Is Cynthia Davis promoting campaign finance reform?

by: WillyK

Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 17:38:37 PM CDT

Be that as it may, what struck me most was Davis' new found awareness that money is the name of the game in GOP politics - although, to be fair, she strikes a "pox on both their houses" stance that, quite correctly, includes Democrats as well:

The existing political parties can't be reformed because there are just too many special interests with too much money to allow it. When I joined the Republican Party, it was to make our state better, not to be a member of some elite social club.

There are no doubt some sour grapes here too - whenever somebody says they don't want to join an "elite social club," you can bet they haven't been invited to do so - but, more importantly, one wonders just how Davis could have been involved in GOP politics for all those years without figuring out the role played by "big money." Has she just realized that, as she puts it, "legislative priorities are defined by the largest campaign donors." She adds, wide-eyed innocent that she is:

Giving leadership and chairmanship positions to those who donate the most money to the party is the common practice in both Washington D.C. and Jefferson City. This is similar to buying Senate seats and perverts the process of selecting the most qualified and competent people. This allows "Big Money" instead of better ideas to set the agenda.

I can't help wondering if Davis would have been quite so bitter if she had been able to raise the money to "buy" a Senate seat? But putting aside speculation about the behavior of women scorned, what I really want to know is whether or not this means that she is actually calling for campaign finance reform? And if so, how does she reconcile this position with her membership in Missouri's Constitutional Party? The Party's platform explicitly states, under "Election Reform," that:

We call for a repeal of all federal campaign finance laws (i.e. McCain-Feingold) due to their violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

So what exactly does Ms. Davis propose to do about the endemic corruption she describes, corruption she believes to be so pervasive that she can no longer be associated with the party in which she has served for at least a decade? Especially since lots of the abuse of money that she so decries is currently absolutely legal - the right-leaning judges of the Supreme Court have, after all, decided that money is speech. Does little Cynthia really think that the Constitutional Party Fairy is going to wave a wand and make all the naughty, old special interests go away? Or is she just bitching about the role of money in politics for the fun of it?

Doctor Blunt Is In

by: bpenrose

Wed Dec 08, 2010 at 18:00:02 PM CST

O'Donnell's Hand Out

by: bpenrose

Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 15:46:56 PM CDT

Blunt's Crude Campaign

by: bpenrose

Sun Jul 11, 2010 at 14:17:19 PM CDT

Democrats propose to quash Supreme Court ruling on corporate election spending

by: Byron DeLear

Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 23:14:45 PM CST

Nobody would claim there needs to be more money in electoral theater, and yet removing any impedance to corporate political spending has some heralding the highest Court's recent ruling as a victory for free speech and others proclaiming the end of democracy that the "floodgates of corruption, now burst open."

Only 180 Days? (the Tilley Ethics Plan unveils itself)

by: RBH

Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 16:24:58 PM CST

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.

(h/t to Fired Up! Missouri for the Turner Report link)

Republican-crafted Ethics "Reform" and the Missing Piece

by: RBH

Sun Dec 13, 2009 at 14:58:15 PM CST

But don't worry about ethics, Republican Leader Steve "Air" Tilley is proposing an ethics package. Which would be a great joke, if it's not going to be taken seriously by Republicans and newspaper writers as being reform.

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.

Sinquefield has formed 100 new PACs

by: hotflash

Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 13:34:35 PM CDT

Before the campaign finance limits were reinstated by the Supreme Court, he spread the long green liberally among both Republicans and Democrats:

  The biggest single chunk - $100,000 - went to Republican Gov. Matt Blunt. Then came $40,000 each to Republican Sens. Jason Crowell of Cape Girardeau and Luann Ridgeway of Smithville and Democratic Rep. Talibdin El-Amin of St. Louis.

  Next came $30,000 for Democratic Rep. Rodney Hubbard's campaign for the Senate. That was followed by $25,000 for Republican House Speaker Rod Jetton's Leadership Committee, which acts as a bankroll that Jetton can spend on behalf of favored House members.