concomitant green jobs. God forbid that the Missouri GOP show any concern for innovation and a new source of jobs; we all know that utilities and their profits come before people, right?

There are precedents for this disregard of the public will. You surely remember when Missourians said “No, thank you” to concealed carry gun laws in 1999. Since rejection doesn’t sit well with the NRA and its pet Missouri legislators, the General Assembly overruled the proposition and in 2003 passed a concealed carry law.

Opponents of these measures all seem to think that overriding the will of the people of the state is just jim-dandy because the majority they are disregarding is mostly urban and evidently not aware of some deeper truths known only to those in the boonies. If you look online, you will find innumerable newspaper articles where lawmakers justify reversing the will of the majority because rural areas voted overwhelmingly for mistreatment of dogs, a wild west gun culture, or are worried about the possibility that energy prices might go up (which they most certainly will no matter what  happens with Proposition C rules and regulations). For example, this quote from KPSR’s coverage of the Proposition B repeal effort is typical:

… the majority of those passing votes came from a minority of counties. While most lawmakers who spoke, even Stouffer, aren’t dead-set on eliminating Prop B, they say the will of the people in rural Missouri is proof enough it, at the very least, needs tweaking.

Somehow, I bet that if I were in a position to do the research, I’d  find that many members of the rural minority that failed to prevail in the case of Proposition B correspond to the 16% of Missourians who voted for that other Prop C and against the health care mandate last April. In April the minority prevailed because few Missourians, only 23%, turned out to vote.* Fair enough. But what I want to know is why this particular minority matters more than the rest of us when they don’t prevail? They matters so much that, on the basis of the April Prop. C vote, lawmakers are trying to force the Attorney General of the State, Chris Koster, to join a frivolous and potentially expensive suit against the Affordable Care Act

Never mind that the pros and cons of all these potential laws were fully debated before the vote and that the people of the state had plenty of information and time to make up their minds. What this blatant disregard for the democratic process says to me is that those of us in St. Louis and Kansas City are second class citizens. There’s got to be some reason why these rural lawmakers feel free to explicitly spit in the faces of voters. There must be some way to demand respect for the principles of democracy in this state.

* “only 23%” added.

So, the republicans in the Missouri General Assembly have really large majorities now. Any guesses for what’s on the agenda?

In the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

Lawmakers aim to thwart the voters’ will

By The Editorial Board | Posted: Monday, November 8, 2010 9:00 pm

Just days after Missouri voters approved tough new restrictions on puppy mills, Missouri lawmakers are talking about amending or overturning them.

In most states, such contempt for voters would be shocking and surprising. In Missouri, it’s old hat.

Last May, seven months before voters had their say, rural legislators tried to preempt the vote by prohibiting citizen initiatives involving any aspect of agriculture. It was blatantly unconstitutional. But no fewer than five bills containing similar language were introduced.

Now that Proposition B, the so-called Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act, has been approved, lawmakers are gearing up to override it….

And look who’s still getting money – yesterday, via the Missouri Ethics Commission:

CONTRIBUTION OF MORE THAN $5,000.00 RECEIVED BY ANY COMMITTEE FROM ANY SINGLE DONOR – TO BE FILED WITHIN 48 HOURS OF RECEIVING THE CONTRIBUTION

C101530 MISSOURIANS FOR ANIMAL CARE CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE [pdf] 11/9/2010

Missouri Soybean Association

[3337 Emerald Lane

Jefferson City MO 65109]

11/9/2010

$23,527.09

Missouri Farmers care PAC

[6236 W Cunningham] Dr

[Columbia MO 65202-9111]

11/8/2010

$5,078.95

[emphasis added][address insertions from the Missouri Ethics Commission summary report]

With an innocuous name like “Missourians for Animal Care” you’d think they’d have supported Proposition B. Nope.

Posted on Mon, Mar. 29, 2010

Agriculture, Humane Society agendas clash

By MATT CAMPBELL

Kansas City Star

…Agribusiness interests say the bill does nothing to boost enforcement and is a feint by the Humane Society to increase its leverage against big livestock.

“The dog-breeder issue is simply the beginning, we feel, of what can happen in the future with a broader agenda relating to agriculture,” said Estil Fretwell, spokesman for the Missouri Farm Bureau.

Agribusiness recently formed Missourians for Animal Care to fight the initiative. The chairman is the director of the Missouri Pork Association.

The Humane Society’s Pacelle said the puppy mill bill had nothing to do with livestock and that the industry used the same false argument about threats to farmers before Missourians approved a cockfighting ban in 1998….

[emphasis added]

The statewide vote:

Unofficial Election Returns

State of Missouri General Election  – November 2, 2010 General Election

Tuesday, November 02, 2010

Proposition B   Precincts Reporting 3411 of 3411

Yes 995,423 51.6%

No 934,591 48.4%

Total Votes   1,930,014

Again, from the Post-Dispatch article:

…He uses the fact that it failed in 100 of the state’s 114 counties as justification…

Uh, counties don’t get to vote, only people do. But corporate interests can spend an unlimited amount of money.

Are we all vegans yet?

At the Missouri Ethics Commission:

CONTRIBUTION OF MORE THAN $5,000.00 RECEIVED BY ANY COMMITTEE FROM ANY SINGLE DONOR – TO BE FILED WITHIN 48 HOURS OF RECEIVING THE CONTRIBUTION

C101546 ALLIANCE FOR TRUTH [pdf] 11/3/2010

MFA Inc.

201 Ray Young Dr.

Columbia, MO 65201

11/2/2010

$10,000.00

[emphasis added]

If they had only waited one more day they could have saved $10,000.00.

Unofficial Election Returns

State of Missouri General Election – November 2, 2010 General Election

Tuesday, November 02, 2010

Proposition B

Precincts Reporting 3411 of 3411

Yes 993,860 51.6%

No 933,540 48.4%

Total Votes 1,927,400

Previously:

Have you kicked a puppy today? (September 24, 2010)

Three excellent reasons to support Prop. B and regulate “puppy mills” (October 5, 2010)

Alliance for Truthiness: dumbing down Proposition B (October 9, 2010)

Alliance for Truthiness: dumbing down Proposition B, part 2 (October 13, 2010)

I look forward to analyzing the final debris of this election as much as i’d look forward to dental work. So I will forgo that torture on you for a little bit longer, and present to you the map for how Proposition B, regulating Puppy Mills, fared county by county.

Weirdly enough, the stronger areas for Prop B were also good areas for Mitt Romney in the 2008 Missouri Republican Primary, aside from Dunklin and Pemiscot Counties, where maybe the anti-B forces couldn’t penetrate. Or Kennett, Missouri loves puppies

Suburban voters and Rural voters have some differences of opinion in regards to voting habits and views on issues. Even some of the more traditionally fiscally conservative areas in the suburbs and SW Missouri approved of Prop B. But apparently so much of the anti-B media or word of mouth occurred in rural areas.

One could digest this map of licensed dog breeders by county to see if the correlation is as strong as possible. Although the number of breeders doesn’t tell you how many dogs they have. So there’s that.

Truthiness: “The quality of stating concepts one wishes or believes to be true, rather than the facts.”

Slick literature opposed to the November ballot initiative regulating puppy mills has been hitting the streets. Paid for by a committee titled “Alliance for Truth”.

They left out “justice” and “the American way.”

From an “Alliance for Truth” palm card in opposition to Proposition B

The Humane Society of the United States is a “…radical animal rights organization…attempting to abolish pet ownership…” Really?:

…We celebrate pets, as well as wildlife and habitat protection. We are the nation’s most important advocate for local humane societies, providing shelter standards and evaluations, training programs, a national advertising campaign to promote pet adoption…

What is it about promoting pet adoption that would lead anyone to assert is a sign of “…attempting to abolish pet ownership…”? It’s either stupidity or wholesale contempt for Missouri voters, or both. Take your pick.

According to this “truthiness” propaganda one wonders what other groups would qualify for that label, having contributed to the effort to support passage of Proposition B? Try the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA):

CONTRIBUTION OF MORE THAN $5,000.00 RECEIVED BY ANY COMMITTEE FROM ANY SINGLE DONOR – TO BE FILED WITHIN 48 HOURS OF RECEIVING THE CONTRIBUTION

C091304 MISSOURIANS FOR THE PROTECTION OF DOGS/YES! ON PROP B [pdf] 10/12/2010

The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

New York, NY

10/11/2010

$200,000.00

[emphasis added]

That’s no typo. That’s $200,000.00. Radicals:

…Incorporated in 1866 by a special act of the New York State legislature, the ASPCA has a history rich in challenges and victories-from providing care and protection for the city’s working horses and transforming dog pounds into professionally run adoptions facilities to founding an animal hospital that is still running today…

Yeah, that’s certainly radical. Not.

The complete “truthiness” palm card:

…Only the most heartless would vote against a bill that would save a countless number of puppies from a life of cruelty…

The only proper response to this is, no shit, Sherlock.

And only in our current political environment can a fly by night campaign committee funded by the usual suspects label long standing institutions as “radical” and believe they can get away with it.

Previously:

Have you kicked a puppy today? (September 24, 2010)

Three excellent reasons to support Prop. B and regulate “puppy mills” (October 5, 2010)

Alliance for Truthiness: dumbing down Proposition B (October 9, 2010)

Truthiness: “The quality of stating concepts one wishes or believes to be true, rather than the facts.” They left out the part about paranoid teabagger conspiracy theories.

Slick literature opposed to the November ballot initiative regulating puppy mills has been hitting the streets.

Who is paying for this stuff? The Alliance for Truth [pdf], the group with the laughably Orwellian name opposing restrictions on puppy mills in Missouri, filed with the Missouri Ethics Commission on October 1, 2010 – hand delivering the paper work. The committee, according to the Statement of Committee Organization, was organized to work on Proposition B and states the subject as “Dog Breeding Restrictions”.

In addition to attacking the Humane Society, the flyer states that the organization has darker motives:

…To abolish all hunting and fishing…

…To cripple and/or destroy all animal industries…

…To make it impossible for anyone to own pets…

…To become the “enforcement” arm of the Federal Government…

But, but, the “Alliance” said on their committee organization paper work that this was about “Dog Breeding Restrictions”.

The front side of the flyer.

So, who has been dropping money in the last week to help this committee put out right wingnut talking points?:

CONTRIBUTION OF MORE THAN $5,000.00 RECEIVED BY ANY COMMITTEE FROM ANY SINGLE DONOR – TO BE FILED WITHIN 48 HOURS OF RECEIVING THE CONTRIBUTION

C101546 ALLIANCE FOR TRUTH [pdf] 10/7/2010

Alliance For Truth PAC

Chesterfield, MO

10/6/2010

$7,849.60

Missouri Farm Bureau Federation

Jefferson City, MO

10/6/2010

$5,000.00

MFA Inc.

Columbia, MO

10/7/2010

$5,000.00

Missourians For Animal Care Campaign

Committee

jefferson City, MO

10/7/2010

$27,000.00

[emphasis added]

CONTRIBUTION OF MORE THAN $5,000.00 RECEIVED BY ANY COMMITTEE FROM ANY SINGLE DONOR – TO BE FILED WITHIN 48 HOURS OF RECEIVING THE CONTRIBUTION

C101546 ALLIANCE FOR TRUTH [pdf] 10/7/2010

MOFED Corporation

Eldon, MO

10/7/2010

$5,387.93

[emphasis added]

Ah, the usual right wingnut and corporate agriculture interests. Though, with the amount of money they’re spending you can just tell that their hearts aren’t really into it.

The “B” side of the flyer.

Another palm card/walk piece printed by the Alliance for Truth states:

….Prop B is pushed the the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS): a radical animal rights organization….

Run for the hills, the Humane Society is gonna take away everyone’s pets…

Previously:

Have you kicked a puppy today? (September 24, 2010)

Three excellent reasons to support Prop. B and regulate “puppy mills” (October 5, 2010)

The three reasons:  the Missouri Tea Party, Phyllis Schlafly and Joe the Plumber. I don’t normally advocate arguments based on an appeal to authority, but in this case the temptation to argue negatively based on an appeal to (anti?) authority is just too strong. Doesn’t the fact that the Tea Party, Phyllis Schlafly and Joe the Plumber have jumped into the fray against the “Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act” (Proposition B) make you want to run out and vote for it immediately?

Animal cruelty is not a liberal or conservative issue per se. Many good, conservative Republicans in my neighborhood signed the petition to get Prop. B on the ballot. However, the anti-Prop. B lobbying efforts on the part of the Tea Party and the two media personalities is more or less predictable. The Tea Party, for instance, seems so worked up that a new group in Mexico, Mo. will devote it’s first meeting to figuring out how they can fight Prop. B. One can only imagine what frothing displays we will be gifted  with if they manage to get their bad-tempered act together.

The Tea Party involvement is easy to explain. The organization formed to fight Prop B, the misnamed Alliance for Truth (they claim that anti-animal cruelty activists “don’t like animals”), for lack of a better tack, is pushing all kinds of far-fetched conspiracy stories – catnip for Tea Party paranoia.

The Alliance has managed to distort the simple and straightforward provisions of Prop. 6 into a “radical” plot that reaches into (where else?) the White House. According to Alliance for Truth spokesperson, Anita Andrews, the main instigator of this plot is the Humane Society of the Unitd States (HSUS) which:

… seeks only to raise the cost of breeding dogs, making it ever-more difficult for middle-class American families to be dog-owners.”

[…]

Andrews  also explained that Cass Sunstein, “one of the biggest animal rights activists,” and President Obama’s Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, is tied to the Humane Society, and is helping them give Obama “a punch list” of the animals rights activists’ agenda.

It would take its own separate post to go into all that’s wrong with this little gem.

The involvement of Joe the Plumber requires no explanation beyond the fact that taking up the fight against Prop. B offers one more avenue for expanding his fifteen minutes of fame. This explanation also helps us understand his incoherent, over-the-top statement on the Alliance for Truth site, which proclaims Prop. B proponents to be:

…cowardly hiding behind animal cruelty, lying to our citizens and taking our constitutional rights away – one state at a time.

Ahhh! The constitutional right to be cruel abuse animals! I knew there had to be a constitutional issue in there somewhere. Since Prop B doesn’t involve the federal government, but simply a state deciding for itself about whether or not it wants to allow longstanding abuses to continue, the constitutional card loses some of the old Tea Party punch. But never fear, it does its job with the target audience; all you have to do is repeat the word “constitutional” enough and they end up drooling on the rug.

Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum, of course, opposes government regulation on principle. The weakness of this position in cases like that of Missouri’s scandalous puppy mill industry is revealed by her tactics.  Instead of principled arguments about regulation, even poor, old, hardline Phyllis is reduced to advocating conspiracy theories to make her opposition to anti-cruelty legislation palatable:

HSUS has attacked modern livestock production practices in several other states and, while the first battle in Missouri is targeted to dog breeders, this is the precursor to subsequent fight involving our Missouri farm families

Can’t these bozos get it through their heads that this legislation deals exclusively with dog breeders, and that it has been proposed because the puppy mill industry has been a blight on Missouri’s reputation for years? Any legislation, for good or ill, directed at other livestock will have to be passed or defeated on its own terms.

Read the provisions of Prop.B yourself. They are straightforward and describe minimal improvements in the welfare of dogs used for large-scale breeding purposes. TPM quotes Humane Society spokesperson Michael Markarian who summarizes Prop. B  as follows:

This measure would provide common sense standards for the care of dogs,” he told TPM, including sufficient food and clean water, vet care, regular exercise, and adequate rest between breeding cycles, among other things. Markarian said the measure only applies to “commercial dog breeding facilities” that have more than 10 breeding females who they use for “producing puppies for the pet trade.

If conforming to these very basic requirements would bankrupt a breeder, as some have argued, then that breeder should not be in the business in the first place. We don’t condone forced child labor because paying adults a living wage would bankrupt the manufacturer – do we?

It should tell us something when the opponents of proposed legislation resort to manufacturing non-existent conspiracies, imagining impossible constitutional encroachments, and projecting their own dishonest agendas on a clear-as-water initiative. The “slippery slope” argument that gets them so worked up has always been a loser that has hurt “us” more than “them.” In this case it will only serve to perpetuate unnecessary animal suffering.

Tea Party photo by Sage Ross from Wikimedia Commons; Joe the Plumber photo from Wikimedia Commons.

Note the cute dog graphic. A “no” vote is for those who think that puppy mills as they currently exist in Missouri don’t need any more regulation.

Official Ballot Title

Proposition B

[….]

Shall Missouri law be amended to:

       * require large-scale dog breeding operations to provide each dog under their care with sufficient food, clean water, housing and space; necessary veterinary care; regular exercise and adequate rest between breeding cycles;

       * prohibit any breeder from having more than 50 breeding dogs for the purpose of selling their puppies as pets; and

       * create a misdemeanor crime of “puppy mill cruelty” for any violations?

It is estimated state governmental entities will incur costs of $654,768 (on-going costs of $521,356 and one-time costs of $133,412). Some local governmental entities may experience costs related to enforcement activities and savings related to reduced animal care activities.

Fair Ballot Language:

A “yes” vote will amend Missouri law to require large-scale dog breeding operations to provide each dog under their care with sufficient food, clean water, housing and space; necessary veterinary care; regular exercise and adequate rest between breeding cycles.  The amendment further prohibits any breeder from having more than 50 breeding dogs for the purpose of selling their puppies as pets.  The amendment also creates a misdemeanor crime of “puppy mill cruelty” for any violations.

A “no” vote will not change the current Missouri law regarding dog breeders.

If passed, this measure will have no impact on taxes.

The Humane Society, interfering fly by night radicals that they are, believes a “yes” vote is the right thing to do:

…Prop B will not shut down all puppy mills in Missouri. But it will require that breeders maintain certain humane care standards, and if past patterns hold, a fair number of them won’t be interested in complying. They turn hefty profits by cutting corners-not providing sufficient space for the animals, denying them veterinary care, and starving them of human affection and attention. If they weren’t able to cut so many corners, many of them would no longer be in the business, since they wouldn’t realize the profits they counted on…

Ah, such a choice – profits or humanity? It’ll be telling to find out which of the two the voters of Missouri will choose in November.