Representative Jason Kander (D) speaks in favor of the bill during debate on the House floor this afternoon.
Ethics reform legislation finally passes. Representative Jason Kander (D-44) issued the following release:
Statement by Rep. Jason Kander regarding passage of ethics reform bill
Friday, May 14, 2010
This bill represents an improvement over current law, but I will not declare victory over corruption when we have merely tip-toed into the fight. I voted today to limit political money laundering, outlaw the obstruction of ethics investigations, and expand the powers of the Missouri ethics commission.
However, I'm disappointed that we missed an important opportunity to restore campaign contribution limits, to prohibit lawmakers from working as political consultants for one another, to close the revolving door between legislators and lobbyists, or to disclose potential conflicts of interest. That is why I whole-heartedly support the comprehensive, bipartisan ethics bill passed by the Speaker's special committee on ethics. As I said when I filed a bipartisan proposal last year, my bill alone cannot tackle the ever-evolving and wide-ranging problem of public corruption.
There is lots of work remaining. I will continue my efforts to advance true, comprehensive ethics reform to a vote in the next legislative session.
The Senate breathed new life into ethics reform by stripping the poison pills from the bill and the conference report followed up.
I spoke with Representative Kander this morning in the House side gallery. When I stated that it looked like ethics reform legislation was dead last week he replied that at that point he was not going to give up until the end.
A number of Democratic representatives stated in debate that the bill is far from comprehensive, but it was a good start.
....So the bill foundered. Frustrated, Democrats went to their trick bag and pulled out a little-used maneuver to force the bill out of committee without a vote and directly onto the House calendar.
Republicans, who are in the majority, didn't like that. And that led to last week's sudden flurry of activity around the bill by Republicans who, some said, were eager to punish Democrats for playing tricks with the bill....
Well, okay, but you neglected to mention this from Speaker Ron Richard (r) on January 6, 2010:
....Question: Senator Shields has proposed a ban on contributions from lobbyists during the session. Is that something that you would support?
Speaker Richard: I will support whatever comes out of our bipartisan committee. Whatever comes out.
Question: What is the advantage [inaudible] the ethics proposals [inaudible]?
Speaker Richard: Uh, I want to make sure that both sides have the ability to, uh, have a dialog. And we go to the House, the floor, for [inaudible], you know as well as I do there'll be several hundred amendments from all different sizes and shapes. Um, but I think that dialog is necessary and we'll have an open dialog and, uh, we'll get something to the Senate, uh, in a prompt basis....
"...I will support whatever comes out of our bipartisan committee. Whatever comes out..."
Question: Why is it a problem for the republican majority and a sign of Democratic Party partisanship to old media if there's discharge petition on a bill from a "bipartisan" committee which Speaker Richard said he would support? Just asking.
"...I want to make sure that both sides have the ability to, uh, have a dialog. And we go to the House, the floor, for [inaudible], you know as well as I do there'll be several hundred amendments from all different sizes and shapes. Um, but I think that dialog is necessary and we'll have an open dialog and, uh, we'll get something to the Senate, uh, in a prompt basis..."Well, that didn't go very well.
...As too often is the case with what should be a straightforward piece of needed legislation, the shameful bill that came out of the House is a perversion of ethics twisted by partisan politics to the detriment of good government.
And how did Representative Denny Hoskins (r - noun, verb, CPA) - in the 121st Legislative District, representing Warrensburg - vote on this bill?:
...On motion of Representative Jones (89), HCS#2 SB 844 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: 087
Hoskins 121
[emphasis added]
"...the shameful bill that came out of the House is a perversion of ethics twisted by partisan politics to the detriment of good government..."
House Minority Leader and Representative Paul LeVota released a video of a press conference this evening in the immediate aftermath of the republican majority's actions in gutting bipartisan ethics reform legislation:
Representative Paul LeVota (D): ...sham omnibus bill that had nothing, that the, uh, bipartisan committee on ethics reform included. They loaded it up at eight o'clock in the morning in one committee, at nine o'clock the next committee, in the Rules Committee. Then on the floor at one o'clock with the supplemental calendar, 'cause they know all the stuff in here is bad. The things in here, the provisions of, uh, requiring a voter ID, uh, disenfranchises people, allows, uh, intimidation of workers that want to organize, uh, all these provisions are just bad provisions. In the, additionally, the thing I'm most frustrated about, it has no campaign finance limits for the members who run for the General Assembly. It has a twenty thousand dollar limit for statewide officials and local officials but it doesn't deal with, um, the general Assembly. So, I think [crosstalk]...
Question: That was deliberate or [crosstalk]...
Representative LeVota: Oh, absolutely. Absolutely it's [inaudible]. The language is completely different from every other limit that we've seen, the old limit that was reversed, the bills that were, um, passed out of that committee. Very frustrating, it was deliberate.
Question: Was any Democrat allowed to actually get up and speak on this bill (inaudible)?
Representative LeVota: No, no Democrat was allowed to speak on heir own behalf or offer any of the amendments to make the bill better. I mean, it happens all the time. This is the process. The process is, if you don't like a bill then you have amendments in order to change it. We did that. We were ready to offer those amendments and make this a better bill, but instead of allowing us to do that, they wanted to cut our voice off.
Question: [inaudible] your time in the House when, when, when your party was blocked from speaking or offering amendments on a major issue?
Representative LeVota: Well, yeah, my, my first couple years here tort reform was one, um.
Question: Really.
Representative LeVota: Yeah.
Question: So it's not a [crosstalk][inaudible]
Representative LeVota: Yeah, yeah
Question: Oh surely you guys were allowed to speak.
Representative LeVota: We weren't allowed to speak on that one, but this is even, maybe even more, uh, heinous 'cause they choreographed and went after, uh, required random members of the caucus on their opinion, but didn't deal with the provisions that should be in there. They're trying to skirt the issue. That was the [inaudible] today. And I think the people of Missouri deserve more.
Question: You angry?
Representative LeVota: Um, yeah, I, I'm angry and I think the people of Missouri should be very frustrated at, um, they are demanding ethics reform and they are demanding accountability in their government and instead they got a show here and a sham.
Question: Do you feel gagged?
Representative LeVota: Um, you know, that, that's a good question. I guess I, I'm not so surprised because it was supposed to be the number one priority of the Speaker and here we are the, uh, last, second to last week and then we have a sham. So, if it was really a true priority we would have dealt with it in January and got it over to the Senate, but, uh, we knew, we knew when they didn't move on it it wasn't a priority for 'em.
Question: Throughout that whole debate you were standing, you were [inaudible], you were raising your hand to be recognized and speak. You were not recognized. Do you feel gagged?
Representative LeVota: Uh, I, I think that people in Missouri and their voice were gagged out, 'cause, uh, they didn't allow members to have a free and open debate. Um, as far as me, they don't want me to add the accountability things that I sat to them, so they've done it to me before, so...
After the opening of the legislative session in Jefferson City on January 6, 2010 Speaker Ron Richard (r) took questions from the media in a press conference:
....Question: Speaker Richard, uh, why start, uh, your speech and, and emphasis this ethics committee.
Speaker Richard: It has been the topic of conversation among many members. It's been a topic of press stories and I thought we'd get to the bottom of it and get working on this issue. And, um, show the people of Missouri that we can, uh, fix perceived problems. And I went to, uh, Representative LeVota and I have got an outstanding group of Democrats and Republicans. I think we can come up with a, uh, solution and I look forward to that. And, uh, bills will be sent to that committee real quick.....
....Question: Senator Shields has proposed a ban on contributions from lobbyists during the session. Is that something that you would support?
Speaker Richard: I will support whatever comes out of our bipartisan committee. Whatever comes out.
Question: What is the advantage [inaudible] the ethics proposals [inaudible]?
Speaker Richard: Uh, I want to make sure that both sides have the ability to, uh, have a dialog. And we go to the House, the floor, for [inaudible], you know as well as I do there'll be several hundred amendments from all different sizes and shapes. Um, but I think that dialog is necessary and we'll have an open dialog and, uh, we'll get something to the Senate, uh, in a prompt basis....
Speaker Ron Richard has declared the bipartisan ethics reform bill dead because a bipartisan group of legislators demanded a floor debate on the proposal. Earlier today, 56 Democrats and 3 Republicans signed a petition to place the bipartisan bill -- legislation with campaign contribution limits -- on the House calendar. Last night, Republicans on the House Rules committee voted to block the legislation from heading to the floor, preferring a stripped-down proposal. The discharge petition is designed to circumvent the GOP leadership on the Rules Committee....
Representative Jason Kander (D), via Twitter, on the state of ethics reform legislation today in Jefferson City:
I'm in House Rules committee where they are finally discussing the ethics bill. Will they send it to the floor? about 4 hours ago via Echofon
Delaying a bipartisan ethics bill to make it partisan is exactly the kind of politics I hoped to avoid this year. about 4 hours ago via Echofon
Rules cmmte is ground zero for the "cold feet" illness sweeping the Capitol. Ethics reform heads back to cmmte. Absurd. about 4 hours ago via Echofon
Despite obstacles such as today, we've gotten pretty far on ethics reform. Redoubling my efforts in the last 3 wks of session. about 1 hour ago via HootSuite
Tony Messenger of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, via Twitter:
According to @jasonkander, House rules committee sent ethics bill back to its House committee. Doesn about 4 hours ago via TweetDeck
Representative Jason Kander (D-44) produced the following video quiz on ethics reform, stating, "For some time, I have been searching for a concise, entertaining way to promote and explain the need for comprehensive ethics reform in Missouri":
Looks like karma has finally caught up with the odious Rod Jetton. Via TPM:
Rod Jetton, the former Missouri pol charged with assault after a November sexual encounter, is now reportedly under scrutiny in an FBI probe into the killing of a bill to regulate strip clubs.
...
No question there's interest in Rod Jetton," former lawmaker Bob Johnson, who was interviewed by three agents, told the Star. "That's all they wanted to talk about.
We learn from Fired Up! Missouri that when Republican State Senator Matt Bartle testified before a federal grand jury today, he likely discussed a 2005 anti-porn bill he supported that was killed after opponents donated $35,000 to a political committee with links to Jetton - who, like all his Republican brethren, liked to talk out of the right side of his mouth about "family values." Mike Mahoney adds:
Rumors of a federal probe have prompted lawmakers on both sides and the Governor to call for major ethics reform.
Don't you just love how everybody gets so reform-minded when somebody gets nailed for doing what everybody knew everybody else was doing all along? I'll believe there'll be reform when I see it - but meanwhile, karma couldn't blow-back on a more deserving member of the fraternity of evil clowns that seems to want to congregate in Jefferson City.
After the opening of the legislative session on Wednesday the House Democratic caucus held a press conference in the House Lounge in the capitol following the earlier republican press conference.
The House Democratic Minority Floor Leader, Representative Paul LeVota, at the podium in the House Lounge.
Representative Paul LeVota: Thank you very much for, uh, the time today with you guys as the House Democrat [inaudible] prepare for this next session. Um, I'll be very brief and I'd be interested in your questions and, uh, what we think is the priorities for this session. Um, as I stated on the floor I do agree with the Speaker about some of the priorities that he outlined. And I'm proud to say the House Democrats have been championing these things for many years. First, when it comes to creating jobs, we need to get our economy going again, we need to do those tangible things that make sense for small businesses and the growth and expansion of, of new businesses, uh, in the State of Missouri. We should be focused on that, what we can, to create jobs. That's challenging. And a separate point that we're gonna focus on is the budget. As revenue is, has been a downturn we're gonna have a very challenging session. We look forward to working very closely with the majority and with the administration to really identify what are the top priorities in this budget cycle. We've always, we've always done that. Uh, third, ethics reform. House Democrats, for seven years, have introduced ethics reform measures and those ethics reform measures now have the attention of the majority. The things that we'll be pushing for are, are things that've been outlined. But number one on that list is the reinstating of campaign finance limits. We believe that comprehensive ethics reform has to include the reinstation of campaign finance limits. You look about what the people of Missouri wanted, in nineties they voted, about seventy-five percent, that they wanted the limits. Now in the State of Missouri it's perfectly okay to give a candidate for state representative a hundred thousand dollar donation where you can't give a candidate for President of the United States. That has [inaudible] limits. We think the money that comes through needs to be stopped, it needs to go back to what the people of Missouri think, and that has to be included in anything that was gonna be called comprehensive ethics reform. And finally, we're gonna be very well aware of this, the Federal government and Congress is working on a health care reform bill. We have been the champions of increasing access to health care for years. We will be waiting for Congress with that bill and we will be prepared to do what we need to do to implement it in Missouri. My fear is that we're gonna have a idea that the federal government's gonna do something [inaudible] pass a bill and all the work is done. We know to really make sure that we're helping people in the area of health care, helping small businesses reduce their, um, costs on that, that we need to make sure that we're doing, um, our part to implement the Federal program. I don't know what the Federal program will be, but I'm pretty confident that there will be something. So, with that, I agree with the Speaker, I'm glad that he's picked up on some of the priorities that we've been pushing for years. It's gratifying when years ago we've been pushing some of these things and, with no response, but, uh, persistence, persistence, persistence. So with that I'll, um, be glad to answer your questions, or any of my members of my caucus....
Seems like Governor Jay Nixon has some ideas about ethics reform too:
In a conference call with reporters Wednesday, Nixon outlined four components of what he would support in terms of reforming government:
-- Restoration of campaign donation limits in the neighborhood of $1,200 to $1,300 for statewide candidates in primary and general elections.
-- A ban on the practice of shifting campaign funds among committees in an effort to disguise the original source of the funds.
-- A waiting period between when a lawmaker serves in office and then becomes a lobbyist.
-- A prohibition of the practice of a lawmaker receiving money to act as a political consultant.
Good luck on getting point A enacted. The Republican General Assembly seems to think that allowing 5-digit campaign donation checks makes things more open and ethical.
Meanwhile in today's campaign finance news, the House Republican Campaign Committee reported a $16275 donation from a St. Louis man and Jay Nixon reported a $25K donation from the "Lewis & Clark Regional Leadership Fund" (which apparently donated $50K to Kenny Hulshof last year). The fun never ends in the Texas-era of Missouri campaign finance. Big money big money no whammies.
Should be exciting to see how watered down the Republican "reform" bill ends up being.
Representatives Jason Kander (D) and Tim Flook (r) held a press conference on their ethics reform bill on December 14th in the House Lounge at the capitol.
Representatives Jason Kander (D)(left) and Tim Flook (r)(right).
The transcript of the last half of the media question and answer session:
....Question: Representative Kander you mentioned that this legislation needs to evolve. Can you give an example of how that would happen or a for instance?
Representative Kander: Well, if I, if I knew, uh, how this legislation needed to evolve I promise you we would have done it. And, and my argument is more that what happens is, you know, fighting public corruption is like fighting any other kind of crime. And it's, you know what, if people are gonna, are gonna take criminal actions they're gonna find a way to take criminal actions to go around the laws [inaudible] as they can. And my argument is simply that, uh, that you have to stay one step ahead whenever possible and you have to make them stay one step ahead. You have to look at what needs to be fixed. And I'm simply saying we're not telling you this is the permanent fix. I don't want people to see this as the permanent fix `cause in ten years, if people figure out how to get around this I don't want everyone to go, hey, well Flook and Kander fixed that, we don't need to address it. Uh, I just don't think that's how, how it works in ethics reform legislation....
Representatives Jason Kander (D) and Tim Flook (r) held a press conference on their ethics reform bill late Monday morning in the House Lounge at the capitol.
Representatives Jason Kander (D)(left) and Tim Flook (r)(right).
The transcript of the first half of the media question and answer session:
...Question: Last year, uh, Rex Sinquefield created a number of committees in, in the time that was legal, uh, and, and there were some who suggested that he made those committees so he could get around the existing campaign laws. Does this bill address that in any way?
Representative Tim Flook: Let me answer that. Uh, make sure it's understood, this bill isn't about Rex Sinquefield...
I asked "3) How long will former legislators be barred from lobbying? a year? two years? longer?"
"A moratorium on serving as a legislative lobbyist for 180 days after a member leaves the general assembly"
HA HA HA HA. Wait, that's not some joke before you reveal a moratorium with teeth?
That means that legislators who leave office due to term limits on January 5th(?), 2011 can lobby the legislature on July 4th, 2011. Which means that there is maybe a year break if the lobbyist doesn't find veto session work. But if a term-limited legislator were to resign on November 2nd, 2010, he could lobby the legislature on May 1st, 2011. Just in time to work on the most important days of the 2011 session.
Not that legislators, who have already resigned early for various reasons (moving on to a new position, giving their anointed successor a leg up) would eveeeeeeeeer notice that resigning in the fall, when they have no more work to do, would get them work lobbying the legislature in May 2011. Never.
BTW, nothing about that seems to prevent a legislator lobbying one of the three other non-legislative bodies for "on the job training" before going back to their old work place.
And I asked "2) How far will gift bans really go? and how blatant will the loopholes be? Will Lobbyists be able to co-own valuable items with legislators to stretch a gift ban?"
"An end to lobbyist gifts and meals to individual members of the legislature"
Still not answered. But then again, does that mean that gifts to the entire body or more than one legislator would be allowed?
"Tilley said he approached the legislation with three criteria in mind:
1. "It must be comprehensive."
2. "It must be fair."
3. "It must make an impact and prove effective.""
When we see the text, we can see how Tilley's bill does under Tilley's criteria. We'll also see if poking the bill with sharp sticks produces answers to pressing questions.
Representatives Jason Kander (D) and Tim Flook (r) held a press conference on their ethics reform bill late yesterday morning in the House Lounge at the capitol.
Representatives Jason Kander (D)(left) and Tim Flook (r)(right).
The transcript of the opening statements:
Representative Tim Flook: ...Good morning. Thank you all for being here. I'm Representative Tim Flook and I'm here with my, uh, friend and Democratic colleague Representative Jason Kander. We're both of the western side of the city, uh, the state, uh, representing Kansas City, large parts, some other areas. Um, as you know, with virtually every year I've been in the Missouri legislature there's always been a question about ethics and conduct in campaigns. Um, every year that I watched politics as a young man in college all the way until, uh, the time that I was elected I've seen the issue come up over and over again. Unfortunately it's always brought up in the context of partisan efforts to make someone look bad. Um, and unfortunate part of that is, is that it, it creates a lot of distrust among the public for, for the efforts of their elected officials...
Representatives Jason Kander (D-44) and Tim Flook (r-34) held a press conference late this morning in the House Lounge at the capitol after filing an ethics reform bill. There were approximately ten media representatives and five other individuals in attendance.
Representatives Jason Kander (D)(left) and Tim Flook (r)(right) at their press conference in the House Lounge at the capitol in Jefferson City.
The press release which was distributed at the press conference:
For Immediate Release
Dec. 14, 2009
[....]
Reps. Flook and Kander announce bipartisan ethics bill New criminal provisions would fundamentally change Missouri politics
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. - Reps Tim Flook and Jason kander today filed bipartisan ethics reform legislation to strengthen Missouri law to meet or exceed federal standards and empower state investigators and prosecutors to better pursue public corruption cases.
The bill would outlaw several practices that have become commonplace in Missouri politics. Flook, R-Liberty, and Kander, D-Kansas City, identified the potential for misdeeds as a major concern and cited the practice of laundering contributions through various political action committees as a vehicle for corruption. They argue that a mix of strong criminal penalties and greater transparency is needed...
When the opening arises and/or when it is obvious, I am willing to admit making a mistake in judgment, prediction, or insight. It is with that preface that I will admit that I was probably a bit too snarky towards former State Rep. Brian Yates after his sudden resignation. I say this after reading his remarks in Prime Buzz about the Republican General Assembly (which you can also find quoted just down the page). Sure, Yates' own ties don't make him out to be perfect. But the intraparty clashes of the Republicans entertain me, until I realize that these guys run a huge chunk of the state government.
At least Five questions worth asking about a Tilley ethics bill in order to figure out if it's going to be reform or synthetic reform.
1) Will lobbyists and special interests write the Tilley bill or just provide an outline of acceptable limitations?
2) How far will gift bans really go? and how blatant will the loopholes be? Will Lobbyists be able to co-own valuable items with legislators to stretch a gift ban?
3) How long will former legislators be barred from lobbying? a year? two years? longer?
4) Will a bar on political consulting while in office really mean much other than the person doing the consulting not directly earning money for his efforts? (In other words, will it be a symbolic ban where the majority pats themselves on their backs at the end)
5) How much of this bill will ultimately get scrapped or fused onto the Shields bill?
But any ethics bill that fails to address the Texas-style campaign contribution laws we have on the books is not complete. Any bill that thinks you can clean up politics in the Missouri General Assembly while allowing prominent legislators to keep receiving six-digit long checks from power brokers and special interests is a bill built on a surplus of optimism, hope, and delusion.
Located in the heart of Westport --
The Original Kansas City
Californo's: Elegant dining in a delightful atmosphere,
located in the heart of Westport
