The battle between Rodney Hubbard and Robin Wright-Jones ranks among the nastiest in memory. And I’m not talking about the sign wars hotflash posted about previously. Nor am I talking about the hard-hitting mailers from each campaign and their allies.

First off, a racist flier was circulated without attribution in South Saint Louis. The flier described Rodney Hubbard as a thug, Republican, deadbeat dad, Muslim, and so on. You can see it for yourself here. Undoubtedly, this swung votes to Wright-Jones and depressed turnout for Hubbard, and it was delivered to an area where it would have the most impact. For their part, both Robin Wright-Jones and her campaign manager Glenn Burleigh denied that their campaign had anything to do with the creation, design, production, or dissemination of the flier. Burleigh himself said that the fliers “smacked of racism”. Burleigh told me the Wright-Jones campaign was concerned that the flier would hurt them, rather than Hubbard, by causing a backlash. Some of their supporters voiced their suspicion that the Hubbard campaign might have come up with the flier in order to do just that. That doesn’t really make sense, though, because in order to gain sympathy in a backlash, you’d actually have to spread the attacks pretty far, and it would take time, money, and effort to stoke outrage over the fliers and produce a backlash. The fliers were distributed too close to the election for that to happen.

I’ve asked a couple of people in the Hubbard campaign exactly how they came by these fliers, and to produce evidence that Wright-Jones’ campaign had something to do with them, and so far, no response. Still, whoever produced the flier, there’s a good chance Wright-Jones won because of them, as the margin of victory was only 111 votes, and more than one thousand fliers were produced.

More, including Hubbard’s alleged transgressions, below the flip.

As bad as that nasty flier is, it’s nothing compared to what Robin Wright-Jones’ campaign manager Glenn Burleigh alleges about the Hubbard campaign’s activities in the hours leading up to the primary.

According to Burleigh, Hubbard’s campaign took a page out of the New Hampshire Republicans. The Hubbard campaign allegedly jammed Robin’s GOTV program by repeatedly calling the phone number publicly listed for getting rides to the polls, tying up the line so that legitimate callers couldn’t get through. They also supposedly repeatedly called the cell phones of Robin and her senior staff so that they could not communicate effectively on Election Day. And finally, during their final GOTV push, Robin supporters told volunteers that they had been informed by the Hubbard campaign that the polls had been moved to Wednesday because of the heat advisory on Election Day.

I want to note that I haven’t seen substantiation of any of the above charges. But I’m bringing them up even after the conclusion of the primary because this type of crap does not belong in Democratic politics, and I hope that, if true, those responsible never work in politics again. Let’s leave dirty tricks to the GOP.

A helpful reader protested that, pace Michael, the Missouri Club for Growth does not donate solely to Republicans. And he’s right. According to their latest MEC filing, Club for Growth has donated a total of $9,616.41 between four Democratic candidates: Rodney Hubbard ($4,908), Curt Dougherty ($1,871), Tishaura Jones ($1,182), and Michael Favazza ($1,653). Jones and Dougherty are incumbent state representatives fighting off primary challengers, Hubbard is in a tough battle for an open state senate seat, and Michael Favazza is running against semi-incumbent Michele Kratky for a state house seat. (Michele won a special election for her husband’s former seat back in February. She was unopposed.)

The donations are all in-kind; they are mailings purchased from Victory Enterprises, a consulting group in Iowa. They don’t advertise their party leanings, but they were founded by the former Chairman of the Iowa Republican Party.

Our helpful reader can perhaps shed some more light as to why these Democrats were selected, but as far as I can tell, all four of them have taken stances more commonly associated with Republicans on a few high profile issues. I mean, Jones isn’t getting Club for Growth money because she wants to decriminalize marijuana.

Hubbard has voted for repealing campaign contribution limits. Hubbard and Favazza want to give tax credits to parents who pay tuition in private schools, and Dougherty, Jones, and Hubbard all want lower caps on damages in medical malpractice lawsuits.

So yeah, Missouri Club for Growth is not a reflexively Republican outfit. They are an ideologically conservative group that isn’t afraid to primary challenge Republicans or fund Democrats in select instances. It works, too – Arlen Specter veered right after a primary challenger funded by the national Club for Growth nearly knocked him off in 2004.

On Tuesday, I wrote about the campaign sign brouhaha going on between Rodney Hubbard and Jim Roos. Roos (pictured at left) says he’s been–with the permission of property owners–taking down Hubbard signs that were put up without the permission of those owners. Hubbard says Roos has been stealing the signs.

In the comments, ashriver suggested I contact the property owners to determine the truth of the matter. That sounded like a decent idea to me, so I drove downtown and got a list of the properties in question from Jim Roos. Unfortunately, the main thing I learned is that property owners and managers do not want to be in the middle of a political argument. They run businesses, and they don’t want anybody mad at them.

I only got two owner/managers to talk to me, and in each case basically got confirmation of Roos’s account. But both were quick to request that I not use their name or the address of their business.

In one case, for example, Roos’s notes indicated that he saw a 4′ X 6′ Hubbard sign in front of a gas station, stopped to ask if it had been put there with permission and if not, whether he could come back that evening and take it down. The manager told him that it was the third such unauthorized sign and that he (the manager) wasn’t going to wait until evening, whereupon the manager went outside and took it down himself.

When I spoke to the manager, he told me that he drove up to the gas station, saw the sign, planned to take it down immediately, but went inside first, where he found Roos, who had just walked in and was talking to the clerk. When Roos asked if he could come back that evening and take down the sign, the manager told me that he didn’t want to wait, that he went outside and took the sign down and threw it in the dumpster. He said Roos came back that evening with his truck and took the sign away.

I asked the manager if he had taken down two previous signs, and he said he couldn’t remember. He manages more than one place and has taken down other signs.

What this man stressed to me is that he doesn’t even know whether Rodney Hubbard is a Democrat or a Republican. He has no opinion on Hubbard. The only opinion he does have is that he doesn’t want to offend any of his customers with political signs. He said: “I would have taken the sign down anyway. I don’t want to be on a side. I want to be neutral and live peaceably.”

And he asked me not to give his name or the address of the station.

That gentleman was the most forthcoming of those I called. One other man basically confirmed that signs had been put up without permission and that Roos removed one with his permission. But he was reluctant to tell me even that much. Of the other five or six calls I made, either the owner wasn’t on the premises and wouldn’t be available within the next few hours or the owner preferred not to discuss it. Several of them were obviously foreign born so that communication was not easy and they seemed suspicious of a stranger asking questions.

But no one mentioned Roos stealing a sign.

Still, I gotta say, some reporter I’d make. I don’t have the patience for it. And I don’t have any names or addresses to offer either, just my unsubstantiated word–for whatever that’s worth.

Rodney Hubbard says Jim Roos is a slumlord. That’s some loaded language. The Post-Dispatch describes Roos this way: “A seminary school graduate, Roos  founded Sanctuary in the Ordinary, a “housing ministry” that owns rental units throughout the city.”

This attack on Roos was brought on by the fact that he has been taking down some of Hubbard’s campaign signs–and making no bones about it. Rodney is pretty ticked off. His press release reads:

Jim Roos, a known slumlord and discredited activist has stolen and defaced a number of the campaign’s signs and advertisements.  This criminal conduct will not be tolerated and has been referred to the City’s Board of Elections.

If Roos has been stealing Hubbard’s signs, then indeed Roos should be ashamed of himself. Except, Roos wouldn’t call it “stealing”.

More on that idea shortly, but first the backstory: the two men are at odds over the eminent domain issue. Rodney is getting a lot of money from Paul McKee, a developer who wants to use eminent domain to complete the property packages he has accumulated in North St. Louis City. Roos opposes such taking of property.

In fact he opposes it so much that he has worked his fanny off this last year or more heading up a campaign to collect signatures for two petition initiatives he expects to get on the ballot this fall reining in eminent domain abuse. Roos has even gone so far as to have a huge mural painted on the side of one of his buildings, and that sign has been a bone of contention between himself and the city administration–thus Rodney’s use of the term “discredited activist”.

But enough about the mural and back to the campaign signs. Here’s Roos’s explanation:

Besides eminent domain abuse, one could charge Hubbard with “sign abuse”. His campaign, routinely, without permission, put up monster 4’x8′ signs in front of medium size food shops and service stations.  Many of these owners are foreign born.  They were confused and intimidated by the signs.  Some American Born owners just took them down or stopped the installers.  Other owners gave me permission to remove the signs.  I “recycled” three Hubbard signs to make a single large protest sign for stopping Hubbard and stopping E/D abuse and put it on our warehouse at 2750 Lafayette.

I guess the only way I could judge the truth of Roos’s claim for sure would be to take him up on his offer of talking to the owners and managers who had Hubbard signs put up on their property without permission. I have to admit I haven’t done that: it’s a trek from North St. Louis County to Bohemian Hill, and I’m busy.

I have an opinion about whether Roos is telling the truth or not, but I haven’t collected proof. Take that for what it’s worth.

Gird your mathematical loins and see if you can follow what Chris Koster has been doing with his campaign funds. No, this is not about the Economic Growth Council; this is about … secretly … lending his campaign money, from his own campaign chest.

The story, unraveled in all its Byzantine glory by Missouri Political News Blog, basically is that last January Koster lent money to three different political committees ($10,000 each) so that they could send it back to him.

Say what? Word. His campaign lent his campaign money.

And furthermore, says MPN:

Two of these three committees are directly tied to Rodney Hubbard through a shared address (1401 Comet) and a shared campaign treasurer (Joy Camp). Hubbard is not only a Koster supporter but also a fellow recipient of funds from Republican millionaire political activist Rex Sinquefield.

The funneling of contributions through these committees, along with an earlier report from MPN, beget this question: is Koster directing the flow of campaign contributions back to his committee to inflate fundraising totals?

I assume the right hand knows what the left is doing, so what other reason could there be?

Democrats in the city of St. Louis and in the fifth senatorial district in particular are fighting each other. Rodney Hubbard and Robin Wright-Jones are duking it out for the senatorial nomination, which is to say, for the whole ball of wax in the fifth, because no Republican has filed. (Why would one bother in the city?)

Robin is progressive right down the line. Rodney is … not. I’ll skip all the gossip about parking space and office space and who hangs with whom in the capitol, in favor of focusing on money, issues, and accomplishments.  

From 2007 to the present, Rodney accepted $38,000 from Republican billionaire Rex Sinquefield. And what did Mr. Sinquefield get for his money? He got Rodney’s vote in favor of vouchers and another in favor of lifting campaign contribution limits. Rodney will tell you that he’d have voted that way in any case, that those were votes of conscience.

That may be. But they’re not votes we expect from a Democrat. Nor are they the only votes that should concern progressives. Starting with Rodney’s vote to sell off MOHELA assets in 2007, ProVote lists several troubling stands in his record.    

In fact, his record is so troubling that ALEC named Hubbard one of four legislators of the year in 2007. And why would an award for being a good legislator be troubling? Click over to the ALEC site and see for yourself, from Bush’s grinning mug all over the front page through photos of Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee and Newt Gingrich. When you reach page nine, you’ll see a picture of Rodney with the other three award winners for that year and you can read why ALEC chose him:

Rep. Hubbard voted for Tort Reform, Workers’ Compensation reform, and a Quality Jobs Act. He also helped develop and co-sponsor the Milton Friedman Put Parents in Charge Act.

Whaddaya know, those are some of the very votes Pro-Vote rated negatively.

Despite Perhaps because of his unprogressive attitudes, Hubbard has been raking in the campaign contributions–not just from Sinquefield but also from developer Paul McKee (more on his eminent domain grabs within the week) and from supporters of Mayor Slay. So far, Rodney’s taken in $291,000 for this election and spent $141,000 (versus Robin’s $62,000 taken in and $33,000 spent). To give him his due, he is also a hard worker and a smart campaigner.

The heart of his campaign is his claim that he brings home the bacon for his district. This year the legislature appropriated $2 million for a re-entry program to help ex-convicts find jobs. Rodney issued a press release claiming the credit for getting that passed. Of course, Jamilah Nasheed, who was on the Budget Committee that it went through, also issued a press release claiming credit.

Considering the competing press releases, it’s not easy to say who deserves the credit. (And by the way, Margaret Donnelly, a member of the Budget Committee, also begged for the funds.) But Rodney’s claim is bolstered by Allen Icet, the Republican Chair of the Budget Committee, who asserted that the funds were in because Rodney had asked for them–and, by the way, that Democrats shouldn’t ask for anything else.

Sounds like that settles it. Icet ought to know whose entreaty swayed him. Except … I wonder why Icet did Rodney such a favor. Was it Hubbard’s winning personality? Or was it that Icet wanted to boost Rodney’s chances in this election so that the Republicans would have an ally in the Senate for the next four years?

Whatever the case, other than the re-entry bill, Rodney’s legislative accomplishments are slim. This year for example, only one bill that he co-sponsored passed. That bill, HB2058, was an economic stimulus package with … wait for it … 102 bi-partisan co-sponsors. Along with the sponsor, then, Hubbard gets 1/103rd of the credit.

He can rightly claim some power in the legislature, however.  Of the 63 House committees, only three are headed by Democrats: T.D. El-Amin is Vice Chair of the Special Committee on Urban Issues, Ted Hoskins (another African-American beneficiary of Sinquefield money and proponent of the voucher system) chairs the Special Committee on Urban Education Reforms, and Rodney Hubbard chairs the Special Committee on Urban Issues.

Rodney Hubbard, then, has obtained some power in the Republican-controlled House even though he’s a member of the minority party, but one is hard pressed to see how he has used it to benefit his community. The re-entry program might be mostly his doing. Beyond that … he gets a shrug. And a rap on the knuckles for voting to lift campaign finance limits and voting for vouchers.

But don’t let my emphasis on those votes and on his ALEC award mislead you, because even when you take that downside into consideration, Rodney still got an 87 percent positive rating from Pro-Vote (to Robin’s 100 percent rating). He is a Democrat. Mostly.    

PubDef has video of 5th Senatorial District candidate Connie Johnson’s presser yesterday, and it’s a doozy. The first part is Johnson delivering a statement in which she defends her residency and more importantly rips her opponents. Stalking horse? I don’t think so. Hubbard gets it for raking in contributions from Sinquefield and McKee, amounting to a third of his warchest. Wright-Jones gets a lashing for her attendance record while a real estate crisis hits St. Louis. The second part is the grilling Johnson gets from local reporters on her residency.

A couple of thoughts on this. First, as I’ve said before, I don’t expect that Rep. Johnson will be disqualified, because Missouri law has a very loose definition of residency, and further, that as long as Johnson runs a half-way decent campaign, nobody will care about this residency flap in the end. Several lawmakers in the St. Louis area won election with far more tenuous claims to their districts than Johnson has.

That leads me to my next point. Johnson did a good job in her statement of hitting her opponents hard, as two rivals nervous about her candidacy and eager to distract from the big issues. But she never directly mentions what those big issues are, nor does she mention what accomplishments her opponents are trying to distract voters’ attention from. I still haven’t heard her make a positive case for voters to choose her as a state senator. The most I got out of that statement was that she does indeed live in the district, and that she seeks to maintain the historical African American representation of the district. Well, she’s hardly unique in that race in either of those cases.

Pubdef’s videos, and Connie’s statement, are below the flip.

Part 1:

Thank you all for coming out this morning.

I have called this press conference because I, like most Americans, am tired of the politics of hit and run. I like most Americans am weary of the politics of distraction and dishonesty. And I like most Americans, believe that elected officials have a responsibility to serve their constituents-not themselves.

From the moment I entered this race my opponents have in one fashion or another panicked. Rodney Hubbard panicked and was able to convince his Right wing Republican Billionaire to kick in 50 more contributions–1/3 of his total and Robin Wright Jones panicked and filed a frivolous lawsuit in order to bring some light and attention to her struggling year old campaign for this Senate Seat.

For the record I am flattered by their fear and I appreciate their recognition of the impact of my candidacy. However, for the record, I am deeply concerned about their tactics and where these tactics take us as a community and as members of the Democratic Party.

Ten months ago I told the St. Louis Post Dispatch that I would not be part of events that would facilitate the elimination of an African American Senate Seat. Ten months ago I said: “As a statesman I have to look at the big picture and the big picture is the importance of preserving history and having African American representation in the 5th Senatorial district.”

As fate or providence would have it, four days before filing closed, the only white Candidate in contention decided not to run. There was now no danger of our community losing representation. So, I had a decision to make-do I now run for this Senate Seat? Do I run for a seat that has been historically, from Jet Banks to Paula Carter, located in the heart of North Saint Louis?

My decision was an easy one–of course I would run.

I would run because now I would be able to lay my head down at night knowing that not only would my Community be able to ensure African American Representation, but they would now have the choice of the most qualified, principled and credentialed African American Representation.

My decision to run was founded upon a love of community and a passion to ensure equal representation for all. These belief sets are also shared by the Democratic Party.

My opponents however have pounced upon my filing and attempted to use it as a means of distraction from the serious issues that confront our communities.

Downtown St Louis for the past 6 years under the direction and leadership of realtor Robin Wright Jones and the 63rd district, is in the middle of a real estate crisis-unfilled lofts, bankrupt developers, and a huge muddy empty hole in the middle of Ball park village. I have often wondered as Minority Whip, why Ms Wright Jones was missing so many important votes. I now see that she was quite busy-manufacturing stories and crafting frivolous lawsuits.

My other opponent is busy as well-missing votes, currying favor for the opposition and gathering right wing Republican cash.

Unfortunately, in the world of politics from Baraak Obama to Hillary Clinton, money does represent the bulk of the fuel that goes in to a political campaign. Operating on this political theory, my opponents hope that you will be so distracted by their lies and complaints about when I filed or where I live that their actions will hurt my fundraising efforts.

Well, I am here this morning to say enough. We as Democrats have a responsibility to address our serious issues–not manufacture, because we need money, political opportunities at the expense of the truth and at the expense of our constituents.

To this end I will have had my Attorney file the necessary motions that will put an end to this frivolous lawsuit filed by my desperate opponent.

Mark my words-I will be vindicated-these lies will not stand and I will be on the ballot in August.

Following up on last week’s news of 5th Senate district candidate (and current House Democratic Whip) Connie Johnson’s possible residency problems, the St. Louis American’s Political Eye has some backstory that connects the story to Johnson’s frosty relationship with Firefighters Local 73.

If you haven’t been following this story, documents have just surfaced that cast doubt on Connie Johnson maintaining a legal residence within her current House district, let alone the Senate seat she aspires to. And by “just surfaced”, I mean right after Johnson filed at the last minute for a run at the 5th District seat, somebody sent a packet of documents pertaining to her residence to several local media outlets. The campaigns of Connie Johnson’s opponents in the race, Rodney Hubbard and Robin Wright-Jones, have both denied involvement.

More below the flip.

Photo of Connie Johnson speaking at 2007 Take Back America Conference courtesy of Progressive Majority Flickr page.

In the American’s version of the story, Johnson rented out some portion of her house to a firefighter named William Keys (one of the few African American members of Firefighters Local 73), a housing arrangement that went sour when Keys allegedly did not pay $3000 in overdue rent. Keys apparently shopped the residence information to Local 73 in advance of Johnson’s candidate sit-down with the local. An interesting tangent to the story is that Local 73 supported Keys when then-Chief Sherman George tried to have Keys fired for not having a valid driver’s license, (it’s a job requirement for all firemen), and the sit-down with Local 73 resulted in Johnson’s refusal to accept an endorsement, should one even be offered, because of Sherman George’s ouster.

This new story just adds some more dimensions to an already murky situation. Did the local get bad info from a member and confront Johnson with it, erupting into a spat at the sit-down? Or did she broach the Sherman George situation at the meeting, and the local thought they had an ace up their sleeve with the residency card? Or was somebody else responsible for the oppo research?

As far as the effect of Johnson’s residency on the race, I don’t see why she would lose purely on the basis of this story, as long as she’s not disqualified. How many people remembered on the day of the 2006 primary in the 4th that Jeff Smith had just moved back from New Hampshire the year before to establish residence in the district? Even with his rivals reminding voters, Jeff Smith lapped the field. So as an accomplished politician and lawyer, it’s certainly not inconceivable that Johnson could overcome this. More problematic for her is the fact that her rivals have a huge headstart in endorsements and cash on hand, especially Rodney Hubbard.

Term limits, as they are presently mandated, do as much harm as good. Certainly, the motivation for enacting them was understandable: citizens were fed up with a system where incumbents could scarcely be blasted out of office with anything short of an IED. But the eight-year term limit solution produced, at best, a situation where somewhat experienced lawmakers lead rank beginners through a complex process.

Uh-oh. Joint efforts of any kind do best with a mixture of newcomers with fresh ideas and people who’ve been around the block often enough to predict where the bumps and snarls will occur. Legislatures are no different. Let me invite any of our current legislators who read this posting–or anyone else, for that matter–to provide examples of problems that could have been avoided in recent sessions if a few old timers had been around.

And aside from creating glitches that should have been foreseen, the whole impermanency thing begets another problem: it contributes to the partisan fissures that cripple our state government. People who know what the lege used to be like say that reps could disagree on the floor and then go out for a brew together in the evening. Sure, I understand that part of the reason that no longer happens is the essential meanness of so many Republicans now. But part of the reason must also be that there’s little incentive to bridge the gaps when either you or the people you’re fighting with will be gone in a year or two.

Last spring, Senator Jolie Justus of Kansas City tried to overcome some of the sour aftermath of on floor bickering by arranging a weekly happy hour.  That was a good idea, and perhaps she’ll follow through on it this January. It might help.

The problems that arise during legislative sessions because of term limits are only half the difficulty. The other half is what happens when people get termed out. The race in the fifth senatorial district is a perfect example: all four Democratic reps in Maida Coleman’s senatorial district (Robin Wright Jones, Rodney Coleman, Connie Johnson, and Tom Villa) are termed out–but not ready to leave state government. Two have announced for Coleman’s seat (she, too, is termed out), and the other two still might. It’s a mess.

Some legislators solve the termed out dilemma by turning to lobbying. Carl Bearden is the latest example. It’s good to let Dems have a shot at that yahoo’s seat, but when the short term limits were created, perhaps no one foresaw the unintended consequence that termed out reps would swell the ranks of lobbying leeches.

Meanwhile, in many districts, one or both parties are having trouble building farm teams good enough to keep supplying strong candidates to fill the frequent openings. Let’s see: how long has Albert Pujols been in the majors now–five years or six? I’d hate to see him shoved out of the sport in 2009. If baseball had term limits, it would hurt the quality of play. Few rookies can arrive from the minors and make an immediate impact on a team. Winning teams need a combination of seasoned veterans and up and comers.

The answer isn’t deep sixing term limits but lengthening the time allowed in office. And, in fact, the rumor is that a Republican, no less, plans to bring up the possibility this session of changing the limit for reps from eight years to eighteen. I’d cheer for that.

The good news about the fifth senatorial district in the city of St. Louis is that it will almost surely go to a Democrat.  But an awful lot of people are fretting about how to keep that seat in African-American hands.

And in case you wonder why that matters, let me say that in one sense, it doesn’t.  All four of the district’s representatives–Rodney Hubbard, Robin Wright Jones, Connie Johnson and Tom Villa–are term limited out next year.  Two have announced they’re running.  Two more are considering it, and one of those last two is white.  But all of them would do a good job of representing constituents in that district.

Say what you want about Rodney Hubbard taking money from Rex Sinquefield and pushing school vouchers, wag your head in disappointment that Tom Villa opposes abortion and stem cell research.  The bottom line is that all four of them want to do good for their people.

So what’s the big deal about having two black candidates–or maybe three if Connie Johnson jumps in–and one white man?  The two–or three–African-Americans would divide the vote; and if Villa gets in, he’d almost surely take the seat.  It wouldn’t be a tragedy, but consider the history of the city.  Racial tensions loom large, in the past and at present.  Villa, or any other white candidate, would make three white senators out of three in a black majority city.  Not the best scenario for soothing those tensions.

I talked to Connie Johnson last week about her possible plans.  As we mulled over the situation, she pointed out what great respect she has for Villa.  He’s in his third political incarnation now.  He was first elected to the House in 1974, and in those days before term limits, stayed long enough to become the Majority Leader from 1980 to 1984.  After that, he went into city politics, became president of the St. Louis Board of Aldermen, and  eventually made an unsuccessful run for mayor.  After that, he dropped out of politics for five years; then came the third incarnation:  in 2000, he was elected again to the House.  Johnson points out that he knows more about the rules of the House than any other member–and has as much right to run for senator as anybody.

As for Johnson herself, she says that nobody should rule her out of the running and points with some pique at people who’ve told her that since she has a good job as a lawyer at Armstrong Teasdale, she should leave the field to Hubbard or Wright Jones, who don’t have fallback employment.  As far as she’s concerned:  “When did the state capitol become an employment agency?”  She loves politics, loves working for the people in her district, and feels she has a right to run.  After all, she says, considering all the glitches the legislature had last year from poorly written bills, they need more attorneys.  And currently, the legislature is almost at an all time low.  “On ten percent of the bills we pass, the next year they come back and we do cleanup.”

Johnson also points out that she has gotten six bills passed in her seven years in Jeff City, even though she’s in the minority party.  And they haven’t been bills dedicating a library to so-and-so either.  They’ve had substance.  She got a bill passed to assist rape victims.  Previously, the victims had to pay for their own rape kits, which cost $1200.  Now the state pays.  And rape victims are no longer required to take a lie detector test before they can testify.  After all, victims of other crimes don’t have to take lie detector tests.

She also got a bill passed to aid DNA exonorees.  Previously, such people were given a bus ticket and told they could apply to the courts for damages–but doing that of course would take time determination, and knowledge of how to go about it. Now, they receive $50 for each day they were incarcerated and social services to help them readjust to society.

So, in light of her qualifications and her desire to help people, she’s considering joining the race.  Is she just adding one more good choice to the pot?  Or muddying the waters?  More on that question tomorrow.

Photos above are–top right:  Connie Johnson; top left:  Tom Villa; bottom right:  Robin Wright Jones; bottom left:  Rodney Hubbard