Today, Billy Long remarked upon House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s 1,990 page health care proposal, saying, “Yesterday’s revised health care proposal released by Speaker Nancy Pelosi is just as bad as the original HR 3200. This bill does nothing but interfere with the relationship between patients and their physician. Government should not have a role in every part of our lives. Regrettably, it has become clear that liberal Democrats do not share this belief. All this bill will do is lead to rationed care, a decrease in physicians, and a massive increase to the already nearly $12 trillion national debt.”
He continued, “Instead of trying to force a bill that is 1,990 pages long and eight inches tall through the House next week, why not spread it out over a couple of weeks by having eight separate votes on one-inch bills? That would allow the public and members of Congress to take the time to read the legislation, debate all of the contents, and see what is really going on. If this bill were any good, the process would be transparent. Instead, the liberals are trying to use political chicanery to force their big-government agenda through Congress. I just hope they don’t decide to drop another several-hundred-page amendment the night before the vote like they did with cap and trade.”
Instead of the liberals’ government-centric approach, Billy supports free market measures that would reduce health care costs by creating tax credits to allow families to purchase health insurance that works for them, allowing state-to-state portability of coverage to create more competition, and allowing high-risk people who have difficulty getting insurance to pool together to purchase insurance. He also supports Small Business Health Plans, which would allow small businesses to pool together to purchase insurance, giving them the same negotiating power as larger corporations and allowing them to negotiate more-favorable rates. In addition, Billy supports focusing on integrating information technology into the health care system by digitizing records to reduce administrative costs, allow physicians to have ready access to important patient records, and make treatment more efficient.
1. Improve Watchdog Journalism: Recognize the value of unique, revelatory journalism; review resources to ensure adequate allocation to watchdog work; experiment with delivery systems; and look for partnerships and other creative sources of watchdog content.
2. Reposition the Daily Newspaper: Recognize that the newspaper is not a breaking-news medium; Develop unique content tied to community interests and focused on delivering depth, context, analysis, perspective; Produce local content that differentiates us as a media organization; and "get our swagger back."
3. Reposition Our Web sites: recognize that our Web sites are the primary medium for breaking news; ensure the Web site is distinct from the newspaper; Address Web design, content, functionality and utility; Leverage the strengths of the medium; and explore consumer response to various paid content models and possible vendor partnerships.
4. Sunday Readership and Engagement: Create a content strategy to attract younger readers; Protect high-value content for loyal Boomer readers; Invest in sales and marketing resources to grow engagement in key demographics and geographic audiences: Leverage advertising opportunities around the special value of Sundays.
5. Be Strong Community Leaders: Protect our long tradition of helping our communities solve issues, set visions, right wrongs; Preserve strong editorial voices in print while reflecting our changing audiences; solidify our role in the center of digital community conversations by leveraging all possible platforms; Be forces for positive change, when appropriate.
That was apparent to me in the fall of 2007, when their president of 25 years, Julio Leon, stepped down in the second year of a three-year contract, effective immediately, after some disagreements with its Board of Governors. Contrast that with Western where you, Dr. Scanlon, gave the university a year advance notice, ensuring we could take our time finding a replacement and not need an interim president. As a member of the selection committee, I was impressed by the professionalism of the search process, which included members visiting the campuses of finalists and bringing three candidates to Western for interviews. Southern did not employ such rigor and only ended up bringing one candidate to Joplin. That is not to imply MSSU President Bruce Speck was not a qualified candidate—indeed, he was one of our finalists before we chose you, Dr. Vartabedian—but many on campus probably felt like they were not given a choice. The situation has only deteriorated since then:
• Several programs, especially the International Studies program that is central to Southern’s state-mandated mission, have been severely cut.
• Faculty and staff pay has been frozen for two years at Southern.
• Opposition to Speck and long-time Board of Governors member Dwight Douglas was so strong that a blog (which garnered as many as 1,000 hits in one day) focusing on their shortcomings was created.
• Several high level administrators have resigned, including a vice president for academic affairs who resigned after only three weeks on the job.
• Southern’s faculty senate, outlining 23 criticisms of Speck for “failures of leadership, management, shared governance, judgment and public embarrassment,” overwhelmingly passed a vote of “no confidence.” A vote of the entire faculty will be held Nov. 2.
While such controversy might make the front pages of this newspaper a bit more interesting, I for one am glad we have had a level-headed Board of Governors and drama-free presidents like the two of you.
Newman's attorney Tom Carver attempted to explain to Judge Williams that it was his fault that his client was late....but at that point it was already too late as Williams had signed a warrant for Newman's arrest.
Newman who had been free on $50,000 bond is now being held in the Taney County jail on an additional $10,000 CASH ONLY BOND......and a $90,000 signature bond.
Last week was the 50th anniversary celebration of Citizens for Educational Freedom (CEF). This was so important because it brought out a diverse group of people all committed to one goal---helping parents to help their children achieve their maximum potential. This organization is committed to promote the primary rights of parents to pursue freedom of choice, justice and quality in education for all. These economically difficult times should inspire us toward vigilance to assure our tax dollars are being used in the most equitable manner.
As the mother of seven children, I can attest to the reality that all children have a variety of educational needs and responses to different environments. It is shortsighted to assume that what is best for one is best for all. Children need to be considered individually and put into the learning structure that will allow them to thrive. In addition, many come from homes where their parents cannot afford any other option besides public school. We need to consider the whole person and support whatever options will be of greatest benefit to the students. The best answer is to allow the parents to decide what will help their child the most.
When families feel it is best to put their children into an alternative educational setting, they receive no credit or appreciation for having made such sacrifices. Private school or homeschooling requires far more parental time, transportation expenses and tuition or curriculum acquisition with no assistance from the government, even thought these parents also subsidize the government public schools through property taxes. This structure can make alternative education choices prohibitive to parents who are on the lower end of the economic ladder. Citizens for Educational Freedom believes that parents, regardless of income, should decide where their children will attend school. Through programs that allow choice, all families will be treated equally, competition among schools will be fair, and the quality of education will improve for everyone.
Instead of perceiving children’s education to be the job of the schools, we need to see that it is the parent’s job to assure their children are educated and the schools exist to assist in that goal.
According to www.darwinawards.com, in 1982, Brazil was attempting to pull off a senior class prank at McCluer North High School in Florissant, Missouri. Brazil plan was to deposit thousands of pounds of sand into the school’s faculty parking lot. Brazil even owned a dump truck that could be used to aid in the prank.
After quite a few beers, Brazil and his buddies loaded up the dump truck with sand and drove to the school. One of Brazil’s friends, Norval Pierce sat on top of the bed of the truck while Brazil dumped the sand. Brazil drove slowly while dumping, attempting to adequately spread the sand in the parking lot. As Brazil was driving, the truck jumped forward, throwing Pierce through the frame of the truck. Not realizing what had happened, Brazil continued to drive while drunk and dumping sand. Brazil proceeded to crush Pierce under the truck.
So now we have another instance of Brazil’s irresponsibility and not owning up to his mistakes. What else do we need to know Joe?
"Between 2005 and 2008, Pete Newman became a close friend of his by attending family dinners, sleepovers, bible studies, taking vacations together and writing letters. Pete would hold one-on-one sessions with (the boy) in Pete's hot tub (at Pete's residence) and would request they be naked. Pete would discuss life's struggles with (him) and talk about masturbation. Pete would explain that if (the boy) would masturbate with him in his hot tub then there would be no lust and therefore (the boy) would not be sinning."
According to court documents, on June 8, 2009, Joe White received a signed letter from Newman, confessing to multiple acts of sexual misconduct with former campers and offering an apology. Shortly before the September warrant was issued, Joe White made a statement that it had been known since March 2009 that Newman allegedly “engaged in sexually inappropriate behavior with adolescent boys, including some who had been Kanakuk Kampers.” There are allegations that the camp organization has known about Newman’s improper conduct for many years and failed to acknowledge it. Sexual abuse lawyers at Cory Watson Crowder & DeGaris are accepting cases involving accusations of inappropriate conduct or possible sexual abuse at Kanakuk camps. All inquiries will be handled in a discreet and confidential manner.
If you or your child were victimized by Pete Newman, we want to help. When you contact us, you will immediately be able to speak with one of our experienced lawyers, and your conversation will be confidential. We have experience in these cases dealing with very emotional and private situations. We can help you. For a discreet and confidential consultation please contact Ernest Cory or Tara Henderson at Kanakukcase@cwcd.com or call toll-free (800) 852-6299.
“Overseas manufacturers, particularly in Europe, are creating H1N1 vaccines at a much faster rate because they don’t contend with the same inflexible regulatory environment that our domestic manufacturers face,” Blunt said in a statement released by his office. “Only now, as flu season hits, do we find out that we don’t have enough H1N1 vaccines to treat the most vulnerable Americans.”
Not knowing that his conversation was being overheard by the feds, Sen. Jeff Smith, who resigned his seat and pleaded guilty to two felony counts of obstruction of justice, tried to talk his co-conspirator, Rep. Steve Brown, into blaming everything on the late Artie Harris.
During a June 30 meeting at Starbuck's Cafe in Clayton, Smith told Brown, "Can you put it on Arnie?" Smith asked. "If you can just put it on Arnie." Arnie Harris, a key member of Jeff Smith's 2004 Congressional campaign, died shortly after being interviewed by the FEC about accusations, since proven to be factual, that Smith's campaign worked with Milton "Skip" Ohlsen on the direct mailing of attack literature against the eventual winner of the Democratic primary, Russ Carnahan.
Smith continued to take that cowardly approach during another meeting with Brown and 2004 campaign treasurer and co-conspirator Nick Adams June 30 at Smith's home, again with the FBI listening in.
Smith and Adams tag-teamed Brown to get him to lay the entire blame on Harris. Adams said, "I'm alive and Artie's dead. Can was emphasize this was Artie's deal?"
Smith added, "Artie would totally want us to throw him under the bus here."
Smith, not realizing his conversation was being monitored by an FBI wiretap June 1 confirmed his connection to an unsuccessful backdoor attempt to derail Russ Carnahan's successful primary bid for the House seat being vacated by Richard Gephardt.
"Did I know (Milton Ohlsen) was going to do something/" Smith told his co-conspirator, Rep. Steve Brown during the telephone conversation. "Yeah, I mean I thought he was going to do something. If I didn't think he was going to do something, hen I would have said to Artie (Harris) and Nick (Adams) don't waste your time talking to that guy."
During that conversation, which was included in documents filed today in U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Smith acknowledged he knew Brown had paid Ohlsen money for the illegal mailing:
"I vividly remember somebody being like well (Ohlsen) wants to do this, and I was like, well, f------ let him do it, sweet. And they're like, well, he's going to need the money to do it, he'll need to get it from your donors, and I said, like hopefully, my donors will give it to him."
The court documents indicate another conversation between Smith and Brown, this one face to face was also monitored. During that conversation, Smith talked about what evidence the FBI had against him "I don't think he (Ohlsen) taped any phone conversations with me. I mean, I pray he didn't. I may have had a phone conversation with him where I acknowledged what he was doing."
Smith then admitted he was fully aware of what Ohlsen was doing. "I'm assuming that I broke the law by having knowledge of what (Ohlsen) was going to do. I don't know how they could prova that."
Smith then told Brown to lie to investigators. "Don't do anything stupid," he said. "Stupid would be telling them that things that are happening in your brain."
Smith said when he was interviewed he would be "Ninety percent honest."
In response to a majority of the questions, Speck said the Board of Governors has made the decisions or will be making them. He said his role has been to provide guidance on the pros and cons of an issue so that board members have a reasonable foundation on which to act. He also said he is making recommendations to the board.
He was asked whether he would ever take an adversarial position with the board if he disagreed with something it did.
“I will give them my best judgment of a situation,” he said. “It’s not a question of whether I can live with it or can’t live with it.”
Richard said he believes any legislative proposal should address “closing some loopholes.”
“But people should be able to give what they want,” he said. “It should be transparent and direct, to the campaign and not through committees.”
I watched the news tonight with interest to hear of Dr. Bruce Speck’s first ‘Faculty listening’ meeting. The Television channel that I watched featured Dr. Speck’s response to questioning about the International Mission and he stated that it had to be evaluated in terms of ‘How does it benefit every student on campus?”. On the face of things this seems to be a reasonable request, until one actually takes a moment to think about what a University does.
Let’s assume for a moment that this ‘every student’ filter is the correct method to evaluate programs offered by Missouri Southern State University.
What about the majors that students get. Not every student gets the same major so perhaps we should eliminate all courses related to a student actually getting a Major. So the four schools would all have to be eliminated (save some money on all those pesky Deans and Faculty). All that would be left is the general education curriculum – the first two years of a student’s academic career at MSSU. Isn’t that the definition of a Junior College – Crowder. They provide the general education courses that are required of all students.
What of the proposed new Medical school – since presumably not all MSSU students would become Doctors it doesn’t pass that muster either. So we can quit fooling ourselves about this since it won’t ever become a reality anyway.
So, what would MSSU actually have since:
Not all students receive financial aid
Not all students drive and park at the University
Not all students live in the dorms and eat at food service
Not all students get sick and need the medical services clinic
Not all students use the library (ask any professor or the professional library staff that question)
Not all students play sports
In fact, not all students do anything except pay tuition, oops, the Honors program doesn’t pay that and that sure isn’t all students, not even if you throw in all those non-paying athletes.
It might be a very interesting analysis to compute the cost of each sports team and the actual number of students who benefit (This was asked of the International Mission) and just as the requirement was stated there – these sports program must either pay for themselves or make a profit. (A doubtful proposition since the Int’l Mission was cut by over $ 200,000 and the money given to the Sports programs which had gone over budget by that amount). Dr Speck is the one who created this lightning rod, not anyone else. I'm not advocating getting rid of sports, they, like every other program which does NOT BENEFIT EVERY STUDENT ON CAMPUS is valuable and part of the University.
The purpose of a University is to offer differing course work leading to a variety of Majors to serve students learning needs for their differing careers. When Dr. Speck begins to say things like ‘every student’, ‘cost effective’, or ‘fair’ he is about to state something that simply leads to further doubt about his credibility and honesty.
Is the International Mission of benefit to all students? It has a created a diverse campus which provides for rich experiences both in and out of the classroom.
It has created a faculty that provides learning experiences in the classroom that extend beyond the horizon of just SW Missouri and provides the basis for integrating a students learning with the extended world beyond the borders of Missouri and even the United States. It makes them (students) more competitive, self confident, and enables them to view life in terms that apply critical thinking and evaluation from a richer and more informed viewpoint. Yes, just like ‘Go Lions – Beat Pitt” does.
At the Board of Directors meeting of The Empire District Electric Company held today, the Directors declared a quarterly dividend of $0.32 per share on common stock payable December 15, 2009, to holders of record as of December 1, 2009.
The Company, an operator of regulated electric, gas and water utilities, announced today the results for the quarter and twelve months ended September 30, 2009.
Highlights
The Company reported consolidated earnings for the third quarter of 2009 of $14.8 million, or $0.43 per share, compared with 2008 same quarter earnings of $20.2 million, or $0.60 per basic share and $0.59 per fully diluted share. Earnings for the twelve months ended September 30, 2009 were $41.1 million, or $1.20 per share. This compares to earnings of $31.6 million, or $0.95 per share, for the 2008 twelve month period.
Extremely mild weather during the third quarter lowered kilowatt hour sales and resulting electric revenues compared to the 2008 third quarter. The Company estimates cooler summer temperatures may have decreased electric revenues by almost $10.8 million compared to the 2008 third quarter. According to statistics provided by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association, the 2009 third quarter was one of the coolest summer periods in modern recorded history for the Company’s service territory.
The Company announced today that it has increased the aggregate offering amount of its equity distribution program of its common stock from $60,000,000 to $120,000,000. The Company has sold $30.6 million of common stock utilizing this program since its inception in February 2009.
Instead of funding American troops as a national obligation, congressional Democrats are again using defense spending legislation as a place to hide their pet political projects.
Congressional candidate Vicky Hartzler said: “This is a terrible example of liberals using the good will of our men and women in uniform to advance their radical agenda. It’s wrong.
“First, by Congressman Skelton’s decision, the House used military funding to make a backroom deal for an agenda of the homosexual rights lobby. Now, House leaders are said to be extending the disreputable game of ‘using the troops,’ to create a new House seat for the District of Columbia.
“The way to stop the partisan political games with the U.S. military is to replace go-along liberals like Congressman Skelton, who has lived in Washington DC for 33 years, with new thinking and new blood. If elected, I will support the military 100 percent. I will never play politics with troop funding by using defense legislation for unrelated partisan political payoffs.”
Hartzler, a Republican, said the possibility of the new plan to force the military to haul water for liberal partisan politics was mentioned last Thursday by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland.
As with Skelton’s recent acquiescence to Speaker Nancy Pelosi and homosexual lobbyists, the new bill would be included in a defense bill during final negotiations with the Senate. The earlier Skelton-arranged deal expanded federal law to create a caste-system for victims of certain violent crimes giving more justice to some based on the perpetrator’s intent.
This Skelton-managed special rights bill, voted on party lines October 8, was sought by homosexual lobby groups. It came from a closed-door House-Senate deal to include the special-rights language in the annual defense spending bill, as a "rider" and "special provision." It sets special federal penalties in violent crimes where sexual orientation is claimed as a motive. Hartzler believes in equal justice for all, with strict enforcement against all violent criminals.
The latest liberal move to use the troops as hostage to liberal politics would use defense appropriations to create a new Washington, D.C. vote in the House along with a second new seat created for Utah.
Winter is quickly approaching and that means it is time to start considering legislation for the coming session. As your elected Representative I believe it is important to communicate my priorities. This week I’d like to share some legislation I have been working on and will continue to work on in the next legislative session beginning in January.
Property Tax Reform – It is time to stand up for our seniors and home owners. For too long, rising assessments and taxes have made our homes unaffordable. My proposed reforms would make property taxes more predictable and manageable. It really bothers me that the government meant to protect our rights is forcing seniors out of homes they’ve had for 30 plus years.
State Sovereignty – The stimulus package is just the latest effort from the federal government to control the states. I want the State of Missouri to remind Washington that we are a sovereign and independent state. We do not have to and we will not continue to cow to Washington’s wishes.
Grandparents’ Rights – It is well-known that children are generally going to be in a more loving and nurturing environment with their own family members. Last year we passed legislation giving grandparents the first opportunity to take their grandchildren in the event they are removed from their parents’ home. There are still abuses in the system and I want to continue to correct those.
Expanding Castle Doctrine – In 2007 we passed Castle Doctrine applying to your home, dwelling or vehicle. I’d like to go back now and expand that to include your property. We need to put the criminals on notice that if they invade our property, the owner can assume they are there to harm them and act accordingly.
Volunteer Firefighter Tax Credit – Over 70% of Missouri’s firefighters are volunteer. This tax credit would offer $180 - $360 in tax credits for firefighters reaching a certain threshold of training. Tax credits are hard to pass in times of economic stress, but I believe our firefighters deserve this for the sacrifices they make each and every day to protect our families.
According to court documents, on June 8, 2009, Joe White received a signed letter from Newman, confessing to multiple acts of sexual misconduct with former campers and offering an apology. Shortly before the September warrant was issued, Joe White made a statement that it had been known since March 2009 that Newman allegedly “engaged in sexually inappropriate behavior with adolescent boys, including some who had been Kanakuk Kampers.” There are allegations that the camp organization has known about Newman’s improper conduct for many years and failed to acknowledge it. Sexual abuse lawyers at Cory Watson Crowder & DeGaris are accepting cases involving accusations of inappropriate conduct or possible sexual abuse at Kanakuk camps. All inquiries will be handled in a discreet and confidential manner.
If you or your child were victimized by Pete Newman, we want to help. When you contact us, you will immediately be able to speak with one of our experienced lawyers, and your conversation will be confidential. We have experience in these cases dealing with very emotional and private situations. We can help you. For a discreet and confidential consultation please contact Ernest Cory or Tara Henderson at Kanakukcase@cwcd.com or call toll-free (800) 852-6299.
The General Assembly’s expansion this year of the state’s DNA profiling system to enhance state law enforcement’s ability to solve crimes is already making a significant difference within just two months of the bill’s passage.
On Aug. 28, the governor signed House Bill 152, which requires DNA samples to be taken from anyone 17 years of age or older who is arrested — not just convicted — of violent crimes, burglaries and sex offenses. To protect individuals’ civil liberties, lawmakers also took measures to ensure that if the charges are dropped after the person is arrested, the DNA sample would be destroyed and all DNA records expunged. Missouri is reportedly the 21st state to institute similar legislation.
The new DNA law is already making a positive difference in our state. The first case resulting in a criminal charge being filed as a result of the new law recently occurred in southwest Missouri, where law enforcement officers were able to match a DNA sample taken from a 17-year-old arrested in a recent break-in to blood left at the scene of an earlier unsolved burglary in the area. According to the Missouri State Highway Patrol, its crime labs have also matched three other DNA profiles obtained from arrestees to unsolved crimes since the expanded DNA law took effect.
You may recall that in 2004 Missouri passed a crime-fighting bill that requires all convicted felons in Missouri to submit DNA samples. Since that law was passed, the program has provided investigators with around 2,500 hits. More than 220 homicide investigations and 540 sexual assault cases have been aided by the expansion of the law. The new legislation is expected to build upon the program’s success and lead to the arrest of many more criminals who have so far managed to keep their identities secret.
I’m very pleased to see Missouri’s new DNA law already working to fight crime and provide more protections for our citizens. And as we have learned through increasing frequency from state and national headlines, DNA profiling has proven most effective in capturing criminals and, just as importantly, exonerating innocent people.
Gina DeBottis, director of the Huntsville-based Special Prosecutions Unit that handles prison crimes, said Lorraine Tabler, 61, and Kristina Martinez, 36, pleaded guilty in a Polk County state court and received a sentence of 10 years deferred adjudication.
Under that sentence, both women will remain on probation for 10 years and will have their record cleared ofd the charges if they do not commit new crimes in the meantime, officials said.
Speaker Richard, however, is concerned; he's now talking about legislation to "reinforce the seriousness" of ethics laws.
That would be fine if Missouri had serious laws. Here's a clue: If the House speaker can be a political consultant, your laws aren't serious. If lobbyists pay for your Christmas parties and your working dinners, your laws aren't serious.
The state needs tough new laws, including strict campaign contribution limits; a ban on using party committees to launder contributions and a state ethics commission with some real clout.
It's time to clean up Illinois politics, and not just in Illinois.
He says it's a tough loss because Kansas City casinos will soon face aggressive competition from a new casino just across the state line. By January he thinks the legislature will have had more chance to gauge the impact that casino will have on Missouri's operators. He doesn't know if the information will change anything but lawmakers will at least have a better grasp on the situation.
But the impact might become obvious well before the new Kansas casino is built because the Kansas legislature is allowing more gambling at the Woodlands dog track. Hundreds of slot machines soon will be installed at the track, which is in Kansas City, Kansas.
But Shields admits it's going to be hard getting legislators from eastern Missouri to vote for ending loss limits. He says casinos in Illinois do not provide the kind of competition for St. Louis boats that the Kansas casino will provide on the western side.
House Speaker Ron Richard, a Republican, declined to address specific proposals, but said he is open to a “serious look into how we can work to strengthen Missouri ethics laws and ensure moral behavior in the House of Representatives.”
“The Kansas City Star’s investigation into the apparent selling of legislative action by current and former Republican leaders of the Missouri House of Representatives should disturb all Missourians who value integrity in the legislative process. The Star exposed numerous instances in which special interests that supported or opposed particular legislation gave huge campaign contributions to House Republican leaders, or campaign committees under their control, shortly after winning a favorable legislative outcome. The examples cited by the Star simply are too numerous to be explained away as mere coincidence and indicate a widespread culture of pay to play among House Republican leaders.
“A major reason these situations occur is the repeal of Missouri’s voter-approved campaign contributions limits, which House Republicans jammed through in the closing minutes of the 2008 legislative session with virtually no debate. House Democrats opposed the repeal of contribution limits and remain committed to legislation that not only would reinstate limits but crack down on the laundering of funds through shell committees, which has continued unabated despite claims by repeal supporters that ending limits would improve transparency.”
Robert and LaVerne DuPont were scheduled to go to trial in early November on health care fraud, conspiracy and money laundering. But a federal judge has postponed the trial at the request of an attorney for Robert DuPont.
Springfield attorney Stuart Huffman said in a court filing last week that he recently learned additional charges will be filed against DuPont. Prosecutors agreed it would be best to delay the trial, he said.
In Washington, our Second Amendment rights are being threatened by the far-left, liberal radicals. This administration has supported far-reaching restrictions on guns. While in the Illinois Senate, Senator Obama voted in FAVOR of lawsuits aimed at gun manufacturers by victims of gun accidents and crimes. He also cosponsored a bill to limit gun purchases to one per month.
The story is different in Missouri since a conservative majority took the reins in 2003. We passed a conceal carry law which is still in effect today. In the six years it has been in effect in Missouri, there has only been one weapon-related incident involving someone with a conceal carry permit. Conceal carry licenses act as a protection for responsible, law-abiding citizens.
In the upcoming session, we plan to expand the conceal carry permits to include citizens aged 21 and up. Missouri is currently the only state that requires a resident be 23 years old to obtain a license. We believe that all responsible adults should be allowed to conceal carry if they choose.
Additionally, we are looking at increasing the time frame a conceal carry license is valid. Right now, they are only good for three years. I advocate an increase to five years. If, in that time, a person with a permit breaks the law or takes advantage of the law, the privilege should be revoked permanently. Otherwise, let those obeying the law, keep it for a longer time.
One reason the Second Amendment is so vital is protection of families and property. That is why I worked hard to pass the Castle Doctrine in 2007. The Castle Doctrine states that you have the right to defend your family and home from a perpetrator. In 2009, the Missouri House will be working to extend that right to your land as well. A person should be able to protect his/her person, family, home, land and livestock from intruders.
“First let me say, The Carthage Press is NOT going out of business,” Felix said. “In fact, we are doing fine, but we must make some changes to stay on track. This decision was made due to the continuing increase in the cost of newsprint paper. Over the past years, newsprint paper has gone up and continues to climb.”
Carthage Press Managing Editor John Hacker said the change will have little effect on how much of the news affecting Carthage and Jasper County the paper covers.
In fact, the additional planning time created on Monday by not having the pressure of putting out a newspaper right after the weekend will allow the news staff to better plan its week and possibly cover more events.
How big was Nodler's margin of victory? Zilch. The conventional wisdom was wrong. Team Long smartly played down expectations and Nodler raised $77K to Long's $104K.
Campaign cash flowed freely following legislative action this spring on how the state's judges are picked, The Star's investigation found.
Judicial nominees for the state supreme and appeals courts, along with some larger circuit courts, are vetted by commissions made up of lawyers, gubernatorial appointees and a sitting judge. But conservatives have assailed the process, arguing that it gives too much influence to trial attorneys.
At the forefront of the fight has been the Humphreys family, owners of Joplin-based Tamko Building Products Inc. Tamko makes roofing products and other building materials. The company has been named in numerous asbestos lawsuits and boasts of a "very aggressive" litigation strategy.
Some companies believe that, through the political process, they can put judges on the bench who are more conservative and sympathetic to corporations.
Jetton and other House leaders have courted the Humphreys family for years. According to a Jetton confidant, who asked not to be identified, Jetton set a goal at the start of his reign as speaker to cultivate the Humphreys family first as $50,000 donors and then elevate the family to $100,000.
Jetton said he has met with David Humphreys twice over the years at his office in Joplin.
"I went down ... and explained what we were doing. And I said, 'If you like what you've seen, we need you to help us out,' " Jetton recalled. "And he was like, 'I like it. I'll help you.' "
•Limits on campaign contributions. Lawmakers lifted the cap in 2008, promising greater transparency as a tradeoff. But donors still funnel anonymous donations through political committees. Exorbitant payments give the appearance, deservedly or not, that politicians are being bought..
•A stronger definition of what constitutes a lobbyist. Jetton uses weak laws to avoid registering as a lobbyist and disclosing clients and income. Yet he’s clearly been involved in influencing legislation.
•A prohibition on lawmakers working for lobbyists or as paid campaign consultants while in office. Few states permit those activities, and Missouri should be ashamed that it does. Lawmakers should enact a waiting period before a former legislator can return to the Capitol as a lobbyist.
•A stronger watchdog. The Missouri Ethics Commission takes too long to investigate complaints, and it rarely issues meaningful sanctions against lawmakers who violate ethics provisions. The legislature needs to give the commission the resources and backing it needs to be effective.
Excessive campaign contributions and brazen political power plays are soiling Missouri’s Capitol. If lawmakers won’t voluntarily clean up their house, voters should replace them with legislators who will. Or perhaps the FBI will take the initiative
•A bill aimed at requiring insurance companies to provide coverage for the diagnosis and treatment of autism spectrum disorders easily passed the GOP-controlled Senate on a 29-2 vote and cleared two House committees.
But House leadership opted not to bring the bill to the floor, despite widespread support. Insurance companies opposing the bill followed up that decision with at least $40,000 in donations to House Speaker Ron Richard and floor leader Steven Tilley, a client of political consultant Rod Jetton.
Dear fellow legislators,
Since taking my seat in the House of Representatives earlier this year, I have had numerous conversations with many of you about the need for sweeping ethics reform in our state. Far too often, these conversations end with regretful resignation to the belief that nothing is likely to change despite the glaring problems that exist.
The purpose of this letter is to articulate some of the most basic problems, the remedies I believe are necessary, and the statutory changes I intend to propose next session in the form of multiple bills. I know what an incredibly difficult task it will be to pass major ethics reform. That’s why I’m starting this conversation four months before the session begins. I want the opportunity to incorporate your input before these bills are pre-filed in December.
I also intend to highlight a few legislative proposals from last year that I think deserve a fresh look this year.
Ethics violations occur on both sides of the political aisle. It is my sincere hope that these pieces of legislation will have bipartisan support in 2010.
Please contact my office to indicate your interest in co-sponsoring any of the new pieces of legislation next session. Contact the past sponsor to co-sponsor good bills I’m highlighting from last session.
Most importantly, please let us know what changes you would suggest. I don’t promise that the final bills will include every suggestion, but I will certainly do my best to introduce legislation that includes bipartisan input, so long as that doesn’t require sacrificing the prevailing mission of real reform.
Thanks for your consideration. The attached document lists our greatest problems, my proposed solutions (and previous proposals by others), and the language I’d like to see in our state’s statutes.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Jason
#1
Problem: Money Laundering
Unfortunately, it has become common practice by many Missouri politicians to shuffle funds from one committee to another in order to “wash” contributions and mask their source. This risks the possibility of legislators engaging in “pay to play” schemes without the risk of detection because funds can enter the system in one committee and then travel through several others over a period of months before finally reaching the legislator in question. Our completely unregulated committee system serves little purpose other than to aid those who engage in the laundering of political money.
Solution: Common sense committee reforms
Because political money is typically “washed” through a variety of committees before finding its way into a candidate or party committee, my initial instinct was to eliminate several of the committee designations that exist now (continuing, legislative district, etc.).
My research indicates that doing so would present a first amendment problem. Therefore, we must settle for regulating the existing system.
I propose that we allow only candidate committees to receive donations from other committees. If non-candidate committees are not allowed to donate to one another, the current methods for laundering political money will be impossible without directly implicating a candidate’s campaign committee.
Statutory language to be added to RSMo 130.031
“No committee shall transfer funds to any other committee with the sole exception that a candidate committee may transfer funds to another candidate committee. Whoever attempts to transfer funds from one committee to another for the overriding purpose of concealing or masking the origin of a political contribution shall be guilty of a class D felony.”
#2
Problem: Donor Anonymity
Currently, the Missouri Ethics Commission (MEC) website only allows users to search for contributors to candidate committees. Therefore, a contributor who has received unlawful favors from a legislator but does not want to be known as a contributor to that legislator or a tangentially related committee can rest assured that only extreme due diligence will reveal their contribution. This severely limits transparency and is partly due, by design I suspect, to the lack of a requirement for electronic filing by noncandidate committees.
Solution: Bring continuing committees into the light of day
If candidate committees can be expected to file online disclosures, it is not overly burdensome to expect the same of other committees. The law must be amended to require all committees to file electronically. Additionally, the MEC should be instructed to make all itemized contributions – regardless of committee type – searchable on the MEC
website.
Statutory language to be added to RSMo 130.057
“8. All committees required to file disclosure reports with the Missouri Ethics Commission must do so in electronic format as prescribed by the Commission. The Commission shall make all contributions to any committee registered with the
Commission available in an easily accessible electronic format to the general public in accordance with the requirements for public officials in section 5 above.”
#3
Problem: Pay to Play
Current law does prohibit the exchange of value for official acts. However, a more clearly articulated, broader statute would allow more frequent prosecutions of “pay to play” activities by legislators and deter legislative extortion. It is questionable whether the current law would specifically encompass the giving of campaign contributions, for instance.
Solution: End legislative extortion
We need a new provision specifically aimed at “pay to play” schemes and including more than just the passage of law, but also any promises not to advance or hinder certain legislation. In 2005, Rep. Rachel Storch introduced language concerning bribery, but the bill did not receive a hearing. That language was a definite step in the right direction as it expanded the application of bribery, but it is time for us to go even further and write a law that encompasses the way in which “pay to play” transactions are most likely to proceed.
We can continue to sit around and hope that federal agents from the Western District will make Jefferson City corruption a priority, or we can create an actionable “pay to play” provision in Missouri law and allow the outstanding law enforcement professionals at the state level to make a contribution toward clean government, as well.
Statutory language to be added to RSMo Ch. 105
“Section 1. Whoever offers anything of value – including, but not limited to, political contributions – in consideration for the act of passing state or local legislation or a state administrative regulation or whoever offers anything of value in consideration for failing to pass or hindering the passage of state or local legislation or a state administrative regulation shall be guilty of a class D felony.
(A) Violations of the above section would include, but are not limited to, accepting anything of value as consideration for a promise to: advocate for or against a piece of legislation, assign legislation to a specific committee, delay the referral
of legislation to a committee, or in any way affect the legislative schedule to hinder or benefit specific legislation.”
#4
Problem: Rampant conflicts of interest
There have been several instances of legislators and members of their staff conductingpaid political work for members or potential members of the General Assembly. The conflict of interest is obvious. For instance, if a staffer or member responsible for the assignment of bills to a particular committee receives compensation for work as a political consultant to a bill’s sponsor, there is either impropriety or the appearance of impropriety when the staffer or member’s office gives favorable treatment to such a member’s legislation. It is unfortunate that such conflicts have only been unearthed in the
past by investigative journalists. The public should have the opportunity to find such conflicts themselves.
Solution: A mix of prohibition and increased accountability
To deal with the problem of staff conflicts, I propose that we increase the number of positions that require personal financial disclosures (PFD). Current law requires that certain positions, such as General Counsel, file PFDs, but there is some debate about whether or not that applies to part-time or contracted employees acting in such roles. I will file legislation to end that debate.
Additionally, I propose that any staffer who also works as a paid political aide of any kind be required to file a personal financial disclosure.
Rep. Paul Quinn proposed legislation last year that prohibited members of the General Assembly from acting as political consultants for one another. I hope that more members will co-sponsor Rep. Quinn’s bill this year and that the Speaker will refer it to committee.
Furthermore, former Rep. Harris at one point proposed language that would have required all staffers to House and Senate leaders to file PFDs. I believe this to be a common sense idea, as well.
Statutory language to be added to RSMo 130
“1. Staff member - an individual employed by the state of Missouri or any public official of the state of Missouri.
2. Staff members receiving compensation for political activities or consulting not directly associated with their official positions, shall be required to file a personal financial disclosure report with the ethics commission. The ethics commission
shall determine the content of the report to be filed and establish reasonable deadlines for filing. Both the content and the deadlines shall be substantially similar to the personal financial disclosures required of public officials.”
Statutory language to be added to RSMo 105.483
“(12) This section shall apply to all persons in the roles or positions set forth previously, to include those compensated on a full-time, part-time, or contract basis.”
#5
Problem: Political Consultant Tax Evasion
According to reporting by the Springfield News-Leader, there have been instances in Missouri where political consultants have used campaign committees to finance the operations of a private business. This was a foreseeable problem, given the sometimes blurred lines between political business and political campaigning.
Solution: Outlaw it
It is important that this be addressed directly in statute in such a way that creates a manner in which to prosecute an obvious federal violation at the state level – should the federal government fail to move. Already powerful political consultants in Missouri can only consolidate power if they are allowed to operate their businesses beyond the reach of state or federal taxes.
Statutory language to be added to RSMo Ch. 130
“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no committee funds shall be used for the payment of the private business expenses of any person or other entity unless specifically allowed by law. The violation of this section is a class D felony.”
#6
Problem: De-facto lobbyists
An individual who serves as a political consultant to multiple members of the legislature, but also does consulting work for private entities with business before the legislature, is able to lobby on behalf of corporate clients without the traditional lobbyist regulations.
This is more than just unfair competition in the lobbying community; it is a dangerously unregulated way for corporate actors to gain significant influence within the Capitol.
Solution: Registration
These non-lobbyist lobbyists must be brought into the light of day. For instance, a consultant could work for members of both chambers and do grassroots public relations work against a specific piece of legislation (on behalf of a corporate client) at the same time. The expectation that the corporate client would not ask the consultant to speak to his clients about the issue or that the consultant would not have already done so is naïve.
The solution is to create a “de-facto lobbyist” category and require registration. It could be included in the current lobbyist definitions in RSMo 105
Statutory language to be added to RSMo 105.470
“De-Facto Lobbyist – Any individual who works as a political consultant or public relations consultant for a member of the legislative or executive branch and for any other entity doing business in the state of Missouri whether or not such individual expends funds or other items of value to influence or attempt to influence an election, the passage of a law or regulation, or a ballot measure.”
#7
Problem: Obstruction of Investigations
With few resources at their disposal, the Missouri Ethics Commission is heavily reliant upon elected officials and political activists to offer honest information. Due to the lack of likely follow-up work in the limited investigations that take place, it is difficult to assess who is telling the truth. Obstructing an MEC investigation should carry a heavy penalty – one significant enough to deter obstruction. There are some who believe that the federal system that harshly punishes obstruction is unfair, because it allows prosecutors to get convictions when there is not enough evidence to charge theunderlying acts. This is a wrong-headed philosophy.
When Patrick Fitzgerald indicted Scooter Libby for obstruction, he faced this criticism and offered an analogy that explained the obstruction statute perfectly: “If you saw a baseball game and you saw a pitcher wind up and throw a fastball and hit a batter right smack in the head, and it really, really hurt them, you’d want to know why the pitcher did that. What we have when someone charges obstruction of justice, the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. He’s trying to figure what happened and somebody blocked their view.”
Solution: Model the federal approach
The fact is, we have a recent example in Missouri politics where lying didn’t pay because the system worked. Not the Missouri system, but the federal system. It’s important for us to have a statute that significantly deters Missouri’s politicians from throwing sand in the umpire’s face.
Statutory language to be added as RSMo 575.01
“Section 1. 1. A person commits the crime of obstruction of an ethics investigation if:
(1) He or she confers or agrees to confer anything of pecuniary benefit to any person in consideration of that person’s concealing or withholding information concerning an ethics violation under the jurisdiction of the Missouri Ethics Commission or a violation of any election law; or
(2) He or she agrees to accept anything of pecuniary benefit in consideration for concealing or withholding information concerning an ethics violation under the jurisdiction of the Missouri Ethics Commission or a violation of any election law; or
(3) He or she for the purpose of obstructing or preventing an ethics investigation:
(a) Utters or submits a false statement that he or she does not believe to be true to a member or employee of the Missouri Ethics Commission or to any official investigating the violation of an election law; or
(b) Submits any writing or other documentation to the Commission, its investigators, or any other official agent of the state acting under ethics, election, or campaign laws that is not accurate and that he or she does not believe to be true.
2. 1. It is a defense to subdivision 3 of subsection 1 of this section that the false statement or writing or other documentation was retracted, but this defense shall not apply if the retraction was made after:
(1) The falsity of the statement or documentation was exposed; or
(2) The member or employee of the Missouri Ethics Commission or an official investigating a violation of election law took substantial action in reliance upon the statement or documentation.
2. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of retraction pursuant to this subsection.
3. Obstructing justice pursuant to this section is a class D felony.”
#8
Problem: Political Machines
The political machines of today take a different form than those of the Pendergast area. Today, they are centered on political consultants as often as special interests. Our system enables this process, in part, because a single individual can serve as treasurer of multiple committees. While not everyone that controls multiple committees does so for a dishonest purpose, there are far too many “bag men” able to donate funds from several different sources (and, in the absence of money laundering reforms, directly to their own committees). This allows a single person to further a conspiracy to conceal the origin of funds with almost no help from others, making it nearly impossible to prevent.
Solution: End the slight of hand
Why is it necessary that a single individual act as treasurer of multiple committees? It is not. We can put a few “bag men” out of business. Former Rep. Jeff Harris first proposed this in 2005 and I have built upon the language he proposed at that time.
Statutory language to be added to RSMo 130.021
“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an individual is prohibited from serving as the treasurer or deputy treasurer of more than one committee at any time. Violation of this provision is grounds for such individual’s removal via a writ of quo warrant issued by any court of competent jurisdiction or upon the unilateral action of the Missouri Ethics Commission.”
PAST PROPOSALS DESERVING OF YOUR CONSIDERATION
#1
Problem: Lobbyist Gifts
There’s not much to say here. There’s just no reason this bill shouldn’t finally move forward. Why is it so important that elected officials have the chance to get free tickets and free dinners in order to learn more about a particular issue? Constituents who do not have the money to entertain their representative for two hours shouldn’t have less opportunity to persuade them as a result.
Solution: End it.
The single sentence solution in Rep. Brian Yates’s proposal from last year says it all. We should all join Rep. Yates in co-sponsoring this bill when he proposes it again this year.
Statutory language to be added to RSMo 105.456
“No member of the general assembly shall accept any tangible or intangible item, service,or thing of value from any lobbyist, as defined in section 105.470.”
#2
Problem: The no-limit world
Missouri once led the way toward campaign finance reform, making it all the more disappointing that we are one of the few states with no contribution limits at all. In 1994, Missourians overwhelmingly supported a ballot measure that implemented campaign contribution limits and, in 1999, in Nixon v. Shrink, then Attorney General Nixon successfully defended the law before the U.S. Supreme Court. We have a proud history of responsible campaign reform, but today a single special interest can dwarf the influence of the average voter because they have the means to exclusively bankroll a candidate’s campaign.
Solution: Restore the limits
Last session, I co-sponsored Rep. Paul Levota’s bill to restore campaign limits and I propose that we finally take that action this year.
Statutory language to be added as RSMo 130.032
“130.032. 1. In addition to the limitations imposed under section 130.031, the amount of contributions made by or accepted from any person other than the candidate in any one election shall not exceed the following:
(1) To elect an individual to the office of governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, state treasurer, state auditor, or attorney general, one thousand two hundred seventy-five dollars;
(2) To elect an individual to the office of state senator, six hundred fifty dollars;
(3) To elect an individual to the office of state representative, five hundred dollars;
(4) To elect an individual to any other office, including judicial office, if the population of the electoral district, ward, or other unit according to the latest decennial census is under one hundred thousand, three hundred twenty-five dollars;
(5) To elect an individual to any other office, including judicial office, if the population of the electoral district, ward, or other unit according to the latest decennial census is at least one hundred thousand but less than two hundred fifty thousand, six hundred fifty dollars; and
(6) To elect an individual to any other office, including judicial office, if the population of the electoral district, ward, or other unit according to the latest decennial census is at least two hundred fifty thousand, one thousand two hundred seventy-five dollars.
2. For purposes of this subsection, "base year amount" shall be the contribution limits prescribed in this section on January 1, 2010. Such limits shall be increased on the first day of January in each even-numbered year by multiplying the base year amount by the cumulative consumer price index, as defined in section 104.010, RSMo, and rounded to the nearest twenty-five-dollar amount, for all years since January 1, 2010.
3. Every committee established under this chapter shall be subject to the limits prescribed in subsection 1 of this section. The provisions of this subsection shall not limit the amount of contributions that may be accumulated by a candidate committee and used for expenditures to further the nomination or election of the candidate who controls such
candidate committee.
4. Except as limited by this subsection, the amount of cash contributions, and a separate amount for the amount of in-kind contributions, made by or accepted from a political party committee in any one election shall not exceed the following:
(1) To elect an individual to the office of governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, state treasurer, state auditor or attorney general, two thousand dollars;
(2) To elect an individual to the office of state senator, one thousand dollars;
(3) To elect an individual to the office of state representative, five hundred dollars; and
(4) To elect an individual to any other office of an electoral district, ward, or unit, ten times the allowable contribution limit for the office sought.
5. The amount of contributions that may be made by or accepted from a political party committee in the primary election to elect any candidate who is unopposed in such primary shall be fifty percent of the amount of the allowable contributions as determined in this subsection.
6. Contributions received and expenditures made before August 28, 2010, shall be reported as a separate account and under the laws in effect at the time such contributions are received or expenditures made. Contributions received and expenditures made after August 28, 2010, shall be reported under the provisions of this chapter as a separate account from the other separate account described in this subsection. The account reported under the prior law shall be retained as a separate account and any remaining funds in such account may be used under this chapter.
7. Any committee that accepts or gives contributions other than those allowed shall be subject to a surcharge of one thousand dollars plus an amount equal to the contribution per nonallowable contribution, to be paid to the ethics commission and which shall be transferred to the director of revenue, upon notification of such nonallowable contribution by the ethics commission, and after the candidate has had ten business days after receipt of notice to return the contribution to the contributor. The candidate and the candidate committee treasurer or deputy treasurer owing a surcharge shall be personally liable for the payment of the surcharge or may pay such surcharge only from campaign funds existing on the date of the receipt of notice. Such surcharge shall constitute a debt to the state enforceable under, but not limited to, the provisions of chapter 143, RSMo.
#3
Problem: Lawmaking in the shadows
The sunshine law in Missouri is one of the best mechanisms to ensure honest, transparent government and hold accountable those who misuse power. Under current law, individual members of the Missouri General Assembly are exempt from the sunshine law. If members are violating even existing ethics laws, it’s almost impossible to prove it without the use of a subpoena.
Solution: Legislative sunshine
Last year, Rep. Jake Zimmerman proposed an easy fix to this problem. I’m happy to say that Rep. Tilley and Rep. Schoeller were among the co-sponsors. Rep. Zimmerman’s bill would have applied the sunshine law to all government officials – including members of the General Assembly. My hope is that Rep. Tilley will impress upon the speaker the importance of actually referring Rep. Zimmerman’s bill to committee this session. When Rep. Zimmerman offered it as an amendment to another open records bill last session, it failed by a single vote.
Statutory language to be added as RSMo 610.010(4)a
Application of the open records law to: “Any public official, statewide elected official, or employee of the state and its agencies when such persons are operating in their official capacities and using state-funded equipment for their official communications;”