• About
  • The Poetry of Protest

Show Me Progress

~ covering government and politics in Missouri – since 2007

Show Me Progress

Tag Archives: Jay Nixon

HB 600: suppose there was a brand new state park named after Jay Nixon and you wanted to change the name

14 Saturday Jan 2017

Posted by Michael Bersin in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri House

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

General Assembly, HB 600, Jay Nixon, missouri, Paul Fitzwater, pettiness, state parks

Former Governor Jay Nixon (D) [2016 file photo].

Former Governor Jay Nixon (D) [2016 file photo].

Via Missouri State Parks:

Jay Nixon State Park

….Located in Reynolds County, the park’s rugged landscape serves as a backcountry access to the Ozark Trail, which links Taum Sauk Mountain and Johnson’s Shut-Ins state parks. The park features rugged terrain and unblazed trails, making it perfect for those familiar with wilderness travel and seeking a true backcountry experience. The park also includes a rare mountaintop lake, which is home to bluegill and largemouth bass. The park is named for Missouri’s 55th Governor, whose support for conservation and state parks has been nationally recognized….

A press release from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 05, 2017
[….]
Jay Nixon State Park Offers New Backcountry Experience

Missouri’s newest state park offers an outstanding backpacking experience in the heart of the rugged St. Francois Mountains. Missouri State Parks has announced the opening of Jay Nixon State Park, 1,230 acres of wooded, rugged terrain that includes opportunities for backpacking with a connection to the Ozark Trail.

Located in Reynolds County, the park’s rugged landscape serves as a backcountry access to the Ozark Trail, which links Taum Sauk Mountain and Johnson’s Shut-Ins state parks. The park features rugged terrain and unblazed trails, making it perfect for those familiar with wilderness travel and seeking a true backcountry experience. The park also includes a rare mountaintop lake, which is home to bluegill and largemouth bass.

The property was purchased in 2015 with funds received from a Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration settlement with the American Smelting and Refining Company LLC (ASARCO). The Missouri Trustee Council, which includes the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, reviewed the proposed purchase at a public meeting on Dec. 18, 2014 at Johnson’s Shut-Ins State Park.

Currently, there are no facilities at the state park, which can only be accessed from the Ozark Trail. In the future, basic services such as campsites, water and restroom facilities may be added.

Bordered by Taum Sauk Mountain State Park and close to Johnson’s Shut-Ins State Park, Jay Nixon State Park makes a great addition to anyone seeking a backcountry experience.

The park is named for Missouri’s 55th Governor, whose support for conservation and state parks has been nationally recognized.
With the addition of Jay Nixon State Park, Missouri State Parks now offers 92 state parks and historic sites.

###

A bill, filed by Representative Paul Fitzwater (r) this past Thursday:

HB 600  
Renames “Jay Nixon State Park” as “Proffitt Mountain State Park”
Sponsor: Fitzwater, Paul (144)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2017
LR Number: 1353H.01I
Last Action: 01/12/2017 – Introduced and Read First Time (H)
Bill String: HB 600
Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: HOUSE BILLS FOR SECOND READING

The bill text:

FIRST REGULAR SESSION
HOUSE BILL NO. 600 [pdf]
99TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE FITZWATER (144).
1353H.01I D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To amend chapter 253, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to the renaming of a certain state park.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:
Section A. Chapter 253, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 253.125, to read as follows:
253.125. The state park currently known as “Jay Nixon State Park” located in a county of the third classification without a township form of government and with more than six thousand but fewer than seven thousand inhabitants and with a city of the fourth classification with more than one hundred fifty but fewer than two hundred inhabitants as the county seat shall hereby be renamed, known, and cited as the “Proffitt Mountain State Park”. Any such costs expended for the renaming of such state park shall be paid by the department.

[emphasis in original]

That didn’t take long, did it?

“…Rep. Paul Fitzwater, a Republican, represents Iron County and parts of Washington, Wayne and Reynolds Counties (District 144) in the Missouri House of Representatives…”

Fairfax: …Man, that’s just mean. That’s mean, man…

Governor Jay Nixon gets a letter

04 Thursday Aug 2016

Posted by Michael Bersin in Missouri Governor

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

governor, Jay Nixon, missouri, public defender

IMG_7106

Governor Jay Nixon [2016 file photo].

Governor Jay Nixon received a letter [pdf] from Michael Barrett, Director of the Missouri Public Defender System, appointing Governor Nixon as counsel of record in a case:

Missouri State Public Defender
Office of the Director

August 2, 2016

The Honorable Jay Nixon
Governor of Missouri
P.O. Box
Jefferson City, Missouri 65102

Dear Governor Nixon:

Seven Years ago, your office vetoed Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 37, which would have provided caseload relief to an overburdened public defender system. In denying that relief, you acknowledged that MSPD was operating “under significant stresses” and committed to working with the General Assembly to fix the problem, but never did.

Instead, you have repeatedly cut funding for an indigent defense system that continues to rank 49th in the U.S., with a budget that the consumer price indicates has less value now that it did in 2009. After cutting $3.47 million from public defense in 2015, you now cite fiscal discipline as reason to again restrict MSPD’s budget, this time by 8.5%. However, and despite claims that revenues are considerably less than expected, you did not restrict a single dollar from your own budget, and the average withhold from 12 of your executive agencies does not even add up to one half of one percent (.47%).

This action comes even after the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice found that poor black children are being systematically deprived of their rights in Missouri due in large part to the lack of public defenders. Choosing in the wake of that report to further debilitate the very organization that ensures an equal system of justice only adds to the escalating sentiment that the poor and disenfranchised do not receive a fair shake in Missouri’s criminal justice system.

As Director of the Public Defender System, I can only hire attorneys when I have the funding to do so. Because you have restricted that funding, MSPD must hold a significant number of vacant positions open to have the necessary funds to make it through the fiscal year, a task which is exacerbated by a 12% increases in cases over the year prior. To avoid closing one or more offices, the remaining option is to consider the use of Section 600.042.5, which gives the Director of the Public defender System the authority to “[de]elegate the legal representation of any person to any member of the state bar of Missouri.”

As of yet, I have not utilized that provision because it is my sincere belief that it is wrong to reassign an obligation placed on the state by the 6th and 14th Amendments to private attorneys who have in no way contributed to the current crisis. However, given the extraordinary circumstances that compel me to entertain any and all avenues of relief, it strikes me that I should begin with one attorney in the state who not only created this problem, but is in a unique position to address it.

Therefore, pursuant to Section 600.042.5 and as Director of the Missouri Public Defender System tasked with carrying out the State’s obligation to ensure that poor people who face incarceration are afforded competent counsel in their defense, I hereby appoint you, Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Bar No. 29603, to enter your appearance as counsel of record in the attached case.

Very truly yours,
s/
Michael Barrett
Director
[….]

I do believe there are a number of members of the General Assembly who are also members of the Missouri Bar.

Gov. Jay Nixon (D) vetoes SB 656

27 Monday Jun 2016

Posted by Michael Bersin in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri Governor

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

guns, Jay Nixon, Misouri, SB 656, veto

Governor Jay Nixon (D) vetoed SB 656 this morning:

Gov. Nixon vetoes no training, no background check, no permit concealed carry
June 27, 2016
Senate Bill 656 would have eliminated requirement that individuals obtain training, education, a background check and a permit in order to carry a concealed firearm

Jefferson City, MO – Gov. Jay Nixon today vetoed Senate Bill 656, which would have eliminated the current requirements that individuals must obtain training, education, a background check and a permit in order to carry a concealed firearm in Missouri. The bill would have allowed individuals, including those from other states, to legally carry a concealed firearm even though they have been denied a permit because their background check revealed criminal offenses or caused the sheriff to believe they posed a danger.

The Governor will be discussing his veto during an address this morning to hundreds of law enforcement officers from around the state at the Missouri Police Chiefs Association annual conference.

“Here in Missouri, responsible gun ownership and support for the Second Amendment are strongly held values. These values are part of who we are, and a tradition we pass from generation to generation,” said Gov. Nixon. “As Governor, I have signed bills to expand the rights of law-abiding Missourians to carry concealed and am always willing to consider ways to further improve our CCW process. But I cannot support the extreme step of throwing out that process entirely, eliminating sensible protections like background checks and training requirements, and taking away the ability of sheriffs to protect their communities.”

Since 2003, Missouri law has set forth a process for obtaining a concealed carry permit. This well-established process requires classroom and range training, as well as a background check and review by the sheriff, before an applicant can obtain a concealed carry permit.

Under this well-established process, sheriffs have also appropriately rejected many individuals’ applications and those decisions have been upheld by courts on appeal.

In his veto message, Gov. Nixon provided examples of individuals who could automatically carry a concealed weapon under this law who cannot do so today, including individuals who have pled guilty to a felony and received a suspended imposition of sentence; individuals who have been convicted of misdemeanor assault; and individuals with two or more misdemeanor drug possession convictions.

“I cannot support a system that would ignore a determination by the chief law enforcement officer of a county that an individual is a danger to the community and should not be authorized to carry a concealed firearm,” said the Governor in his veto message. “Allowing currently prohibited individuals to automatically be able to carry concealed would make Missouri less safe.”

The Governor’s concerns echo those voiced by law enforcement agencies, including theMissouri Police Chiefs Association (MPCA), representing 600 members statewide, and the Missouri Fraternal Order of Police, which represents 6,400 law enforcement officers across the state.

In a letter to the Governor, Missouri Fraternal Order of Police President Kevin Ahlbrand wrote, “Make no mistake, we are staunch supporters of the Second Amendment. We feel, however, that the enactment of SB 656, specifically the allowance of giving anyone not currently prohibited from possessing a firearms, the ability to carry a concealed firearm without a permit, will cost not only citizen lives but will also be extremely dangerous to law enforcement officers.”

“The Missouri Police Chiefs Association is concerned for the safety of citizens and officers, through the loss of the balance that has existed in Missouri relating to the carrying of concealed weapons for the past several years, and the language in SB 656 that will even allow those persons convicted of crimes to use a verdict that includes a suspended imposition of sentence (SIS) to legally carry a concealed weapon,” said MPCA President Chief Paul Williams. “During a time that balanced approaches and solutions are needed more than ever to face increasing challenges, there is no need to create an imbalance, and potentially decrease the safety of citizens and police officers alike, through such a profound change in Missouri’s concealed carry law, which has served this state well over the past several years.”

[….]

By they way, there’s that other piece of right wingnut stupidity in the bill – “stand your ground”.

Previously:

CCS HCS SB 656: hypocrisy (May 14, 2016)

Gov. Jay Nixon (D): on SB 656 (“stand your ground”) and HJR 53/HB 1631 (voter ID) (June 16, 2016)

Gun crazy (June 25, 2016)

This times 32,283* (June 27, 2016)

Gov. Jay Nixon (D): on SB 656 (“stand your ground”) and HJR 53/HB 1631 (voter ID)

16 Thursday Jun 2016

Posted by Michael Bersin in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri Governor

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

governor, guns, HB 1631, HJR 53, Jay Nixon, missouri, SB 656, stand your ground, voter ID

Governor Jay Nixon (D) traveled to Warrensburg this morning to sign SB 997, a higher education bill, on the campus of the University of Central Missouri.

Governor Jay Nixon (D) - in Warrensburg - June 16, 2016.

Governor Jay Nixon (D) – in Warrensburg – June 16, 2016.

Governor Nixon spoke with media after the bill signing:

Question: ….Governor, as you’re looking at bills that you have to consider Senate Bill, uh, 656 is coming up. Where are you with that?

Governor Jay Nixon (D): Which one? I’m sorry.

Question: That’s the, uh, the, uh, um stand your ground.

Governor Nixon: Well, I mean, we’re, all the bills go through a pretty, uh, you know, thorough review. Um, you know, that’s one which I’m looking at very carefully because, uh, you know, a few years ago we, we struck a deal to put, uh, sheriffs in a position where they, uh, had the ability to, um, review and, uh, reject, uh, conceal carry permits. Uh, to move to a point which you took that power away from sheriffs, took that responsibility away from them and their communities is something that, uh, that, that we’re looking at very, very carefully. But, I, I haven’t made a final decision on the bill other than to say that, uh, when, when the legislature comes and, and moves policy pretty significantly from where we all agreed it should be a couple years ago that gets a very close review.

Question: So, are you getting any kind of public, uh, feedback on, on the bill?

Governor Nixon: Um, when I, when I make that decision I’ll do that publicly for sure. But we’re still in the bill review process and still, uh, gathering facts and information. And, and, uh, when I make my final decision I’ll certainly make that public.

Question: I have a question on the voter ID law. I understand that’s actually a two part law. Uh, I have it on good authority and the, as I understand it one part puts it on the ballot, that’s pretty much a gotta do thing, but what’s that second part that you have veto power over?

Governor Nixon: Yeah, the first part is to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot for this, this fall. I placed it on the November ballot so that the most people would have a chance to see, uh, whether they wanted to, uh, to support that or not. The second piece is they went ahead and passed in, in essence what’s called implementing legislation, uh, before that vote. Um, I look at this, this bill, um, you know, my position is we should make voting available to as many people as we possibly can. I mean, and we should make it as easy as we possibly can for people to vote. Uh, and, uh, so we’re reviewing this, this is relatively similar to a measure that I vetoed a few years ago, uh, that would have, uh, made it very expensive and difficult, especially for senior citizens and others that didn’t have driving privileges to, uh, to get a separate state issued ID. So, um, it’s not an area that my, my general philosophy is let’s make voting, uh, easier for folks, um, so this kind of, uh, comes at that. But, I haven’t made a final decision on that, but we’ll, uh, we’ll be acting on that one relatively quickly.

Question: [crosstalk] If you were to in theory, not that you’re going to, veto this what would it do in terms of the effect on the vote that [crosstalk] comes in November?

Governor Nixon: Well, it, wouldn’t really effect the vote in, directly, in the sense other than it would be, I would, I would lay out what I thought the, my position was at that time. But, you could, you could, uh, the public would then have to vote and assuming that veto was, uh, uh, upheld, uh, then the legislature has to come back next year and put, put rules and regulations in this. So, um, but, uh, I think we’re a long way to the finish line there. I do think that the basic philosophy I have is let’s make voting more open and easy, and especially for, for seniors and, and other folks that don’t drive. Um, it’s, it’s, uh, it’s , it’s extremely challenging to say that, uh, we should make it more difficult for them to cast what is, uh, one of the fundamental rights of citizenry….

IMG_7106

Previously:

Voter ID and the GOP art of hoodwinkery (April 7, 2016)

CCS HCS SB 656: hypocrisy (May 14, 2016)

Claire and Jay do their best for Hillary

20 Wednesday Jan 2016

Posted by willykay in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Bernie Sanders, Claire McCaskill, Election 2016, Hillary Clinton, Jay Nixon, missouri

Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill wasted no time coming out for Hillary Clinton. Her alacrity  – she endorsed Clinton in June, declaring that “it’s important we start early” – suggested to some that she saw the  writing on the wall when it came to 2016 and she was sure that it spelled “Hillary.” Naturally, so the story goes, McCaskill had some work to do to make nice with the candidate she dissed in 2008 in favor of Barack Obama, hence the early endorsement.

Nor, now that she is committed, is McCaskill a slacker in Clinton’s tightening primary fight against Bernie Sanders. Yesterday she attacked him in the New York Times as an unelectable extremist, declaring that “the Republicans won’t touch him because they can’t wait to run an ad with a hammer and sickle.”

Missouri’s other prominent Democrat, Governor Jay Nixon, also added his two cents to the Times account:

“Here in the heartland, we like our politicians in the mainstream, and he is not — he’s a socialist,” said Gov. Jay Nixon of Missouri, who is term-limited and working to elect a Democratic successor. “He’s entitled to his positions, and it’s a big-tent party, but as far as having him at the top of the ticket, it would be a meltdown all the way down the ballot.”

Heartland! Save me from all the cliches. Of course Democrats maintain a big tent. If we didn’t, neither Nixon nor McCaskill would be welcome. That’s something that the Sanders’ insurgency is making very clear.

Nevertheless, there is some evidence that McCaskill and Nixon may be right about, what else, Republican perceptions. Prominent Republicans like Party Chairman Rince Pribus and Carl Rove have lately seemed to be boosting Sanders’ candidacy. Why? To answer that question Steve Benen cites Claire McCaskill’s last Senate race:

In the larger context, the idea of partisans taking steps to choose their own opponent is hardly unprecedented. Perhaps the best recent example was the 2012 U.S. Senate race in Missouri, when Sen. Claire McCaskill (D) carefully and methodically helped boost then-Rep. Todd Akin (R) in his primary race, confident she could beat him in a general election. (She was right; McCaskill won by over 15 points.)

In today’s Washington Post, Greg Sargent suggests that there may be some truth to the arguments coming from both the Sanders and Clinton camps. While noting that “head-to-head general election polling right now is meaningless,” he says of Sanders:

… the political science tells us that perceptions of moderation in a candidate — as opposed to perceptions that a candidate is outside the mainstream — actually can make a difference. So does the history (see Goldwater, Barry, and McGovern, George). To be clear, I’m not saying Sanders could not overcome perceptions as out of the mainstream, if such perceptions do currently exist. He might be able to do that. It’s possible such perceptions might not form at all. But it’s also very possible that Republicans could successfully paint Sanders as an ideological outlier, and that this could matter. It’s not crazy, illegitimate, or out of bounds to raise these concerns.

Sargent then proceeds to point out that Clinton is also vulnerable to arguments about electability:

… The Sanders camp points out that only he can motivate younger and newer voters, as evidenced by what we’re seeing in the Democratic primary. The question of whether Clinton can motivate those voters is a very serious concern, one that has been raised by veteran Democratic pollsters such as Stan Greenberg, and one that really does call into question whether Clinton will be able to win in November. Meanwhile, to my knowledge the Clinton camp has not meaningfully addressed the fair point that she made similar “electability” arguments against Barack Obama in 2008, which turned out (obviously) to be very wrong.

Add the on-going GOP efforts, aided and abetted by mainstream media, to paint Clinton as untrustworthy and “unlikeable,” and you may have a real argument.

But maybe the anti-Sanders contingent is right. Maybe the only thing that will save the election for the Democrats is the primacy of one of the really ridiculous Republican candidates. Who knows?  Elections are never certain, and while I understand the legitimate anxiety that prompts concerns about electability – the ugly GOP presidential line-up and the destructive nature of even the so-called moderates’ positions justify our worst fears –  that is not the criteria that should determine one’s choice of candidate.

All I know is that I’ll support either candidate with my whole heart when the primary is over. I also know that I’ll be glad to see the back of Jay Nixon though I’ll have to hold my nose and vote for the pseudo-Democratic candidate, Attorney General Chris Koster. Same goes for that inestimable centrist, Claire McCaskill, if she runs again – although I don’t think that the powers that be can guarantee her the gift of another Todd Akin.

The power (sometimes) of speaking out

08 Sunday Nov 2015

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

football, Gary Pinkel, Jay Nixon, missouri, racism, University of Missouri

If you have a voice you have an obligation to use it.

In the Kansas City Star:

November 8, 2015
Yael T. Abouhalkah: Black football players’ strike thrusts MU into national spotlight on racial unrest

By Yael T. Abouhalkah

The announced strike by black football players at the University of Missouri is far more than a sports story. It further thrusts the school into the national spotlight regarding racial unrest, especially on college campuses.

The players are seeking a huge change. They want the resignation or firing of the state’s top university official, president Tim Wolfe.

Others have called for that action — including a student engaged in a hunger strike — but the involvement of the school’s best-known sports team demonstrably increased attention to this issue….

Via Twitter, from University of Missouri football coach Gary Pinkel:

GaryPinkel110815

Coach Gary Pinkel ‏@GaryPinkel
The Mizzou Family stands as one. We are united. We are behind our players. #ConcernedStudent1950 GP 11:39 AM – 8 Nov 2015

From Governor Jay Nixon:

Gov. Nixon statement regarding student protests at the University of Missouri
November 8, 2015

JEFFERSON CITY – Gov. Jay Nixon today issued the following statement regarding student protests at the University of Missouri.

“Racism and intolerance have no place at the University of Missouri or anywhere in our state,” Gov. Nixon said. “Our colleges and universities must be havens of trust and understanding. These concerns must be addressed to ensure the University of Missouri is a place where all students can pursue their dreams in an environment of respect, tolerance and inclusion.”

If you speak out someone else may listen.

Campaign Finance: political education

10 Monday Aug 2015

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

campaign finance, Jay Nixon, missouri, Missouri Ethics Commission

Today at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C001135 08/09/2015 A BETTER MISSOURI WITH GOVERNOR JAY NIXON UA Political Education Committee Three Park Place Annapolis MD 21401 8/7/2015 $20,000.00

[emphasis added]

What’s up with that?

Previously:

Campaign Finance: What’s up with that? (December 18, 2014)

Campaign Finance: What’s up with that? – part 2 (December 28, 2014)

Campaign Finance: What’s up with that? – part 3 (June 13, 2015)

Are we talking about the same Missouri General Assembly?

25 Thursday Jun 2015

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

ACA, Jay Nixon, Medicaid expansion, missouri, Obamacare, SCOTUScare!, Supreme Court

“…I look forward to working with the General Assembly next session to finally bring our tax dollars home and provide affordable health coverage to hundreds of thousands of hard-working Missourians through Medicaid expansion.”

A statement released by the office of Governor Jay Nixon:

Gov. Nixon statement on ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in King v. Burwell

June 25, 2015

Jefferson City, MO

Gov. Jay Nixon today issued the following statement regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in King v. Burwell.

“Today’s ruling is good news for hundreds of thousands of working Missourians who will continue to have access to affordable health coverage through the federal exchange,” said Gov. Nixon.  “However, it is important to note that there are hundreds of thousands more Missourians who continue to be denied access to affordable health care due to the Missouri legislature’s inaction on Medicaid.

“Today’s ruling by the Roberts Court to uphold the Affordable Care Act a second time removes all doubt that the ACA is and will remain the law of the land.  There are no more excuses for continuing to send our tax dollars to other states and denying 300,000 working Missourians the opportunity to access affordable health care coverage through Medicaid expansion.  I look forward to working with the General Assembly next session to finally bring our tax dollars home and provide affordable health coverage to hundreds of thousands of hard-working Missourians through Medicaid expansion.”

A guy can dream.

Previously:

* SCOTUScare! (June 25, 2015)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): has a SCOTUScare! sad (June 25, 2015)

Elections always matter

14 Sunday Jun 2015

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Chris Kobach, Jason Kander, Jay Nixon, Kansas, missouri, Sam Brownback, social media, Twitter

Via Twitter:

Kansas Independents ‏@KS_Independents

Does HB 2155 make it so that I can offer Missouri Brownback and Kobach in exchange for Nixon and Kander? #ksleg #legalizedfantasysports 11:03 AM – 13 Jun 2015

A response:

Jason Kander @JasonKander

Sorry, I’d invoke my contract’s no trade clause. [….] 7:54 PM – 13 Jun 2015

As if Rex Sinquefield is finished with Missouri?

Previously:

Inviting the leader of a sovereign state to speak in your capital city to tweak your elected leader (March 4, 2015)

If you radically defund state universities how can you expect them to field a basketball team? (March 22, 2015)

A sign for the times (April 3, 2015)

This is the matter with Kansas (June 7, 2015)

Kansas: Now what? (June 8, 2015)

Campaign Finance: What’s up with that? – part 3

13 Saturday Jun 2015

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

campaign finance, governor, Jay Nixon, missouri

Yesterday at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C001135 06/12/2015 A BETTER MISSOURI WITH GOVERNOR JAY NIXON UAW V CAP 8000 East Jefferson Avenue Detroit MI 48214 6/10/2015 $50,000.00

[emphasis added]

That’s a lot.

As far as we can tell Governor Jay Nixon isn’t running for another political office in 2016.

Previously:

Campaign Finance: What’s up with that? (December 18, 2014)

Campaign Finance: What’s up with that? – part 2 (December 28, 2014)

← Older posts

Subscribe

  • Entries (RSS)
  • Comments (RSS)

Archives

  • 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

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

  • 775,156 hits

Powered by WordPress.com.

 

Loading Comments...