McCaskill's right on the money when it comes to Komen

by: WillyK

Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 22:43:38 PM CST

It would be tragic if any woman - let alone thousands of women - lost access to these potentially life-saving screenings because of a politically motivated attack.

We earnestly hope that you will put women's health before partisan politics and reconsider this decision for the sake of the women who depend on both your organizations for access to the health care they need.

Greg Sargent has the full text here. Maybe McCaskill deserves some thanks? If you want to give her some positive reinforcement, something all pols need from time to time, here's her email contact form.

I've got to admit, unenthusiastic though I often am on the topic of McCaskill, that when it comes to women's reproductive choice, she's been pretty consistently good (unless you know something I don't). In her most recent pitch for contributions, she even touts her support for "a woman's right to access birth control, including the morning after pill." For a politician who seems to be generally adverse to controversy, to support making the morning after pill available means crawling out several shaky inches on the pro-choice limb the crazies are trying really hard to break off. Give credit where it's due, I say.

PPP: Obama (D) and Romney (r)

by: Michael Bersin

Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 20:06:01 PM CST

Interesting results:

Q8 If the candidates for President this year were Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Mitt Romney, who would you vote for?

Barack Obama - 45%
Mitt Romney - 45%
Undecided - 9%

Why would that be?

Q4 Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Mitt Romney?

Favorable - 30%
Unfavorable - 54%
Not sure - 15%

Apparently Missouri has a significant number of perceptive poor people.

The crosstabs also enlighten us about the republican base:

Why not? Everyone else has tried.

by: Michael Bersin

Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 19:16:45 PM CST

@tonymess Tony Messenger
Just asked state auditor Tom Schweich if he is still considering running for Republican nomination for governor. His answer: "No comment." 7 hours ago

Could be talking about Missouri

by: WillyK

Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 11:28:25 AM CST

But as someone who grew up in the right-to-work Deep South, I can assure Indianans that from a psychological point of view they are about to enter a brave new world where an ever-neurotic desire to keep corporations happy always seems to trump any consideration of fair play or workers' rights. Welcome to the Old South, Hoosiers! Misery loves company.

What struck me immediately is that Kilgore could have been describing the political tone that has been emanating from Jefferson City during the past ten years that I've been living here - even without right-to-work-for-less.  

I can only add, that like most of the deep South states Kilgore references, the legislative anxiety about not offending business interests doesn't seem to have done much for the state's economic growth. Given the steady decline that has characterized the past decade, one can be forgiven for concluding that the result has been quite the opposite.

Bill Randles: Holy shades of Jim Lembke!

by: WillyK

Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 17:05:33 PM CST

I'm not suggesting that Bill Randles wants to be Missouri's dictator or that he has the brutal proclivities of Somoza, a man about whom the epithet "butcher" does butchers the world over a grave injustice. I will point out, though, that as a Harvard educated lawyer, he's probably doing pretty well for himself. Which makes it all the more troublesome that he's apparently channeling the spirit of Bill Lembke, the mean-minded twit who was willing to turn Missouri's long-term unemployed out into the streets in order to make some inane point about government spending. But there it is: Randles has stated that if elected, "he would deny federal funds for education, the environment, health care, and, eventually, Medicaid."

Why, given the poor state of Missouri's finances, would anyone refuse to let the federal government return some of the money paid to it by Missouri taxpayers? How, given the over-the-barrell condition of the current state budget,  can Randle prattle about preferring to let Missouri devise its own Medicaid alternative? He claims that if the state succumbs to federal demands, "Medicaid will occupy too much of the state budget in the near future." In other words, to hell with the people Medicaid serves - too many of them, so too damn bad for them.  

Seems that Randles, like Mitt Romney, isn't worried about poor people. Romney claims that his lack of concern stems from his belief that they have an ample social safety-net, while, out of the other side of his mouth, he promises spending cuts that would savage the safety net. Mr. Randles, for his part, declares with a straight face that, in order to bring down health care costs, he would "change requirements for emergency rooms so that they are only required to treat uninsured patients for life-threatening injuries." Forget about maintaining the only avenue for health care open to those folks Republicans are hell-bent on keeping uninsured.

Randles states that the federal government may "send money, but they require us to spend more money to get it. So you have to say at some point, 'what is this deal worth'?" Based on this assertion, I would guess that Randles not only has problems with basic math, but also might not be absolutely open about his real priorities which are, clearly, to kill social spending that might threaten tax "relief" for rich businessmen.

Like Somoza, who sacrificed the welfare of Nicaraguan farmers in the service of a patriotic fantasy about the Nicaraguan soul, Randles is willing to not only sacrifice the welfare of Missourians, but their federal tax dollars in the service of a fantasy about preserving the state from the debilitating effects of that right-wing bogey, "big government." Like the Somozas, who were more than willing to forego the spiritual properties of Nicaraguan soil and prance around the country fully-shod, the consequences of Randles' high-minded effort to divorce Missouri from federal dollars is very unlikely to affect well-off Kansas City lawyers in the same way that it will affect the average Missourian.

As an afterthought, there's one more story about Somoza that might be apropos here. When asked why his government spent so little on education for the largely rural and illiterate Nicaraguans, he replied that he didn't want them educated, they were, afterall, only oxen. Draw your own conclusions.

Campaign Finance: where to start?

by: Michael Bersin

Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 10:27:54 AM CST

C121046 02/01/2012 MISSOURIANS FOR ED MARTIN Missourians for Matt Blunt PO Box 144 Jefferson City MO 65102 2/1/2012 $10,000.00

Decisions, decisions. Do we leave the e-mail jokes for later in the campaign?

Komen dumps Planned Parenthood - Score one for anti-choice zealots

by: WillyK

Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 00:10:18 AM CST

Today the organization added another distinction to its roster. It betrayed its mission for political purposes. Specifically, Komen succumbed to political pressure and cut its ties to Planned Parenthood, effectively letting us know just where Komen's concern for women's welfare stops. Planned Parenthood will loose hundreds of thousands of dollars that was used primarily for breast cancer screenings for low-income women.

Komen claims that its bylaws prohibit partnerships with any organization being investigated by "local, state or federal authorities," and Planned Parenthood is currently being subjected to a politically motivated witch-hunt conducted by anti-choice zealot, Rep. Cliff Sterns (R-Florida). However, lest you think that poor little Komen had no choice, Think Progress' Marie Diamond points out that:

Komen's new Senior Vice President of Public Policy, Karen Handel, not only has a long anti-choice history, but pledged to eliminate grants for Planned Parenthood to provide breast and cervical cancer screenings when she ran for governor of Georgia in 2010.

Diamond notes further that:

Since anti-abortion activists and their Republican allies ratcheted up their crusade against Planned Parenthood last year, they've targeted any and all allies of the organization to try to make inroads, including the cancer charity. Planned Parenthood provides birth control, STD testing, and cancer screenings to low-income women.

Score one for the zealots.

So you wanna lob a few return volleys? Contact Koman (parent organization here; St. Louis affiliate here) and let them know you think their callous disregard for the welfare of low-income women stinks and that you will remember, when the donation requests come around, that Susan G. Koman for the Cure was willing to put politics above their mission to help women. If you feel the same way about this that I do - which is to say, furious and betrayed - you might also let them know that you are giving your donation to Planned Parenthood. I'm going to do so. If you're really steamed, you can donate to Planned Parenthood right here.

And lest you think you can hold your nose and continue to support Komen because it does really good stuff, just let me point out that there are lots of breast cancer charities that do good work. None of us need to be complicit with Komen.  

SB 722: promoting wind turbine development in Iran

by: Michael Bersin

Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 20:11:21 PM CST

Introduced today:

SB 722 Bars entities that invest in the energy sector in Iran from contracting with the state and political subdivisions
Sponsor: Lamping
LR Number: 5353S.03I Fiscal Note not available
Committee:
Last Action: 1/31/2012 - S First Read--SB 722-Lamping Journal Page:
Title: Calendar Position: 97
Effective Date: August 28, 2012

Current Bill Summary

SB 722 - This act creates the "Iran Energy Divestment Act" which bars entities that invest in the energy sector in Iran from contracting with the state and political subdivisions. Entities wishing to make public contracts shall certify that they are not investors in the energy sector in Iran. Entities that falsely certify shall be subject to a penalty equal to the greater of $250,000 or twice the amount of the contract. In addition, contracts may be terminated by the awarding body and the entity shall be ineligible to bid on and enter into such contracts for three years.

It's all in how you define things. From the bill [pdf]:

...(2) "Energy sector", activities to develop petroleum or natural gas resources or nuclear power....

It appears that a few things were left out. Batteries maybe?

It would be interesting to see the effect of channeling public investment in the United States into wind power technology rather than petroleum and nuclear.

Roy Blunt's on the Keystone XL gravy train

by: WillyK

Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 13:12:52 PM CST

This project would create 20,000 American jobs, generate $20.9 billion in new private sector spending, reinforce America's energy security, and benefit 1,400 American job creators - all without costing taxpayers a dime," Blunt concluded. "This project is good for America's job creation and energy independence, and that's why I'm proud to join my colleagues to co-sponsor this bill.

As is often the case with the esteemed Senator Blunt, the statement above is replete with misstatements and exaggerations:

-- Unbiased studies put the number of jobs that XL Keystone would create at 6,000 temporary jobs tops, and some estimates are as low as 2,000 - or even that the project will kill more jobs than it will create.

-- The U.S. is now a net exporter of products made from crude oil; any oil piped to the Gulf along Keystone would be sold to the highest bidder, countries like Mexico and China. Consequently, completion of the pipeline has little to do with energy independence.

So why is Blunt overstating the benefits?  There are two likely reasons:

1. Political gamesmanship:  Congressional Republicans are, as TPM's Sahil Kapur argues, trying to exploit Democratic divisions and push Obama into a corner politically:

... It's a question of whether we'd rather have the pipeline or the issue," a GOP aide said in December. They chose the issue, bringing into question how much they care about the pipeline itself. Indeed, not forcing a decision would have neutralized the politics surrounding the matter.

But now Republicans have turned it into a weapon, and the politics are win-win for them. Their base overwhelmingly supports the pipeline and its capacity for some temporary job creation puts them on the right side of the most important issue on voters' minds in this election year.

For Democrats, the issue is a headache because their constituencies are split: environmentalists oppose it, while labor and big business have forged an unlikely alliance in its favor. The GOP push may not yield anything substantive, but it forces Obama to keep taking sides within his base, and answer to Republican attacks that he's blocking a job creation opportunity.

2. Money. When the senator in question is Roy Blunt, money always seems to enter the equation somewhere down the line.  As Think Progress reports, senators who have supported Keystone XL have been well paid by PACs representing Big Oil. Of the 35 senators listed by Think Progress,  Senator Blunt, as befits a new member of the senate leadership, has done very well for himself, having received $39,000, the third largest contribution.

Once again we are about to see corruption and political games trump reasoned and careful policy making. And, once again Roy Blunt's right in the middle of it all. If you're nostalgic for the Good Old Days in the Bush administration, it seems like your time has come again - if it ever went away, a proposition that may have been put to the lie by the election of Roy Blunt to the Senate.

Rep. Chris Kelly (D): response on HJR 43

by: Michael Bersin

Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 22:02:36 PM CST

We had a lively exchange about HJR with Representative Chris Kelly (D) two weeks ago. As WillyK, the author of the original post, wrote in a comment:

...I have tried to present arguments to show that this is a wrong-headed approach to the state's financial problems, though I would gladly entertain your counter arguments...

So, Representative Chris Kelly (D) sent us the following on HJR 43:

PUT SOME AWAY FOR A RAINY DAY

"Let Pharaoh take action to appoint overseers in charge of the land, and let him exact a fifth of the produce of the land of Egypt in the seven years of abundance. Then let them gather all the food of these good years that are coming, and store up the grain for food in the cities under Pharaoh's authority, and let them guard it. Let the food become as a reserve for the land for the seven years of famine which will occur in the land of Egypt, so that the land will not perish during the famine."  Genesis 41, 34-36

Representative Eric Burlison (R-Greene) has introduced House Joint Resolution 43 to limit the amount of General Revenue Missouri State government may spend in any given year and to provide for reserve funds to be used in times of emergency and economic downturns.  HJR43 is similar to previous resolutions sponsored by former House Budget Chairman Allen Icet. As a Democrat, I support this bill. This is my reasoning...

Teresa Hensley (D) - 4th Congressional District: the paperwork is in, and it's on

by: Michael Bersin

Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 16:56:04 PM CST

Oh, it's official, the paperwork is in. Cass County Prosecutor Teresa Hensley (D) is definitely challenging Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) in the 4th Congressional District.

At the Federal Election Commission, the Statement of Candidacy (FEC Form 2):

The Statement of Committee Organization (FEC Form 1)

It's interesting to note that former state Senator Harold Caskey (D), in the 31st Senate District - including Cass County, is campaign treasurer. Sarah Sudduth (D) who, if memory serves correctly, ran against Vicky Hartzler in the 124th Legislative District in 1998, is the custodian of records. It might be safe to say that Representative Hartzler may have had a little past difficulty garnering confidence in her abilities from the other side of the aisle.  

Take action: Tax fairness now!

by: WillyK

Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 14:14:01 PM CST

The bill would ensure that taxpayers who make over $1 million would pay at least a 30 percent tax rate on all their income, Whitehouse aides say. It would do this by requiring millionaires to calculate their overall effective tax rate under the regular system - by taking into account all their sources of income and the various rates they are taxed at.

Those taxpayers whose effective rate is under 30 pecent would be required to pay taxes on all their income at the 30 percent rate. (Charitable contributions that are deductible under the current system would be exempt from income calculations.)

For our local purposes, it's important to note that Whitehouse plans to try to start the action right away:

Mr. Whitehouse said he had the support of at least two other Democrats on the bill. He planned to announce other names later on Monday, and more names will come after the nonpartisan Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation releases an official number for the amount of revenue the bill would raise. That "score" was requested by Senators John Kerry of Massachusetts and Benjamin L. Cardin of Maryland, both Democrats.

Seems to me we need to do whatever we can to make sure that Claire McCaskill comes out as one of the prominent supporters - it could even be put to her as a litmus test. At the very least, good Missouri progressives need to start lobbying our entire Missouri contingent - Roy Blunt et al. - to support the Senate bill and something similar in the House. We need to know  who's willing to stand up for fairness and who wants to continue forcing the American middle class to subsidize the Mitt Romneys of the world. Their position on the Buffett Bill will present a clear-as-day picture of where they all stand so we must impress upon them that they need to put up or shut up, the sooner the better.

And by shut up, I mean we need to be ready to huff and puff and blow down the house of cards that the GOP has been building to showcase their lame response to calls for tax fairness:  class warfare is bad, they say, except when it's waged by the Rex Sinquefields of the world; God save us from the politics of envy when it might embarrass Mitt Romney and pals; free speech is good when it equates to big bucks from corporations and the rest of us only indulge when we're in "quiet rooms." Then there's the all time GOP favorite claim that deficits can only be fixed cutting by benefits to the 99% which are mostly paid for by the 99%, while subsidies for the corporations and the 1% are to die for. Or, to consider another variant, raising taxes on the 1% might make those rich folks so angry that they won't create any jobs in the good ol; U.S. of A. - especially since their purchased pols have ensured that we play by rules that make really easy for them to take advantage of slave labor abroad.

But to get back to the more immediate issue - here's how you contact Claire McCaskill to ask her to work for us:  506 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC, 20510;
Phone: (202) 224-6154; Web Contact Form: here

Don't let Roy Blunt off the hook: 260 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington DC, 20510;
Phone: (202) 224-5721;
Web Contact Form: here

UPDATE: There are some indications that it's a good time to hit Republicans with demands for tax fairness.

Campaign Finance: if that was carpet bombing, this is a low yield nuclear device

by: Michael Bersin

Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 11:15:49 AM CST

C111024 01/30/2012 A SAFER MISSOURI Rex Sinquefield 244 Bent Walnut Westphalia MO 65085 Retired 1/28/2012 $885,000.00

According to their amended Statement of Committee Organization [pdf] filed on December 28, 2011, A Safer Missouri is supporting "Statuatory Amendment to RSMo Chapters 83, 84, 86 and 105, relating to Municipal Police Force, Version 7". That would be about the 2012 ballot initiative concerning local control of the St. Louis Police.

Money speaks. Loudly.

Campaign Finance: carpet bombing with cash

by: Michael Bersin

Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 21:24:19 PM CST

C001135 01/29/2012 JAY NIXON FOR MISSOURI Spinnaker Real Estate Partners, LLC 20 Marshall Street Suite 106 South Norwalk CT 06854 1/27/2012 $10,000.00

C001135 01/29/2012 JAY NIXON FOR MISSOURI Gray, Ritter & Graham, PC 701 Market Street Suite 800 Saint Louis MO 63101 1/27/2012 $100,000.00

C001135 01/29/2012 JAY NIXON FOR MISSOURI Clyde Turner Route 1 Box 4350 Naylor MO 63953 Retired Retired 1/27/2012 $1,200.00

C001135 01/29/2012 JAY NIXON FOR MISSOURI Alvarez & Marsal PAC 2001 K Street, NW Suite 803 Washington DC 20006 1/27/2012 $2,000.00

Dave Spence (r) really can't complain:

C111205 01/26/2012 SPENCE FOR GOVERNOR Missouri Professionals Mutual 287 N. Lindbergh Blvd. St Louis MO 63141 1/26/2012 $25,000.00

C111205 01/27/2012 SPENCE FOR GOVERNOR Committee to Elect Ron Richard PO Box 2523 Joplin MO 64803 1/27/2012 $10,000.00

C111205 01/27/2012 SPENCE FOR GOVERNOR Leslie Goldberg 38 Portland Dr. Frontenac MO 63131 Self Homemaker 1/27/2012 $15,000.00

Think this one will suck all of the fundraising oxygen out of the state?

Costs of climate change vs. costs of higher energy in Missouri

by: WillyK

Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 22:44:26 PM CST

In these turgid lines can be found a treasure trove of prevarications. You've got your impressive-sounding list of scientists agreeing with the Journal (with no corresponding list of those who disagree; the newsprint or bandwith necessary to publish those would bankrupt even the WSJ). You've got your quote marks around the term global warming. You've got your allusions to the silly "Climategate" kerfuffle. And you've got your unsubstantiated allegations of "persecution" of the brave "heretics" who dare stand with poor, puny Industry against the awesome power of academics.

Well and good. Most of us know where the editorial page at the WSJ is coming from. For those who don't, who think that this contrived tripe means that scientists are really "uncertain" about human caused climate change, a couple of articles in yesterday's St. Louis Post-Dispatch suggest that they'll be in for a rude awakening sometime over the next couple of decades.

The first article in the Post-Dispatch confirms the impression of many of locals that  the St. Louis area really has been getting warmer. The USDA has kicked the region up a notch on its planting zone map. While the article describes this change as positive - gardeners can now overwinter more delicate subtropical plants - it doesn't take a genius to figure out that there could also be negative implications for traditional crops as well as for crop pests that can thrive when winters are warmer, especially if this is only the beginning of a warming trend.

The second article notes that the on-going drought in the Southwest is one of the reasons for rising beef prices. Many climate scientists believe that such droughts, which have afflicted the area since 2001, will become the norm over time as warming accelerates.

These two casual pieces of reporting should not only concern those lulled into complacency by climate denialism, but those as well who acknowledge that warming is taking place, but think it is too expensive to do what is necessary to mitigate its effects. For instance, on the topic of drought, scientists warn that:

... climate warming will exacerbate water sustainability problems, the Southwest is likely to experience some of the highest economic expenses and environmental losses.

Nor are the risks of drought confined to the Southwest. Many climate-change models predict that as many as 87% of Missouri's counties "will face higher risks of water shortages by mid-century as the result of climate change." The new USDA map is one of the first indications that the process of warming is underway.

Senator Claire McCaskill often claims that she opposes meaningful efforts to control carbon emissions because of the it might increase energy costs and stress economically challenged Missouri families. Politicians like Blaine Luetkemeyer work hard to keep farmers worried over probably baseless threats that controlling carbon emissions will increase costs. No Missouri politicians seem to be worried about just how expensive doing nothing could very well be.

Even if dire claims about increased expense that will follow from effort to mitigate carbon emissions aren't, at the very least, highly exaggerated, they still represent short-term thinking in the face of a long-term march to disaster. I hope that the same Missouri families and farmers remember who misled them when they have to pony up to deal with the far more expensive problems attendant upon escalating climate change.

*Inadvertently omitted text restored to first sentence of last paragraph.  

HB 1550: fighting the good fight in the "War on Capitalism"

by: Michael Bersin

Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 15:55:37 PM CST

SECOND REGULAR SESSION
HOUSE BILL NO. 1550
96TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES COOKSON (Sponsor), TILLEY, JONES (89), DENISON, WELLS, SCHARNHORST, McGHEE, BURLISON, FITZWATER, PHILLIPS, FRAKER, BARNES, CIERPIOT, FUNDERBURK, CAUTHORN, LEACH, BAHR AND McNARY (Co-sponsors).

5294L.01I                                                                                         D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To amend chapter 161, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to the capitalism education and awareness commission.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:

           Section A. Chapter 161, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 161.860, to read as follows:

           161.860. 1. The provisions of this section shall be known as the "Capitalism Education and Awareness Act".

           2. There is hereby created the "Capitalism Education and Awareness Commission". The commission shall be a permanent commission within the department of elementary and secondary education which shall promote the implementation of capitalism education and awareness programs in the state in order to encourage understanding of the benefits and attributes of capitalism and to encourage market justice and economic freedom.

           3. The commission shall be composed of twelve members to be appointed by the governor, with advice and consent of the senate, as follows:

           (1) The commissioner of higher education;

           (2) The commissioner of elementary and secondary education;

           (3) The president of the University of Missouri system; and

           (4) Nine members of the public, representing the diverse economic and free market groups operating in the state.

           4. The commission may receive funds as appropriated from public moneys or contributions from private sources. The commission may sponsor programs or publications to educate the public about the war on capitalism in an effort to deter indifference and opposition to capitalism.

           5. For purposes of this section, "capitalism" means a political-economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in free market, and which ensures economic freedom -- "the right of individuals to pursue their interests through voluntary exchange of private property under a rule of law."

           6. The commission may employ an executive director and such other persons to carry out its functions.

"...The commission may sponsor programs or publications to educate the public about the war on capitalism in an effort to deter indifference and opposition to capitalism..."

One wonders, did cronies, insider traders, and credit default swap manipulators declare the war? Just asking.

"...Nine members of the public, representing the diverse economic and free market groups operating in the state..."

Does "diverse economic" groups include Marxists, Communists, and Socialists born in Kenya? Just asking.

Now, only if someone would introduce a bill aimed at reducing paranoid time wasting bill filings in the General Assembly.

Morons.

Campaign Finance: Let Voters Decide - growing the pie higher or smaller...

by: Michael Bersin

Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 12:55:10 PM CST

That slice of the pie just got bigger for the right wingnut functionary welfare and full employment social club and industrial complex. And much smaller for everyone else.

That thin slice got thinner. Now the big chunk of the "Let Voters Decide" pie
over the last three months or so is $2.524 million from Rex Sinquefield.

Today, at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

CONTRIBUTION OF MORE THAN $5,000.00 RECEIVED BY ANY COMMITTEE FROM ANY SINGLE DONOR - TO BE FILED WITHIN 48 HOURS OF RECEIVING THE CONTRIBUTION

C101013 LET VOTERS DECIDE [pdf] 1/27/2012

Rex Sinquefield
244 Bent Walnut
Westphalia, MO 65085
Retired
1/26/2012
$1,224,000.0[0]

Heh, the reporting system can't handle all the characters for those million dollar plus contributions.

Previously: Campaign Finance: Let Voters Decide - January 2012 quarterly report (January 26, 2012)

Campaign Finance: Let Voters Decide - January 2012 quarterly report

by: Michael Bersin

Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 23:17:59 PM CST

In their amended Statement of Committee Organization [pdf] filed on October 20, 2011 they state they're supporting a "Constitutional Amendment to Article X, Relating to Income, Earnings, and Sales Taxes, Versions 10, 11, 12, & 13" for the November 6, 2012 general election. Rough translation: We want to gut the budget of the State of Missouri.

Forty-three individual contributions were made to the committee. There were two $10 contributions, one $20 contribution, fourteen $25 contributions, one $28 contribution, nine $29 contributions, seven $48 contributions, five $50 contributions, one $75 contribution, two $100 contributions, one $10,000 contribution, and one $1,300,000 contribution.    

Why, that's a mighty big piece of pie you got there.
That thin line is $1,465 from forty-one contributors, the thin wedge is $10,000 from a Mark Matson in Ohio,
and the rest is $1.3 million from Rex Sinquefield.

REPORT SUMMARY
LET VOTERS DECIDE [pdf] 1/17/2012

1. Total Receipts For This Election Previously Reported $12,041.80

2. All Monetary Contributions Received This Period $1,311,465.00

4. Miscellaneous Receipts This Period $119,091.99

10. Expenditures made by cash or check this period $1,141,903.25

27. Money On Hand at the close of this reporting period $341,042.94

Well, they're certainly burning through the cash.

Let's look at the the contributions in a little more detail:

SC92282: House redistricting suit is rejected by the Missouri Supreme Court

by: Michael Bersin

Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 19:01:56 PM CST

SC92282 - SXR BOB JOHNSON, ETAL, REL V ROBIN CARNAHAN,RES (E-CASE)

Date Filed: 01/23/2012 Location: SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI
Case Type: AP Writ of Prohibition Disposition: Case Disposed- By Order

From the docket entries:

SC92282 - SXR BOB JOHNSON, ETAL, REL V ROBIN CARNAHAN,RES (E-CASE)

01/26/2012   Case Disposed- By Order
  PER CURIAM ORDER ISSUED. SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT. CAUSE DISPOSED BY PER CURIAM ORDER. ORDER: MOTION TO WAIVE THE REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 84.22(A) SUSTAINED. UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE PETITION, AND FINDING THIS CASE, UNLIKE STATE EX REL. TEICHMAN VS. CARNAHAN, NO. SC92237, DECIDED JANUARY 17, 2012, INVOLVES DISPUSTED ISSUES OF FACT, THE PETITION IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO FILING A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION IN THE APPROPRIATE CIRCUIT COURT TO RESOLVE THE FACTUAL ISSUES IN DISPUTE IN A MANNER SIMILAR TO PEARSON V. KOSTER, NO. SC92200, DECIDED JANUARY 17, 2012. UPON THIS MATTER BEING FILED IN THE CIRUCIT COURT, THAT COURT SHALL EXPEDITE THIS MATTER TO ENSURE A PROMPT DECISION IN THIS ELECTION CASE. SEE PEARSON V. KOSTER AND STATE EX REL. TEICHMAN VS. CARNAHAN.

Translation: This ain't like the Senate redistricting which we threw out and we ordered them to start over. If you want to do so, file it in District Court. If this case is filed in that venue that court shall move quickly.

The parties in the case:

HB 1520: on repealing the death penalty

by: Michael Bersin

Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 18:17:16 PM CST

....HB 1520, introduced by Representatives McGhee, Lasater, Wieland, Berry, Kelly (24), Rizzo, Meadows, Webb, Morgan, McCreery, Atkins, Nasheed, Hughes, Talboy, Spreng, Carter, Quinn, Shively, Hubbard, Jones (63), Swearingen, Pace, Walton Gray, McNeil, McDonald, Carlson, Hodges, Sommer, Hummel, Stream, Brown (50), Ellington, Schupp, Kirkton, Montecillo, Oxford, Taylor, Pierson, Webber, Ellinger, Smith (71), McCann Beatty, McGeoghegan and Lant, relating to repealing the death penalty....

In case you're curious, that's an actual bipartisan list of co-sponsors.

The actual bill.