As Show-Me Progress revealed in a post Sunday, retired billionaire voucher supporter Rex Sinquefield appears to be involved in the creation of 100 PACs, which will enable him to contribute far above the limit to any of his favored candidates.
Judging by the PACS which have filed their October disclosure reports with the Missouri Ethics Commission, Sinquefield appears to be contributing $2,500 to each of the PACS to get it started. Only one reported making any contributions.
Slightly more than half of the $2,500 contribution Sinquefield made to Missourians for Economic Growth Statewide PAC, $1,275, went to Attorney General candidate Chris Koster, D-Harrisonville.
Besides the contributions Sinquefield has made through these PACS, he is also back to using the committee laundering system that was used prior to the repeal of campaign contribution limits, and is now back in fashion again. I will have more on that after the filing of the final disclosure reports today.
4 comments:
Randy, if this is true, I'm totally disgusted! I thought that Koster became a Democrat? It looks as though he brought his Republican-Bag-of-Tricks with him. I suppose this would be typical when a Republican changes parties when he decides to run for office. I AM SO DISAPPOINTED!
I have no respect for a person that is such a political opportunist. I will under no circumstances support him.
If a candidate only takes money from donors he agrees with then he's selling a yes vote.
Candidates should take money from everyone and everywhere if they want to win, then vote in the interest of their constituents.
Until we have public funded campaigns, how can you smell only one candidate when the entire system is rotten?
What? “If a candidate only takes money from donors he agrees with then he's selling a yes vote.”
You mean if I am in favor of school vouchers and run on that platform that I would be “selling my vote” because I accepted campaign contributions from someone who agrees with my views? To me “selling my vote” would mean voting for something I do not believe in simply to get a “contribution.”
When I give money to a candidate I agree with and want to see elected then I am exercising my First Amendment free speech rights. On the other hand, if I give a candidate a bunch of money to someone and then tell him how to vote then I am committing a crime. There is a difference between the two acts. In the first case, I am giving him money because we agree on a policy and I’m hoping he can get his message out to convince people to vote for him on the basis of his policy positions. In the second case, I do not care what he believes in, rather I am bribing him to vote how I want.
If you tell me that I cannot pay for advertising to promote a view I agree with then you are limiting my free speech rights. By telling me I can not give money to a campaign to promote the views I agree with you are also limiting my free speech rights. I know life is unfair and some people have more money to give then others but that is life in a capitalistic democracy (a system, I might add, that has performed a lot better in preserving individual liberties then the various communistic systems favored by the left).
One way we can limit the advantage of wealthy individuals is to allow regular people to pool their money to give to campaigns or for other advocacy activities (that is what Randy dismisses as a “special interest group”). If you do not agree with the views of a school voucher PAC then I’m sure there is an anti-school voucher PAC you can give your money to (I bet Randy belongs to one, it is called a teacher’s union).
When you talk about “public funded campaigns” what you are saying is that I cannot not give my money to whatever candidate I think best represents my views, instead I must give my money to the Government who then decides which candidates it wishes to give my money to. So, by controlling the flow of money, the Government gets to select the candidates and the views that are worthy for office. Does that really sound like a policy that enhances the cause of democracy and free speech?
Post a Comment