Senate Majority Leader Charlie Shields, R-St. Joseph, says he plans to reintroduce a bill to remove all campaign contribution limits:
"What you’ve seen after the Supreme Court overturned it is now you’ve got this period of vagueness. ... Then you’ve seen people creating all these committees and everything like that," Shields said. "I think that ought to send the message that really what you want is transparency. You want to know where the money comes from. And the more time and more places the money comes through, the harder it is to track its roots."
The transparency bit sounds good, and it would probably make it easier for Shields to continue the collect casino contributions, something at which he has been quite adept.
According to October filings with the Missouri Ethics Commission, Shields received $1,300 directly from casino interests, $800 from Isle of Capri and $500 from Herbst Gaming, while the 34th Senatorial District fund, which pours a considerable amount of money into Shields' coffers, received $7,000 from Ameristar Casinos.
During 2006, Shields received $3,350 in direct campaign contributions from casino interests and an additional $1,795 from lobbyists representing casinos.
That may not sound like much, considering some of the figures that have been tossed about on this blog, but Shields represents the 34th Senatorial District and the 34th Republican Senatorial District Committee has been swimming in casino cash.
Missouri Ethics Commission documents show casino interests poured more than $70,000 into the committee, which made numerous contributions into Shields' campaign fund.
Included in that total was $55,700 from Ameristar Casinos, $10,000 from Harrah's, $3,725 from Isle of Capri and $1,275 from Penn National Gaming.
And during the last legislative session, Shields sponsored the Start Smart Scholarship Fund bill which had the following description:
This act establishes the Smart Start Scholarship Program. The program will offer grants for educational expenses incurred while attending a qualifying institution for no more than two academic years to each person who attends a Missouri high school for three consecutive academic years immediately prior to being graduated from the institution, and who, within two calendar years from the date of graduation, applies for a grant under this act.
The bill, however, called for the repeal of casino loss limits, something the industry has been wanting ever since casinos became legal in Missouri.
I suppose Shields is right. The more transparency in campaign contributions, the better, but why not follow the lead of Sen. Joan Bray, D-St. Louis County, as noted in this passage from Jason Rosenbaum's article in the Columbia Tribune:
"The public thinks we’re all controlled by money, and we don’t need to do anything more to make that reality or perception," she said. "The public strongly likes the idea of contribution limits. It has expressed that in votes in the past, and we should respect that and not resort to indulging ourselves in unlimited contributions."
Donation limit opponents point to numerous loopholes that allow interests to funnel large contributions into campaign coffers, but Bray said lawmakers should try to target the flaws rather than throw out all limits on campaign donations.
"Let’s work on the problem," she said. "Let’s not just cause another problem."
1 comment:
...of course you and Bray ignore the court's ruling on that those "voter approved" limits were unconstitutional.
It's too bad that you and Bray don't think the public is smart enough to make decisions on their own. They must be protected by the government and neer do wells, er I mean vigilantes er I mean public servants such as yourself and Bray.
Post a Comment