Legislative Hijinks

Per the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, maniac GOP State Representative Cynthia Davis (R-Pluto) is holding a townhall meeting next Tuesday at, of all places, an O'Fallon McDonalds fast-food restaurant.  

Junk food and junk information all at the same sitting. 

A remarkable admission by GOP Rep. Rob "I Hate Robin Carnahan" Schaaf in the pages of the St. Joe News-Press.  In a story about Schaaf's take on the state's Sunshine Law, he lets loose a gem in response to question #2:

2. Should notice of all meetings be posted, with an agenda, at least 72 hours in advance to give citizens a better opportunity to be present?

Schaaf: While this may be feasible for some political subdivisions, “at the State House of Representatives, it would not work.” It takes 12 to 15 days to move bills through the political process with current 24-hour rules, he said.

In other words, Rob Schaaf believes that meetings of the Missouri House ought not be subject to any onerous notice requirements.  Because posting scheduled meetings three days in advance is just too big a burden for those who run our state.

Via Combest, I see that Dave Catanese has a vague bit about the FBI having been in Jefferson City recently. 

The F.B.I. was spotted in Jefferson City the other day, and yes, Republicans are talking (ok, whispering) about it.

What to make of that --it's very non-specific?  Check the context clues: 

Way back in March, the Associated Press had a story about Ethics Commission machinations and some odd contingencies surrounding whether elected officials would have to return above-limit contributions collected during the period before the legislature's repeal of individual giving limits was struck down by the state supreme court.

The story included a curious and (so far as I can tell) still unexplained loophole enunciated by the Ethics Commission (emphasis added):

In all, the commission is letting the 11 politicians keep more than $205,000 in over-limit donations. And if lawmakers approve new legislation to remove the fundraising limits, another $121,000 won’t have to be returned....

Richard, R-Joplin, doesn’t have to return $1,275, must refund $300 and will have to return about $83,000 if the lawmakers don’t repeal the fundraising limits this session. Tilley, R-Perryville, doesn’t have to return more than $31,000. Icet, R-Wildwood, doesn’t have to refund $1,275 but will have to repay $34,000 if the limits aren’t repealed.

Has any reporting on this been done since?  Has anyone explored what will happen now that the legislature has again passed a bill to repeal campaign finance giving limits? 

Is there a more factually sparse or logically bankrupt argument than the one Republicans continue to make in defense of their lifting of voter-approved campaign contribution limits?  As Mike Gibbons demonstrates for the Webster-Kirkwood Times, there probably isn't:

State Sen. Michael Gibbons, R-Kirkwood, who is campaigning to replace Nixon as the state attorney general, said he expects outgoing Gov. Matt Blunt to sign the campaign finance legislation as a means to increase transparency as well as accountability in elections.

"What motivated those of us who supported the bill was a desire to end all the money that goes through the parties, their organizations and the political action committees," said Gibbons. "Right now, unless you are a forensic scientist, you don't know where all the money is coming from in our elections.

Gibbons cites the desire to stanch the flow of "anonymous" campaign money through party committees as the big reason underlying his party's removal of contribution limits.  He makes that case in spite of the fact that the law he passed does nothing to shut down the operation of the party committees as a conduit for the non-transparent flow of political dollars.

After a week of pitched GOP in-fighting, an issue finally came along that was so compelling, it moved former intra-party combatants to beat their political swords into plowshares and leave small-village thinking behind.

That unifier?

The Joplin Globe, from ultra-liberal southwest Missouri, says 'no thanks' to GOP photo ID voting requirements:

Those without photo ID generally are women, the elderly or the poor.

We have enough bureaucracy.

Heaping on one more barrier, or making the system even more prohibitive for some, smacks of political gamesmanship.

Let’s get down to taking care of problems that are real.

Dealing with real problems?  Novel idea.

Blogger Digby on our state's little photo ID party:

There's a big voter disenfranchisement scheme unfolding in Missouri this week. It could be a very big problem --- they want it in place before November...

We know this hits African Americans and Latinos hard and it's designed to make them think twice about putting themselves through this legal hassle. But there's another group that's going to be hard hit by this ---- the elderly. And in Arizona, where they now require proof of citizenship, even though they've been voting for 60 years, they are now just out of luck

The people who think we should limit the franchise in Missouri want very badly to make the median Missourian believe that new voting laws will only affect the sorts of people whom we aren't really supposed to care about.  Fact is, as Digby notes, the Photo ID voting law's most profound effects will be on elderly Missourians whose "citizenship" has never been in question.

Please reference this posting to everyone you know who resides within the State of Missouri.

A typically stupid outcome of a stupid policy implemented by Indiana Republicans.  

About 12 Indiana nuns were turned away Tuesday from a polling place by a fellow bride of Christ because they didn't have state or federal identification bearing a photograph.

Sister Julie McGuire said she was forced to turn away her fellow sisters at Saint Mary's Convent in South Bend, across the street from the University of Notre Dame, because they had been told earlier that they would need such an ID to vote.

Naturally, Missouri Republicans are chomping at the bit to put in place the same sort of foolish law.  Why does the Missouri GOP hate brides of Christ?

There's a pretty simple explanation for this.

Shocking numbers of Republican House members voted against a slate of bills that Party leaders brought forward because they think it's a losing agenda. 

Below is the text of a memo from Rep. Steve Hunter (R-Nutville) lambasting the state Chamber of Commerce and the Missouri Chapter of the National Republican Lawyers Association (whose members include the Treasurer of the House Republican Campaign Committee and GOP candidate for Senate, Eric Schmitt) about the Second Injury Fund.  Its amazing the lengths the Hushlof camp is willing to go to disparage Sarah Steelman for being custodian of the second injury fund.  Grab a bucket of popcorn and an overpriced soda, this primary is going to be a lot of fun.

As we noted this morning, Gina Loudon --a GOP senate candidate and wife of sitting Senator John Loudon-- was the recipient of a campaign check late in the first quarter from Ann Michael, lobbyist for the adult entertainment industry's trade group, the Missouri Association of Club Executives.  To borrow a phrase from Paul Harvey - "now, for the rest of the story"...

According to insiders, the industry's contribution to Gina Loudon has quite an interesting pedigree. 

John Loudon sponsored a bill this session, SB714, that related to criminal sexual offenses.  As that bill moved through committee, Sen. Matt Bartle offered a committee substitute that added provisions to the bill that would place legal restrictions on lap dancing, and the substitute passed out of the committee.  But when Loudon brought the bill to the Senate floor, he reportedly brought a Senate substitute for Bartle's Senate Committee Substitute that stripped (pardon the pun) out Bartle's prohibitions on lap dancing.