Mid-morning on Thursday I walked into the County Clerk’s office in the Johnson County Courthouse and asked the deputy clerk at the counter if I could get a copy of the “Report of Findings” for the recount. The County Clerk was on the phone, overheard me ask for the report, and told the deputy clerk he would address this. I asked again. He said, “No.” [I kid you not, it was a one word response.] I asked him why. He told me that it had not been sent in yet and it could only be released by the Secretary of State’s office. I shrugged, turned to the door, and left the premises.
…In the recount, Hoskins picked up four additional votes and Democratic challenger Jim Jackson gained 11 votes, for a net gain of seven votes for Jackson…
…Powers’ staff forwarded results to the secretary of state Wednesday. He received an e-mail about mid-day Thursday authorizing him to release the results…
A 122 vote margin.
You gotta love the headline.
I get the distinct feeling that the republican Johnson County Clerk doesn’t like me.
On to the recount.
The dirty little secret of our elections is that not all legal votes get picked up by the optical scan machines on Election Day (see the Minnesota U.S. Senate recount). That’s why you always ask for a recount when it’s within the margin as allowed by law.
There are so many levels of irony in today’s news about the 121st Legislative District recount. Denny Hoskins (r – “Noun, verb, CPA”) is publicly whining about the messy inconvenience to his legitimacy in this recount business:
…Hoskins said in a prepared statement the recount will cost thousands of dollars.
“It is unfortunate in these challenging economic times that the recount will cost the county’s taxpayers between $5,000-$15,000,” he said in the statement.
Jackson on Sunday said he does not expect the recount to cost anywhere near that amount, based on a conversation with the Secretary of State’s Office.
“The only cost is for the election judges to be paid at the same rate as (they) would be paid in an election,” Jackson said. “That is the only cost to the county.”
County Clerk Gilbert Powers said Monday the county will employ four judges and four watchers at a cost of $10 per hour each. Based on eight-hour days, the total would come to $1,280 for two days…
Heh. Who’s counting?
So much for being the only CPA in the legislature, eh? Lord help the Missouri General Assembly and the people of Missouri.
Let’s take look at the cost of the Minnesota U.S. Senate race recount via Minnesota Public Radio (also going on at this time):
…the cost of a recount is about 3 cents per ballot. Since there are nearly 3 million ballots to count, the total will be about $90,000. It will be paid by taxpayers…
Even accounting for an economy of scale in Minnesota the claim that it could take $15,000.00 to count a little over 13,000 ballots (at over a dollar a vote) in Johnson County, Missouri is way off the mark and doesn’t quite fit with what the republican Johnson County Clerk says either. But, given the massive amount of money the Missouri Republican State Committee and other right wingnut enablers “independently” spent to get Hoskins ahead in the Election Day vote count he probably does have a unique view of the value of a dollar. Maybe he should ask for his CPA school money back. And maybe he should actually read RSMo 115.610 before he whines in public about a recount. I expect Hoskins’ (r – “Noun, verb, CPA”) next press release will claim he has a mandate. In his world that would probably add up.
There will be a recount in the 121st Legislative District race. What follow are the documents pertaining to the proceedings in a recount.
“Notification of Recount” for the 121st Legislative District race from Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan.
STATE OF MISSOURI
Secretary of State
NOTIFICATION OF RECOUNT
Pursuant to Section 115.601, 3, RSMo.
THE MISSOURI SECRETARY OF STATE
To the Johnson County Clerk:
WHEREAS, I have been duly notified that the results of the General Election November 4, 2008 for the Office of State Representative, District 1211, established the defeat of one candidate by less than one percent of the votes cast; and
WHEREAS, I have been requested by Jim Jackson, the candidate who received the second highest number of votes and was defeated by less than one per cent of the votes cast, to hold a recount of the votes in the race for State representative, District 121, pursuant to Section 115.601, RSMo.
NOW THEREFORE, I ROBIN CARNAHAN, SECRETARY OF STATE OF MISSOURI, do hereby issue this Notification of Recount to the Johnson County Clerk and further authorize the Johnson County Clerk to recount the ballots cast in his jurisdiction during the November 4, 2008, General Election for the Office of State Representative, District 121. The recount of ballots in this jurisdiction shall be conducted according to procedures directed by the Secretary of State. The Johnson County Clerk shall certify and deliver results of this recount to the Secretary of State’s Office on or before December 19, 2008.
[Seal of the Secretary of State]
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I
herunto set my hand and affix the
Seal of my office. Done at the City
of Jefferson, this 4th day of December,
[signed: Robin Carnhan]
Secretary of State
The Secretary of State’s office issued a memo outlining the documents and procedures used in the recount:
Should you have any questions regarding these materials, please call our office at
There’s a certain irony to having the standard recount documentation which includes a court precedent from a previous recount case sent to the County Clerk whose name is on the actual precedent.
In the following document “LEA” refers to “Local Election Authority” (in this case, the Johnson County Clerk, Gilbert Powers); “DRE” refers to the electronic voting machine (in this case, Diebold touchscreen machines).
MISSOURI SECRETARY OF STATE
OFFICIAL PROCEDURES AND TIMELINE
RECOUNT OF NOVEMBER 4, 2008 STATE REPRESENTATIVE,
DISTRICT 121 RACE
The recount of the November 4, 2008, State Representative, District 121 race will be conducted under the following timeline and procedures established by the Missouri Secretary of State in accordance with Section 115.601, RSMo.
This comprehensive recount is designed to ensure that the final results are complete, accurate and reflect the intent of every voter. To do this, every ballot should be manually reviewed as set forth in these procedures. You will note that these recount procedures provide for a combination of human review, electronic counting, and hand tallying to ensure the most accurate, efficient, and fair recount possible.
SOS send procedures to LEAs & candidates 12/4
LEAs FAX recount date/time/place to SOS 12/5 by 4:00 p.m.
SOS sends spreadsheet with schedule of recount date/time/place to candidates 12/5
Candidates send “disinterested person” lists to SOS 12/8
SOS sends lists of disinterested persons to LEAs ASAP
Deadline for return of certified findings to SOS 12/19
SOS certifies recount results 12/23
Selection and notification of disinterested persons
1. Only the LEA, LEA staff, bipartisan teams, the contestant (or his attorney), and contestee (or his attorney), and the appointed disinterested persons (two persons per candidate for each jurisdiction), shall be present during the recount.
2. The two candidates shall provide to the Secretary of State a list of disinterested persons to assist in the recount. These disinterested persons shall be selected pursuant to Section 115.601, RSMo. They will observe the recount and sign the Report of Findings.
3. The Secretary of State shall deliver the list of disinterested persons appointed to assist in the recount to each LEA.
4. The LEA shall administer the oath to all participants identified in step 1, including the contestant (or his attorney), contestee (or his attorney), and their disinterested persons.
5. LEAs will use the list of disinterested persons provided by the SOS and ensure that only two of the named individuals from each candidate (four total) are allowed to participate.
Administration of recount
1. Only LEA, LEA staff, bipartisan teams, the appointed disinterested persons, the contestant (or his attorney), and contestee (or his attorney) may be present during the recount.
2. The LEA shall administer the oath to all participants identified in step 1, including the contestant (or his attorney), contestee (or his attorney), and their disinterested persons.
3. The disinterested persons present shall sign the Report of Findings, along with the local election authority. If disinterested persons are not present for the recount, the local election authority shall be the only signer of the Report of Findings.
4. The following original forms specified by SOS shall be returned to the SOS no later than December 19, 2008.
. Report of Findings (provided)
. Oath (provided)
. Tally summary sheet (provided)
The LEA shall also keep copies of these documents in its office.
5. The LEA shall pay all election judges and disinterested persons from local funds using appropriate local forms and procedures.
6. No documents or copies of documents, other than the Report of Findings to the Secretary of State, shall be released to anyone present at the recount, although the candidates and disinterested persons may receive copies of the oaths they execute. (Sec. 115.601.4, RSMo)
Ballot counting – optical scan
NOTE: Only the LEA, LEA staff, and the bipartisan teams will conduct the recount, without additional assistance. Everyone else may observe, but may not handle the ballots.
1. After all participants have been sworn in, the LEA will conduct a test of the voting equipment to be used in the recount. The test deck shall consist of General Election ballots marked as
3 with votes for Hoskins;
2 with votes for Jackson;
1 with no votes for any State Representative, District 121 candidate (undervoted);
1 with votes for at least two State Representative, District 121 candidates (overvoted).
Refer to 15 CSR 30-10.040 and 15 CSR 30-10.140 (copy enclos
2. The LEA shall break the seal on ballots.
3. Only ballots with votes for State Representative, District 121 shall be counted. The bipartisan team shall sort the ballots as follows:
Group A) Ballots with a distinguishing mark in the designated area for a State Representative, District 121 candidate. (This does not include overvotes.)
Group B) Ballots without distinguishing marks, or with marks outside the designated area for a State Representative, District 121 candidate. (This includes undervotes and overvotes.)
4. For these ballots:
Group A) Prepare for counting through optical scan tabulating machine.
Group B) Review to determine if there is any distinguishing mark of voter intent, in accordance with the current Counting Standards (15 CSR 30-9.020), a copy of which is enclosed. See also Dolan, et al. v. Powers, et al., (WL220223)
(Mo.App.W.D. January 29, 2008), a copy of which is enclosed (Ballots containing marks in or around a candidate’s party affiliation constitute a distinguishing mark adjacent to the party name.) Prepare for hand-tallying.
5. The bipartisan team, under the observation of the disinterested persons, shall feed the ballots in Group A above, face-up, into the counting machine(s). During this process, participants will also be watching for any distinguishing mark of voter intent, as described above. The results of the electronic recount will be recorded on the tally summary sheet (form provided) and added to the final results in the Report of Findings.
6. For the ballots in Group B above, the bipartisan teams, observed by the disinterested persons, will determine whether there is indication of voter intent in accordance with current Counting Standards regulations and the Dolan case and record those votes on a tally sheet. Regular tally sheets should be used for this purpose. These results will be recorded on the tally summary sheet (form provided) and added to the final results in the Report of Findings.
7. Post Test. After the electronic recount is completed, the LEA shall run a post test of the voting equipment using the test deck used in Step 1.
Ballot counting – DREs
NOTE: Only the LEA, LEA staff, and the bipartisan teams will conduct the recount, without additional assistance. Everyone else may observe, but may not handle the paper trails, containers, and DREs.
1. The LEA shall break the seal on the DRE component that contains the voter verified paper audit trail and retrieve the paper trail.
2. The voter verified paper trail shall be examined by the bipartisan team and the votes hand tallied for the State Representative, District 121 race using a separate tally sheet. The results will be recorded on the tally summary sheet (form provided) and added to the final results in the Report of Findings.
3. In the event that the voter verified paper trail is not usable for the recount, the LEA shall next use the audit trail* from each DRE that was created contemporaneously with the voter verified paper trail (*as defined in 15 CSR 30-10.010), and proceed with the process described in #2. The LEA shall then separately seal and secure any such DRE component for possible further inspection.
Report of Findings
The bipartisan team shall record the total result from the tally summary sheet on the Report of Findings form. The disinterested persons present shall sign the Report of Findings, along with the local election authority. If disinterested persons are not present for the recount, the local election authority shall be the only signer of the Report of Findings.
The Report of Findings form shall be returned to the Secretary of State’s office with the oaths and the tally summary sheet. The LEA shall retain copies of all these documents in its office.
The above procedures shall apply except as otherwise agreed to by both candidates and approved by the SOS. Any exceptions to the above procedures shall be submitted to SOS in writing and signed by each candidate no later than 5:00 p.m. on December 8, 2008.
The Secretary of State’s office issed a checklist:
State Representative, Dist. 121
____Lock door(s) to counting room
____Note all persons in attendance (No unauthorized persons in attendance)
____Ballots are locked up
____County clerk swears in all attendees, other than Secretary of State officials
____County clerk unlocks ballots
____Remind attendees that, pursuant to their oath, they are not allowed to disclose any details from this recount
____Manual recount begins
____County clerk re-locks ballots
____Complete Report of Findings
____Obtain signatures on Report of Findings
____County clerk certifies results
____Door(s) may be unlocked
Considering the procedures outlined above, this is a bare bones checklist.
All parties present at the recount take an oath:
I solemnly swear that I will impartially discharge the duties of judge according to law, to the best of my ability and that I will not disclose how any voter has voted unless I am required to do so as a witness in a proper judicial proceeding. I also affirm that I will not allow any person to vote who is not entitled to vote and that I will make no statement nor give any information of any kind tending in any way to show the state of the count prior to the close of the polls on election day.
I further swear that I will not disclose any facts uncovered by the recount, except those which are contained in the Report of Findings.
Sworn and subscribed to before me this … day of …, 20..
Judge of Election
Election Authority (Judge of Election) witnessing oath
Interestingly enough, it is the election judge’s election day oath. Some of the prohibitions contained herein don’t actually have any bearing on a recount, but this is the oath required by statute.
According to statute only information contained in the “Report of Findings”, signed by the disinterested parties and the local election authority, can be publicly divulged:
REPORT OF FINDINGS
STATE REPRESENTATIVE, DISTRICT 121
RECOUNT GENERAL ELECTION
NOVEMBER 4, 2008
Name of Local Election Authority
We the undersigned hereby certify that the recount conducted of the State Representative, District 121 General Election race revealed the number of votes cast for these candidates was as follows:
If the verifiable paper trail is not usable then the machine audit trail is used. If that’s the case the machine is to be sealed. Though, if there is no way to notate such in the Report of Findings no one other than those present will know of the failure of the voter verified paper trail. And if it’s not in the Report of Findings, no one can talk about it.
That’s one good reason for the parties to the recount having an attorney present.
…Ballots containing marks in or around a candidate’s party affiliation were properly counted, as they constituted distinguishing mark adjacent to the party name…
In addition to the examples in the Code of State Regulations the appellate decision should inform the judgement of ballot judges.
The process gets messy if there’s a lack of consensus on a particular ballot. Again, that’s why there will probably be attorney’s present. The “disinterested parties” can refuse to sign the report if they dispute the contents. Ultimately any dispute in this particular recount would be resolved by the Missouri House of Representatives.
We should know the date(s) for this recount by the close of business today.
Jim Jackson (D), who lost to Denny Hoskins (r) in the 121st Legislative District open seat race by less than 1% of the vote in the November general election, filed the paperwork today for a recount with the office of Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan.
Official Election Returns
State of Missouri General Election – 2008 General Election
Recount authorized when less than one percent difference in vote –recount, defined.
115.601. 1. Any contestant in a primary or other election contest who was defeated by less than one percent of the votes cast for the office and any contestant who received the second highest number of votes cast for that office if two or more are to be elected and who was defeated by less than one percent of the votes cast, or any person whose position on a question was defeated by less than one percent of the votes cast on the question, shall have the right to a recount of the votes cast for the office or on the question.
2. In cases where the candidate filed or the ballot question was originally filed with an election authority as defined in section 115.015, such recount shall be requested in accordance with the provisions of section 115.531 or 115.577 and conducted under the direction of the court or the commissioner representing the court trying the contest according to the provisions of this subchapter.
3. In cases where the candidate filed or the ballot question was originally filed with the secretary of state, the defeated candidate or the person whose position on a question was defeated by less than one percent of the votes cast on the question shall be allowed a recount pursuant to this section by filing with the secretary of state a request for a recount stating that the person or the person’s position on a question was defeated by less than one percent of the votes cast. Such request shall be filed not later than seven days after certification of the election. The secretary of state shall notify all concerned parties of the filing of the request for a recount. The secretary of state shall authorize the election authorities to conduct a recount pursuant to this section if the requesting party or his position on a question was defeated by less than one percent of the votes cast. The secretary of state shall conduct and certify the results of the recount as the official results in the election within twenty days of receipt of the aforementioned notice of recount.
4. Whenever a recount is requested pursuant to subsection 3 of this section, the secretary of state shall determine the number of persons necessary to assist with the recount and shall appoint such persons equally from lists submitted by the contestant and the opponent who received more votes or a person whose position on a question received more votes than the contestant’s position on that question. Each person appointed pursuant to this section shall be a disinterested person and a registered voter of the area in which the contested election was held. Each person so appointed shall take the oath prescribed for and receive the same pay as an election judge in the jurisdiction where the person is registered. After being sworn not to disclose any facts uncovered by the recount, except those which are contained in the report, the contestant and the opponent who received more votes or a person whose position on a question received more votes than the contestant’s position on that question shall be permitted to be present in person or represented by an attorney at the recount and to observe the recount. Each recount shall be completed under the supervision of the secretary of state with the assistance of the election authorities involved, and the persons appointed to assist with the recount shall perform such duties as the secretary of state directs. Upon completion of any duties prescribed by the secretary of state the persons appointed to assist with the recount shall make a written and signed report of their findings. The findings of the persons appointed to assist with the recount shall be prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein, but any person present at the examination of the votes may be a witness to contradict the findings. No one other than the secretary of state, the election authorities involved, the contestant and the other witnesses described in this subsection, their attorneys, and those specifically appointed by the secretary of state to assist with the recount shall be present during any recount conducted pursuant to this section.
5. For purposes of this section, “recount” means one additional counting of all votes counted for the office or on the question with respect to which the recount is requested.
After the smoke had cleared on the night of the election the difference between the two candidates was less than one per cent. The republican candidate in the open seat race, Denny Hoskins, assisted by ungodly amount of republican state party money paying for nasty radio, cable television, and mail, managed to barely eke out a win over Jim Jackson (D).
It was the normal republican campaign play book. Nasty and full of crap:
But, the republicans will continue to do this nasty campaign stuff because it works.
That remorse? The Warrensburg Daily Star Journal prominently published a letter to the editor on their opinion page today:
…I felt compelled to set the record straight on an issue that was bantered around during the recent campaign for Missouri House seat for 121st District….
…Every aspect of Jim’s service has been conducted as a gentleman. To the community: You passed your chance to have the best-qualified candidate to serve you in the Legislature. It appears to me, the rejection was based on questionable information about his past record…
Bill Brame, Higginsville
And of course, the local media didn’t call the republicans on it (and that’s being charitable) until after the election.
I have a feeling we’ll be seeing and hearing a lot of priceless stuff come from Denny Hoskins (r – “noun, verb, CPA”) in Jefferson City. All those right wingnut chickens are going to come home to roost – and the voters in the 121st Legislative District won’t like it one bit.
A nice, positive, Democratic mail piece in support of a candidate with the right qualifications for tough times:
Working families paid for this positive piece.
Same day, same photo, nasty republican mail piece, just for contrast.:
Paid for by the Missouri republican state committee – the usual suspects.
Here’s the “B” side of the republican mailing:
Yeah, right. A shill for banking PACs and a rubber stamp for the republican leadership in the General Assembly is looking after the little guy. Give us a break. And you’d think he’d get a new tie at this stage of the campaign.
Meanwhile, in the 121st Legislative District race, we also received this positive piece on behalf of Jim Jackson (D) from Working Families. Hmmm. Another candidate with the right qualifications for tough times.
See, Denny Hoskins (r – “noun, verb, CPA”), how an independent mailer that’s positive can work for a candidate?
Note the “scary” Halloween type for Jim Jackson’s name.
You’d think they’d have reconsidered this attack piece given the 2006 ballot initiative results in Johnson County.
Nah. They’re just plain mean, nasty, and desperate.
Uh oh, no pleasant pastel colors?
Isn’t that the “sun” baby? I didn’t know the Teletubbies did political endorsements, especially since, you know, the right wingnuts have been more than a little snippy about certain things. Like that marriage stuff. And children’s television show fictional characters carrying a purse.
Who paid for this crap? Ah, the usual suspects:
…some Missouri lawmakers who consider themselves against abortion rights – particularly Republicans – have increasingly become frustrated with the criteria Missouri Right to Life uses to rate lawmakers and make endorsements. As a result, the group’s Capitol influence has waned…
They all must have made nice with each other. Or, Denny Hoskins (r – “noun, verb, CPA”) is on the fringe. It’s gotta be one or the other. Or both? What’s your guess?
The Missouri republican State Committee is hurling an outrageous amount of money on behalf of Denny Hoskins (r – noun, verb, CPA) in his quest to take the open seat race in the 121st Legislative District over Jim Jackson (D).
The typical republican campaign startegery – throw lots of money at their problems
The problem for Hoskins and the Missouri republican State Committee is that they’re so desperate to attack a Democrat on guns that they neglected to check with the National Rifle Association before they created their attack piece. Either that, or they can’t read. Which brings up the issue of the total lack of republican support for education. But, I digress.
The republican way – when in doubt, attack and damn the facts
Well, it looks like they got the same rating. Here’s a word problem for all you logic whizzes: If Jim Jackson and Denny Hoskins have the same “A” rating from the NRA, and “Missouri gun owners can’t trust Jim Jackson to defend our gun rights”, doesn’t that mean that “Missouri gun owners can’t trust Denny Hoskins to defend our gun rights”? Just asking.
And that “A” rating from the National Rifle Association?:
A Solidly pro-gun candidate. An “A” incumbent who has supported NRA positions on key votes. May also describe a non-incumbent “A” candidate (one not represented with an *) who has previously held other office and cast consistent pro-gun votes, or an “A” candidate who hasn’t held office but has expressed strong support for NRA positions on Second Amendment issues. It should be noted that a “non-incumbent” candidate may have been awarded the “A” rating due solely to their responses on the NRA-PVF candidate survey.
All those action words!
What, no “noun, verb, CPA”?
Meanwhile, Jim Jackson continues to talk about issues. His campaign sent out the following release today:
Contact: Jim Jackson
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JIM JACKSON TO UNVEIL NEW PLAN TO ASSIST MIDDLE-CLASS FAMILIES AT KOKO DEBATE TUESDAY NIGHT
Jackson’s initiatives will answer the question foremost on the minds of Johnson County voters: Which candidate will help my family and my neighbors get through hard times?
Jim Jackson, candidate for State Representative in the 121st district, will announce a bold, new approach to help Johnson County’s families at the KOKO debate on Tuesday night. Instead of running misleading advertisements, Jackson will continue to uphold to his “clean-campaign” pledge by proposing real solutions to help his neighbors in Johnson County. The plan will outline initiatives to fix the broken healthcare system, bring high-paying jobs into the community, and improve local schools.
The full plan will be unveiled at the debate. The campaign is releasing three initiatives in advance.
* Tax Incentives for Small Business Owners in Johnson County:
As a small businessman for 28 years, Jim Jackson knows that the worst thing to do in a tough economy is raise taxes on hard-working small business owners. Instead, the government needs to give them a reason to start new businesses and hire more employees. Jim Jackson will propose a tax incentive to help small business owners who keep jobs here in Johnson County.
* Lowering Insurance Premiums by Regulating the Insurance Companies: Insurance premiums have increased $900 for the average Missouri family in just the past three years. While families were struggling to keep their children insured, big insurance executives received multi-million dollar bonuses. Jim Jackson will regulate large insurance companies where it is necessary to prevent them from using their monopoly power to charge exorbitant premiums, which will lower costs for families in Johnson County.
* Recruit the Best Teachers to Johnson County:
High-quality teachers are the foundation of a quality education. Jim Jackson will expand the current state program that offers scholarships to top high school and community college students to pursue a teaching degree as long as they teach in Missouri for five years after graduation.
As a small business owner and community leader, Jim Jackson has the leadership and experience needed to get Johnson County back on track.
The third quarter campaign finance reports are getting filled with the Missouri Ethics Commission. In the 121st Legislative District open seat race between Jim Jackson (D) and Denny Hoskins (r – “I really, really want to be a CPA in the General Assembly, plese, oh please, oh pretty please”) we’re seeing a rough parity in the amount of money raised by each candidate. What is not evident from these reports is the ungodly amount of money on mail and radio spent on this particular race by third parties. We see (and hear) it in the district.
Jim Jackson (D) filed his third quarter 2008 campaign finance report today:
Detailed Summary of Committee Disclosure Report
Committe[e]: JIM JACKSON 2008
9. TOTAL ALL RECEIPTS THIS ELECTION(SUM 1B + 7A – 8A) $49,560.00
28. MONEY ON HAND AT THE CLOSE OF THIS REPORTING PERIOD (SUM 25 + 26 – 27) $20,091.96
35. TOTAL INDEBTEDNESS AT THE CLOSE OF THIS REPORTING PERIOD
(SUM 29 + 30 + 31 – 32 – 33 – 34) $0.00
Detailed Summary of Contributions And Loans Received
Committee: JIM JACKSON 2008
Report Date: 10/14/2008
13. TOTAL MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED FROM PERSONS GIVING $100 OR LESS $1,030.00
Hey, there’s grass roots small dollar fundraising going on in there.
Let’s look at the same for Denny Hoskins (r) who also filed his third quarter 2008 campaign finance report today:
Detailed Summary of Committee Disclosure Report
Committe[e]: DENNY HOSKINS 2008
9. TOTAL ALL RECEIPTS THIS ELECTION(SUM 1B + 7A – 8A) $42,412.88
28. MONEY ON HAND AT THE CLOSE OF THIS REPORTING PERIOD (SUM 25 + 26 – 27) $23,149.02
35. TOTAL INDEBTEDNESS AT THE CLOSE OF THIS REPORTING PERIOD
(SUM 29 + 30 + 31 – 32 – 33 – 34) $2,000.00
Detailed Summary of Contributions And Loans Received
Committee: DENNY HOSKINS 2008
Report Date: 9/30/2008
13. TOTAL MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED FROM PERSONS GIVING $100 OR LESS $0.00
Why, that’s positively not grass rootsie. Leave it to the Missouri republican party to try and buy an election.
I do love these kinds of anecdotes. An individual recounted to me that Denny Hoskins (r) told a group of oldtimers that he would “vote just like David Pearce” (I suppose that means he’s an advocate of automotive deer hunting). The oldtimers just nodded and said, “That’s nice.” They were far from impressed. Big mistake. Big. Huge. David Pearce had never impressed them either.
Approximately 200 individuals attended a Sunday afternoon outdoor rally and fundraiser for Jim Jackson, Democratic candidate in the 121st Legislative District, at the rural eastern Johnson County home of supporters. The event included picnic fixin’s, great weather, and the Nace Brothers Band. Jim Jackson briefly addressed the crowd during the band’s break.
Jim Jackson (right) speaks with supporters.
The Nace Brothers Band provided (very high quality) entertainment.
[applause] Thanks so much. I’d like to thank my lovely wife who did so much preparation for this, too…
…This is, you hear it every election cycle it seems, that this is one of the most important elections in your lives. Well, by golly, this is one of the most important elections of your lives…
…There is so much going on at every different level…from the county level, the state level, the national level, we have so many different changes that might come about this year. Change is the big word. And I really think we’re going to see a lot of changes.
And from what’s been going on in the stock market, what’s been going on in our economy, we certainly need some changes here. So, I’m out to help make some changes for the State of Missouri…
We’ve got twenty three days…and a couple hours [laughter] left, so…with your help we can win this election…
We need some good people…in Jefferson City to represent our area well…We’ve got so much going on, so many needs for education, we’ve got so many needs for health care, we’ve certainly got so many needs for the economic environment that we’re in today.
I would like to take my small business experience, my community service experience, and continue that in Jefferson City…
I am excited about this race, we can do it…with your help. Thank you for coming. Do go out and vote on November the 4th…
Enjoy yourselves, have a good time [here], and remember to vote on November the 4th. Thanks again for coming [applause]
Jim Jackson speaking with folks in the crowd. Note the front end loader in the background. The bucket was lined with a plastic sheet and filled with ice, pop and bottled water.