Missouri's miracle lobbyist, Andrew Blunt, did it again.
According to documents posted this morning on the Ethics Commission website, Blunt did not pay a penny to wine and dine state legislators or other elected officials during the month of September.
As noted previously in this blog, Blunt, who, of course, is the governor's brother, has not spent a cent since Matt Blunt took office in January 2005.
How in the world does he manage to keep all of those high-powered clients?
Just what is it you want? Do you want to outlaw being a lobbyist entirely? If so, how do you see such a law getting around the First Amendment. It seems to me that until such time as the First Amendment is repealed people will have the right to freedom of speech and assembly.
ReplyDeleteAlso, do you object to teacher’s union money being used to lobby against school choice?
Guess what, I am pto-Nodler and I did not make that last anti-turner comment , so when Randy says we are all the same person he is soooooooooo wrong!
ReplyDeletecorrecting a typo as Randy always does, that pro-Nodler not pto-Nodler not to be confused with parent teacher organization
ReplyDeleteThanks for the story, Randy. Judging by the preceding comments, there are some, who for reasons that they prefer to keep to themselves, resent that you print public information about the Blunts, Nodler, Ruestman, and assorted lobbyists. Most of us, however, appreciate you and generally regard your work as a public service. Keep it up!
ReplyDeleteI don’t resent that Randy makes comments about the spending, or lack thereof, of lobbyists. I am just confused as to what it is he wants. I don’t see where he has ever posted the contributions of teachers unions, environmental groups or other left leaning lobbyists, which leads me to believe it is not lobbying per se that bothers him but rather lobbying for positions he opposes.
ReplyDeleteI am for enforcing laws against bribery but I would prefer to keep our freedom of speech and association around. In this case Randy is condemning someone for not spending a dime. From the tone of the article I am inferring that Randy is suggesting that Blunt is using his family name to influence law makers (sort of like when Hillary’s bother got all those presidential pardons at the end of Bill’s second term). Even if that is true, how do we legislate against it without running afoul of the First Amendment?
Here's one for you, Senator Nodler was endorsed bye the NEA, the MSTA, The School Boards Asss and the School Administrators Ass., Yet Turner attacks Nodler all the time. You are right to be confused. Turner attacks those with strong support from Voucher and private school supporters and school choice advocates and he also attacks those supported by the public education interests. it is clear that Turner is just against education period!
ReplyDeleteIn fact most of us do not appreciate Randy, we detest him. If you knew his reputation in Carthage and why he was fired you would detest him too. So speak for yourself.
ReplyDeleteDon't you have some homework to do, kids? If not, you should. I suggest you try some history. It would be helpful in the current situation. As they say, those who forget history (and those who refuse to learn it) are doomed to repeat the same mistakes and fall on their faces again and again and again.
ReplyDeleteAnd by the way Randy, I appreciate the work you do. Ignore the twits.
Well Pop, why don’t you tell us the history lesson you are thinking of that involves lobbying and the role of political siblings?
ReplyDeleteWhy don’t you start with the story of Tony Rodham.
Apparently many who "detest" this blog have nothing better to do in their lives than read online blogs they despise. How sad for them.
ReplyDeleteI didn't say I detested the blog I just said many of us detest Randy personally. As for you confession about how sad it is that anyone reads it, if you feel that way just stop, no one is making you waste your life as you seem to think you are. Being a Nodler sock puppet would clearly advance you considerably from your current lowly estate.
ReplyDeleteRandy here's a question. You contantly attack the fact that lobbyists spend money on legislators. You contantly attack Blunt because he doesn't. Lets get it straight, are you for lobbyists spending money on legislators or against it? If you are against it, then credit Andy Blunt for not doing it. I do understand your perspective, you think consistancy is the hobgoblin of small minds!
ReplyDelete