It’s not like Senator Jeff Smith (D-SD4) actually thought, when he filed a bill proposing public campaign financing, that it might pass. But you have to put these ideas out there and get people used to hearing about them. Another Jeff–by the name of Harris (Rep., D-HD23)–had the same notion when he filed a bill that would grant control of CAFOs to the communities where they’d be located.

We’ll see how Harris fares, but Smith’s bill has already gone down in flames. At the time that Charlie Shields brought the bill up for a vote–this was before their spring break–there were many questions, plenty of curiosity. And no support. Only three other Dems were on the floor when the vote was called, and two of them (Chuck Graham of Columbia, and Tim Green of north St. Louis County) were co-sponsors of the 2006 bill that lifted campaign contribution limits.

The nays were so resounding that Smith didn’t even want to ask for a roll call, lest it turn out to be 32-1. No use letting an important idea end up looking lunatic fringe.

Just bring it up again next year, Jeff, and every one of your remaining years. Do what you do so well: talk to everybody and build as much consensus as possible, both within the Senate and in the community at large.

[M]ore neurological development occurs by the age of 4 than in the rest of a person’s life – and impoverished toddlers are at special risk of receiving limited brain stimulation. Children unable to read by third grade are unlikely to graduate high school, and will cost society dearly in increased social service costs.

That’s the argument Senator Jeff Smith (D-SD4) used to try to persuade the state Senate to accept his amendment to a bill Charlie Shields (R-SD34) was sponsoring that would require the state to rate the quality of pre-schools. Smith’s amendment offers free pre-school to three and four year olds if the family earns less than 130 percent of poverty and if the family lives in an unaccredited school district (there are three in the St. Louis area–SLPS, Wellston, Riverview Gardens–and one in Wyaconda in northeast Missouri). The proposal, which would cost the state about $5 million a year, aims to help 1250 children a year come to kindergarten prepared to read, so that they’ll be set on a path to success.

The debate lasted several hours, with the opposition arguing that the St. Louis Public Schools have failed at managing their budget and at achieving decent academic goals. Their dropout rate is abysmal, so some legislators feel the district should not be rewarded for its incompetence. Smith argued that we’ve unaccredited the district; now we need to give those children a helping hand.

He says that when the Senate prepared to vote:

I breathed a sigh of relief as I looked around the room and saw several allies in their seats. But then, even though the “Ayes” seemed louder than the “No’s”, the chair called the vote for the “No’s”. I quickly rose to request a roll-call vote, which Democrats (outnumbered 20-14) often dread, because senators often look to the bill sponsor [in this case, Shields] for guidance before voting on amendments, and because important roll-call votes usually fall along party lines. Sen. Shields had told me only that he “wouldn’t fight” the amendment – vague enough to leave open the option of voting against without speaking against it. This also did not necessarily preclude the frequently-employed but barely perceptible shake of the head (if another senator were to seek guidance).

But in the end, though my amendment significantly increased the cost of the bill and was thus opposed by the influential Appropriations Chair, Sen. Shields voted yes (along with every Democrat and 7 Republicans), and the amendment prevailed 21-7. I plan to work with Sen. Shields to help shepherd the bill through the House, though its prospects are uncertain.

The problem with getting it through the House is that a bill requiring a quality rating system for pre-schools failed there last year. If the House passes it this time, the funds for the pre-school program will be divided between public schools and non-sectarian community-based early childhood centers–for two reasons.

The first is that a previous bill offering free pre-school to poor children in Kansas City had the unintended consequence of driving some community-based pre-schools out of business. Furthermore, the St. Louis Public Schools do not even have the space and slots available to effectively use all of the money. And besides, diverting half of the money to private early child care centers helped appease some of those who feel that giving the SLPS such a reward is throwing good money after bad.

None of those who voted Aye will still be in the Senate when St. Louis and Wyaconda begin reaping the rewards of Smith’s vision fifteen years hence. Those 21 senators, nevertheless, voted for the long term. Perhaps the House, as well, will see the wisdom of leaving such a legacy.    

Say it ain’t so. Jeff Smith has taken $9,750 from Rex Sinquefield’s shell committees. It looks bad, not so much because it could make Jeff look corrupt as because it legitimizes taking money from someone who is skirting campaign finance law in Missouri.

As for the corruption issue, that one’s easy to rebut. Although Jeff has taken money from Sinquefield, we need not worry that the cash will influence Jeff to support vouchers. Jeff has always opposed vouchers and has proven it. After accepting the money from Sinquefield, he turned around and declined to sponsor Derio Gambaro for the State Board of Education, thus effectively deep sixing Gambaro’s nomination. Refusing to sponsor Board of Education nominees is practically unknown, but that was the second time in a year that Jeff declined to sponsor a nominee from his district, and in both cases the specific reason was that the nominees were pro-voucher.

Sinquefield is not buying a vote for vouchers with his contribution to Jeff’s campaign.  

Instead, the Sinquefield contributions come from committees working to advance the cause of charter schools and to bring more highly qualified teachers into the St. Louis City school district. Both of those are causes Jeff has always espoused. In 2000, he helped form and still promotes a charter school in the city, Confluence Academy.

As for obtaining more qualified teachers for city schools, I’ve written about Jeff’s proposals to allow teachers to opt into a voluntary pay for performance program, to certify teachers without education courses if they are highly qualified in their subject area, and to offer $5000 bonuses to teachers in areas with the most critical shortage of qualified people.

Okay, so Jeff’s not corrupt, but is he wise? There’s still that niggling question of taking money from a man who is skirting campaign finance law in an attempt to privatize more of our educational system. If Sinquefield has his way, the public school system in this state will be weakened because our tax money will enable parents to send their children to private schools–a topic I’ve also written about.

Jeff responded to that criticism in a phone conversation we had, pointing out first that taking money from groups who are skirting campaign finance laws is nothing new. That particular gambit has been going on for years.

In the city of St. Louis, for example, Pyramid Construction creates a new LLC for every new development it gets involved in. There are probably fifty of them, and the money goes overwhelmingly to Democrats–people like Yaphett el-Amin, who ran against Jeff for state senator, alderman Lewis Reed, alderman Mike McMillan, and Mayor Slay. Unions do the same thing. Each local will have a different PAC or several PACs. One union might give to a candidate out of a dozen different PACs.

Sinquefield and his 100 PACs are nothing new. He’s just a bit more brazen than real estate, insurance, and development firms and unions.

And besides, Jeff notes, “I’m not using any of this money for myself. I’m using it to get other Democrats elected.” In a year when he isn’t running, he plans to use the money to help in five senate races he has his eye on.

I’ll give away over 99 percent of the money I take in. In fact, I didn’t ask for the money for myself. I asked for it for the caucus or campaign committee and they ended up writing it to me, which I didn’t know was going to happen.

Furthermore, Jeff says that, as the senator in charge of getting more Democratic senators elected this year, he’s not willing to handcuff himself. If he only accepted money from people with whom he always agreed, he’d only be able to accept about 20 percent of the money he now gets. As Michael Bersin pointed out to me, turning down that other 80 percent would be like unilateral disarmament.

Ain’t that an ugly system? Yes, indeedy, and Jeff knows it. That’s why he’s introducing a clean elections bill this year. It’s modeled on the laws that a few other states have enacted to good effect. It basically offers public financing to legislative and gubernatorial candidates who collect a given amount of seed money in small contributions to prove that they’ve got an acceptable level of public support.

The bill doesn’t have a prayer in this legislature, of course, and might not have even if Dems were in charge. (Keep in mind that Democratic state senators Tim Green, Florissant, and Chuck Graham, Columbia, co-sponsored the bill that lifted all the campaign finance limitations.) Until there’s a groundswell of public outcry for such legislation, it will get nowhere. But still, Jeff’s putting the idea out there.

Note: On this blogsite, I’ve been hard on candidates over this campaign finance issue. I’ve criticized Chris Koster for taking Sinquefield money, and after all Koster insists he’s not pro-voucher. (But then again, considering Koster’s legislative record, why would I trust him?) I’ve come down hard on Hillary and Obama for taking more money from big pharma and defense contractors than any other candidates, Republican or Democratic. (Their records seem less progressive to me than Edwards’s, so I find their huge campaign warchests suspect.)

Have I been too much of a purist? Couldn’t say for sure. I do know that I find myself giving Jeff Smith the benefit of the doubt. Maybe that’s just because I’ve known him since 2003 and did some phone calling for him in his attempt to take Gephardt’s open seat in 2004. The bottom line is that I like him personally and I appreciate his fervor for helping his constituents.

So I’ll take refuge in Walt Whitman: “Do I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself.”

Crista Carr Shatz, a St. Louis activist, is worked up about this news:

Just a few days after announcing he would reject voucher supporter Derio Gambaro’s appointment to the State Board of Education, Sen. Jeff Smith, D-St. Louis, filed his quarterly report showing he accepted $9,750 from 15 shell committees formed by retired billionaire voucher supporter Rex Sinquefield.

The disclosure documents, filed three days after the Jan. 15 deadline, showed Smith accepted maximum $650 contributions from 10 regional Public Charter Schools for Missouri committees (Smith has said he supports public charter schools), and five regional committees of Missourians Supporting Teaching Excellence.

So Crista asked me to post this account of her phone call to Jeff and her reaction to what he had to say:

I called Jeff’s office to demand an explanation.  An excellent and sympathetic aide listened and wanted to reassure me Jeff opposes vouchers, which is ostensibly what the money is about, in my limited understanding.  I insisted, it’s about laundered money and buying elections, not vouchers. I have no argument with Jeff on educational policy and support charter schools done right.  She said she had no acceptable answer about funnelling cash through committees and took my number.

Jeff called me back within minutes.  

He basically threw himself on his sword, said politics makes nice people do bad things and yes it’s disgusting but he has to raise the money any way he can to beat the republicans and regain control of the legislature.  No excuses, it’s ugly but for now, we have no choice.  The candidates who are not selling out obviously think differently.

He encouraged me to keep making it an issue.  You can be sure I am. Democracy has become a commodity to be bought and sold because we, the voters, have allowed it to happen.  That’s the bottom line.  It will only change when public outcry makes it happen. How can a candidate be called progressive when they engage in the same old same old? I guess when it works.

Margaret Donnelley isn’t taking money laundered through committees.

In my 73rd district Stacey Newman isn’t, and feels VERY strongly about it.  Steve Brown, her primary opponent and Jeff’s close friend is taking obscene amounts funnelled thru committees by his dad Mel Brown.  Mel is also showering Koster with cash. I don’t know about Harris.

The reporting on cash in the website is excellent. Thank goodness for the Mo Ethics Commission site and the devoted folks who deliver the info on our blog.  Should we make a gameplan for putting this more in front of the public?  I called Jo Mannies about it this week and she agrees it’s sickening but nothing will change ’til voter’s attitudes change.  Like all change, it will percolate up the bottom, not happen at the top, because knocking on doors, making calls and writing letters can beat TV ads at the local level.

Should we demand public campaign financing?  Is that even an answer?

I just talked to Jeff and will publish a posting on this topic late Thursday or Friday.

State senator Jeff Smith (D-St. Louis) is intent on improving the city’s public schools.  Jeff has plans.  Whether he can get all or any of them enacted by a Republican legislature remains to be seen, but he’s been doing his homework, so to speak, and his plans are based on talking to a wide range of people. 

He talks to St. Louis Public Schools principals, to the teachers’ union, to the head of the appointed board, Rick Sullivan, to educational experts from across the nation, such as leaders of groups like Public Impact and the Education Trust.  He has visited some 38 schools in the city this year, usually unannounced, and guided his own tours through them to spare himself any dog and pony shows.  Jeff wants to know what reality looks like in St. Louis city schools, so that he can best plan how to improve them.

He intends to introduce a bill that would  mandate a number of new programs in districts that are unaccredited or provisionally accredited.  Here’s a sampling:
 

• Free child care would be available for children between three years old and kindergarten who qualify for reduced price lunches.
• Students would stay with the same teacher for two-three years.  Since ten percent of St. Louis city students are homeless, such a program would help a teacher get to know students.  It would add stability and foster relationships that might help keep kids in school.
• Teachers could opt into a voluntary pay for performance program.  Their pay would be partially based on their students’ progress.  Such teachers would give up tenure protection while in the program in exchange for the chance to make, say, one and a  half times their usual pay if their students averaged one and a half year’s progress in a year.  (The program would be funded by a one million dollar state pilot program.)  This program is modeled after one used in Denver, where the overwhelming majority of teachers signed up for it.

To address the severe shortage of teachers in certain subject areas, such as math science, and English as a second language, Jeff is recommending three programs:

• ABCTE certifies teachers without education courses if they pass a competency exam in their content area.  Of course it would be preferable to have fully certified teachers, but Jeff figures it’s better to at least have teachers who understand math teaching math.  Some of them will, no doubt, be poor at communicating with students while others will do well even without education courses.  At least, with this program, half the students have a chance at getting a teacher who can teach them math or science.
• $5000 bonuses would be offered for teachers in the areas of the most acute shortages.  The teachers’ union objects to this provision as well as to the ABCTE program, and Jeff understands their point that all teachers should be compensated as well as possible (and trained adequately).  But students are drawing the short straw as far as instruction in math and science, and that deficiency must be remedied.
• In order to be sure that teachers know the subject matter well enough to teach it, they would be required, every five years, to pass–with 60 percent competency–a test in their subject area.  If they fail, they could retake it within three months.  Jeff believes that 60 percent competency is not asking too much.  (As a retired teacher myself, I agree.  If a teacher doesn’t know that much, he should be gone.)

In addition to the legislation he’s proposing, Jeff also hopes to encourage Rick Sullivan to do everything possible to involve parents.  And knowing that many poor parents have reasons to take little interest in visiting schools (such as working two jobs or never having been that fond of school themselves), he is urging Sullivan to try two ideas to get parents to parent nights: 

• Approach local corporations to sponsor such nights.  For a couple of thousand dollars, they could put out food at ten schools to make it easier and more appealing for busy parents to get there.
• Offer programs for the parents in addition to information about what their children are doing in school.  Such programs might include home repair instruction,  information about tax preparation or help in job interviewing skills.

Jeff’s heart is in the right place as far as helping the city schools, but that doesn’t necessarily mean everyone in the community backs him.  The teachers’ union is unhappy with some of his ideas, and he took a lot of flak last spring by not opposing the state takeover of the city schools.  Some of his constituents are still upset about that. 

All he can say to his critics is that as he investigates what should be done to help failing school districts, he finds himself to be less of an ideologue and more of a pragmatist.  The state takeover was pretty much inevitable, and he wants to work effectively with those in charge.  (And besides, he sees Sullivan spending a lot of time listening to all points of view about what the city schools need.)

Those who don’t always agree with him will at least grant, I hope, that he’s working his tail off to do an effective job in a dire situation. 

Republicans are nervous about Missouri’s financial outlook for 2010, so I asked Clint Zweifel (D-Florissant) what’s going to hit the fan that year.  There are two pieces of Republican legislation, he tells me, that will bite us in 2010.

First, the state was already burdened with $400 million a year in tax credits.  This year alone, the legislature added another $100 million in credits–without any cost benefit analysis.

And, by the way, there’s another $350 million in liability lurking out there if all tax credits were actually redeemed.  They won’t all be redeemed, but how much will be is a variable that’s difficult to predict.

The second splurge that we’ll discover we can’t afford is the social security tax cuts.  Those will cost the state another $155 mill a year.  And the sad part is that only ten percent of seniors will benefit from that cut, most of them in the $75,000-100,000 annual income bracket.

That tax cut was never meant to benefit the poorest seniors because there are no taxes on social security income below the $35,000-40,000 income range.  The average income for people 62 and older in this state is a paltry $25,000.  Those people won’t see a dime of this money.  And there’ll be less money available now for the social services those people need.

Republicans would have made the financial outlook for the state even bleaker if it hadn’t been for Senator Jeff Smith (D-St. Louis).  Having counted the votes, he saw that the legislation was going to pass, so he got it amended to cap the tax cuts for incomes above $100,000.

What were the Republicans thinking when they passed that bill?  Somebody needs to cut up their legislative credit card.  Seriously.