....The Winning America Back conference was organized by a Missouri political-action committee called Preserving American Liberty (PAL-PAC). The group's Web site states that "Members of Preserving American Liberty are from the Kansas City metropolitan area and are all unpaid volunteers who want to make a positive difference in the community." Yet when I asked local politicians (including state representatives, a Senate candidate, and a congressional candidate) and local journalists about who had organized the event, I found that they knew nothing about the sponsors....
....PAL-PAC seems to have been created for a single purpose: to pay Sarah Palin to give a speech. PAL-PAC announced the Palin event at the same time that it announced its own formation. After the Palin event was over, most of the information on PAL-PAC's Web site disappeared. In effect, PAL-PAC was a disposable entertainment company, set up to put on a one-day show that collected the contact information of thousands of people who came to see Palin in the flesh, and to give her their money. The organization has not been mentioned again anywhere online or in local newspapers. The group's financial statements are curious....
[discussion of Missouri Ethics Commission reports]
Ed Martin has been debating Rep. Russ Carnahan--without bothering to inform Carnahan that they are debating each other. Naturally, when Carnahan doesn't show up (to a debate he was never invited to), Ed Martin can roll his eyes and bemoan to the audience his opponent's repeated irresponsible behavior.
When I called Carnahan's office to verify that his campaign had not agreed to these debates, Angela Barranco, his campaign manager, laughed and said "Those debates were 100 percent never agreed to." In fact, Barranaco says the first anyone at Carnahan's office knew about them came when a reporter called a few weeks back, saying something to the effect of "Um, y'all didn't agree to a ... series of debates or anything, did you? Because Martin's campaign has issued a press release about several of them." The reason the reporter was so skeptical was that the press release mentioned that Martin Duggan, a well known local conservative, was listed as the moderator. And the reporter was pretty sure that unless the Carnahan staff was suffering from collective dementia, they would never have agreed to Duggan as moderator. It was maybe not quite as fishy as pretending that Glenn Beck had been chosen to moderate a debate between President Obama and Sarah Palin, but you get the idea.
The other red flag dead giveaway for the reporter was that the press release called the "debate" on health care: Obamacare. Again, this had to be group dementia at Carnahan HQ or a flagrant scam.
Some folk I know, not of a conservative persuasion, attended last night's debate, hoping to ask Martin about his position on Medicare. But he was (almost) too slick for them. After shaking his head sorrowfully about Carnahan's failure to appear, he had his Communications Director pass out index cards for people to write questions on. You probably think he cherry picked the questions he would answer. Not so. He didn't answer any of them. In fact, no one picked them up from the crowd--though one lady we'll call Cathy did manage to get her card up to the Communications Director. So half an hour before the event was to end, the CD said it was time for the final question (as if any had been asked at all) and then said, "Oh, it only says 'I have a question.'" At that point Cathy jumped up and said, "That's my question."
The CD tried to interrupt her, but Cathy soldiered on, explaining that she was a single mom without insurance. An acquaintance of mine who was there tells me that Martin appeared visibly ticked and said that maybe she ought to have her own town hall. Then he apparently thought better of snarky behavior and engaged her in conversation.
We'll have video in the next day or so, and I hope that exchange will be plain for all to see.
MO Association of Realtors Issues Mobilization
PAC
Columbia, MO
8/30/2010
$150,000.00
And even more interesting, the committee was newly formed:
Date Established: 8/26/2010 Date Terminated:
COMMITTEE: MECID:C101512 VOTE YES TO STOP DOUBLE TAXATION
JEFFERSON CITY MO
[emphasis added]
On August 31st, five days after the committee was formed and one day after the committee received its contribution, a judge ordered that the initiative be placed on the ballot. It would appear that the supporters of the initiative were supremely confident in their legal arguments.
Cole County judge Paul Wilson has ordered Secretary of State Robin Carnahan to certify an inititiative petition that seeks to prohibit imposition of real estate transfer taxes in the state....
The two docket entries for August 31st are interesting:
10AC-CC00504 - R D MCCELLAND ET AL V ROBIN CARNAHAN
08/31/2010
Docket Entry: Notice of Appeal Filed
Text: Defandant's Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court of Missouri filed. jab
Filing Party: MORGAN , JEREMIAH JOSEPH
Docket Entry: Judgment Entered
Text: Now on this 31st day of August, 2010, the Court takes up this matter for the purpose of entering its final Judgment. As explained in the Court's Memorandum Opinion, incorporated herein as if fully set forth, it is the Judgment of this Court that Petition No. 2010-046, submitted to the Secretary of State on May 2, 2010, contains constitutionally sufficient number of valid signatures and fully complies with the Constitution of the State of Missouri and Chapter 116 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri. Therefore, pursuant to Section 116.200.2 RSMo (2000), the Secretary of State ("Secretary") is hereby ORDERED to certify this Petition as sufficient and take all other actions necessary to ensure that the constitutional amendment proposed in this Petition is put before the voters in the November 2, 2010, general election. Such actions shall include, but not be limited to, the Secretary sending a copy of this Judgment and an amendment to her original Section 116.240 certification and notice, dated August 24, with a certified copy of the legal notice and sample ballot for the constitutional amendment proposed in this Petition. SO ORDERED this 31st day of August, 2010./s/PCW/rd
Filing Party: WILSON , PAUL CAMPBELL
Another campaign ad smackdown of Roy Blunt (r-lobbyists) from Robin Carnahan's (D) campaign:
Robin Carnahan: I'm Robin Carnahan and I approved this message.
Announcer: Congressman Roy Blunt, he got caught trying to insert a secret deal for tobacco giant Philip Morris into a bill just days after company executives gave him over thirty thousand dollars.
["Big Tobacco's Sweetheart." St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Editorial, 6/13/03]
[FEC.gov]
He voted to weaken the rules on lobbyist gifts.
[Washington Post, 1/8/03, HRS 5, Vote #4, 1/7/03]
Rode corporate jets provided by a defense contractor convicted of bribery.
[Defense Contractor Sentenced to 12 Years for Bribery, The Washington Post, 2/20/08]
And he's taken more money from lobbyists than any member of Congress.
[USA Today, 10/4/09]
Roy Blunt, he's the very worst of Washington.
[Paid for by Robin Carnahan for Senate. Approved by Robin Carnahan.]
Dave Helling at the Kansas City Starremarks on the republican press release in response to the Carnahan campaign ad:
...The release, however, does not say that any of the claims in the Carnahan spot are inaccurate.
If you were really all that, would you be afraid to stand up for what you represent? FiredUp! points out that Roy Blunt not only didn't respond to Robin Carnahan's invitation to debates - he later tried to tell the faithful who tune into the Jamie Allman program that Robin is the one who is afraid to debate! Say what you will about integrity, you can't say Daddy Blunt lacks brass.
And of course, there's Ed Martin, the archetype for frat boy trickmeisters everywhere, who is so afraid of debating Russ Carnahan that he schedules pretend debates. An understandable ploy - it's so much easier to make points against your opponent if you don't actually have one.
Today, again via FiredUP!, we learn that Billy Long, the Republican running for Roy Blunt's House seat, is not only trying to get out of a series of debates with his opponent, the putative Democrat, Scott Eckersley (and, like Roy Blunt, lying about it), but he won't even participate in an environment only dreamed about by other GOP candidates. As of this writing, Long just doesn't seem to be able to find time for a debate sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce and moderated by a chamber member who will, get this, "ensure that we remain on topic and that it doesn't turn into a debate format." A debate that doesn't have a debate format and candidates who would want that to be the case - am I missing something here?
Which brings us to the eponymous question: Why are Republicans scared to debate? I admit that it's a rhetorical question. We all know the answer. If you were intent on sticking to your focus group tested, to-the-gut-but-well-shy-of the-brain talking points and were incapable of defending said points with facts, you probably wouldn't want to debate either.
Which is not to say that there isn't an actual question we should be asking: How can any citizen of Missouri really want to vote for somebody with so little faith in their own policy positions that they can't stand up in a real debate and defend them?
...a strange combination of support for a pseudo populist far right wingnut and an inside the beltway Washington friend of lobbyists.
Granted, they're both running as republicans, but cognitive dissonance in politics can be an amusing phenomenon. That is until the rest of us suffer the consequences.
Steve Benen, in an excellent analysis of the sloganeering that characterized Glenn Beck's Besmirch MLK Rally yesterday, exposes the lack of substance behind the boiling Tea Party paranoia. Benen's post, definitely worth reading in it its entirety, concludes:
The folks who gathered in D.C. today were awfully excited about something. The fact that it's not altogether obvious what that might be probably isn't a good sign.
According to Bill Lambrecht at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch's "Political Fix," St. Louisians who traveled to Washington D.C. to bask in the light of Beck, the self-anointed prophet, and his acolyte, Saint Palin, are equally worked up and just as vague about what it is that's got them twitching.
One gentleman whom Lambrecht quotes melodramatically declares that "This is to wake up the people. The politicians don't listen." We should doubtless overlook the tang of sour grapes in this cri d'coeur - the outraged tone of those who thought that the Bush years, with their indulgence of the full range of right wing fanasy, would truly go on forever. That particular speaker though does seem to have awakened - albeit a few years too late. He is concerned, Lambrecht reports, because he has "never seen the economy so bad":
It's time to stop Congress from all this overspending and these frivolous earmarks. I think we're headed for a collapse of the economy if it doesn't stop
Similarly, an equally clueless St. Louisian is quoted as saying:
I'm scared that where we're going is not a good place," ... There is no good ending to this story unless we make a U-turn," he added.
The fact that the economy collapsed some time ago - two years ago to be exact - due to the ministrations of those applying just the panacea of deregulation and tax cuts that folks like these gentlemen advocate, doesn't seem to have much penetration among this segment of the population. Instead they seem to derive intense, almost palpable satisfaction out of railing against the very measures that have kept us from the deepest and darkest of economic pits. How could any thinking person want to make a U-turn right back to the Bush policies that put us in the very bad place we were in at the end of 2008?
What is really going on when you have a wildly energized group whose raison d'etre dissolves when examined closely? Several observers noted that the tone of the Beck rally was essentially religious. However, the St. Louis attendees who were quoted in the Lambrecht article almost all seemed to locate their worries in the political sphere, And, although they might justify themselves by reference to religious beliefs, I strongly suspect that most of those attending expect to find solutions to their complaints in retrograde political action.
Am I the only person who finds this blending worrisome? On the one hand, you have easily led, poorly informed people, seething with discontent, expressing real fear and anxiety about something that doesn't ever seem to quite materialize in an intellectually viable form. On the other hand, you have numerous interested parties feeding the group's sense of self-importance with visions of super-patriotism, heroic defiance, and now, with the Glenn Beck crusade, a sense of religious mission. Am I the only one reminded of Father Coughlin's incendiary radio broadcasts and his depression era Christian Front brown shirt wannabes?
Announcer: Roy Blunt's Washington, a culture of corruption and special interests where Missouri gets left behind.
And when our economy collapsed Washington is where Roy Blunt took the lead and voted for the seven hundred billion dollar Wall Street bailout. Where Blunt has taken over one point six million dollars in contributions from Wall Street.
And Washington is where Roy Blunt was named one of Congress's most corrupt politicians.
Roy Blunt, he isn't just in Washington, he is Washington.
Second Announcer: The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is responsible for the content of this advertising.
On Friday, a small group of senior citizens visited Roy Blunt's office with some questions about Medicare and Social Security. They found the doors locked, and the staff hid from them. Whenever a staffer found it necessary to leave the office, he would act as if the seniors were ghosts that he could neither see nor hear. But obviously, the staffers did see and hear the intruders, because eventually they called the cops and had those ruffians removed from the property.
Well, the staff's behavior is perfectly understandable. First of all, imagine the gall of those old folk to ask questions at the office of a Senate candidate about issues that concern them. And. And. Keep in mind what a scary bunch they must have been, shouting and screaming (in modulated tones) as they did. Watch the video. You'll see what I mean. Thugs, whether they're on the far side of 65 or not, have to be shown what's what.
...In his campaign kickoff, Hoeman said he's better equipped than Dixon to deal with pressing issues like healthcare because he's able to see the impact up close.
"I have consoled patients in my office who have broken down in tears because their Medicaid had been taken away. Without it, healthcare was simply not possible for them," Hoeman said...
Everybody knows someone who has problems getting access to affordable health care. Maybe that rational political seed has been planted. We can hope.
Thanks to St. Louis Activitist Hub, I got my first real introduction to the strange mixture of hysteria and ignorance that is Dr. Gina Loudon, local Tea Party luminary. Adam at the Hub was having a little fun with her over the top spiel about the Burlington Coat Factory Muslim community center (known on Fox News as the Ground-Zero mosque), which she compared to a Nazi war memorial in the center of London. Enough said. What struck me, though, was Loudon's evocation of a tenet of "Sharia law"* to justify her bigotry.
Sharia law seems to have become one of the concepts that gets wingers salivating right now. Oklahomans will vote this November, for instance, on whether or not to ban Sharia law - in spite of the fact that there is not even the slightest indication that anyone would ever try to impose Sharia in Oklahoma.
Closer to home, winger William Teach wonders why those who have a problem with the religous overtones of Missouri's most recent anti-abortion legislation aren't fighting Sharia law instead. The fact that right-wing Christians rather than Muslims have a stranglehold on the Missouri legislature doesn't seem to strike him as germane to the topic.
Nevertheless, Teach's emphasis on religious law is suggestive. If you go to Loudon's Webpage, you will find, immediately following the mosque harangue, a post titled "A Call to Christians," the burden of which is the need to get Christians energized to take back the country.
Now, I'm not too keen on Sharia law, but neither am I keen on Christian theocracy. While I have no evidence that Muslims in the U.S. want to impose Sharia, there's lots of evidence that many in the Christian-leaning right-wing here in Missouri would just love, as Loudon suggests, to take back the country and stick me with their version of biblical law.
Consider Cynthia Davis, dogged purveyor of Christian Nation legislation. Davis takes her cues from people like David Barton, revisionist pseudo-historian and founder of the Wallbuilders, a group dedicated to establishing a Christian nation - or as Barton would prefer, returning the nation to its Christian roots.
...American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds play a key role in the $54 million construction project at Western Missouri Medical Center, a USDA representative said Wednesday.
"If not for the stimulus funds, we probably wouldn't be in this room today," USDA State Rural Development Director Anita "Janie" Dunning said.
Without stimulus money, Gregory said, the USDA could not have loaned the hospital $34 million...
It's the only hospital in the county - the nearest hospital after that is at least thirty miles away.
The punch line? A republican state senator was quoted in the same article:
...Sen. David Pearce said, "We've all invested in this hospital and believe in it."
This evening KY3/MSU released a poll of 785 people taken statewide. The online report did not indicate the date(s) of the interviews, the margin of error for the full sample, or the voter screen. The results were weighted. The results do indicated the margin of error for the three congressional race subsamples.
...If the 2010 election for U.S. Senate from Missouri were held today, would you vote for Robin Carnahan, the Democrat, or Roy Blunt, the Republican?
Robin Carnahan - 48.4%
Roy Blunt - 48.8%
Other - 2.8%
The formula to calculate the margin of error (95% confidence level) is 1.96 x the square root of the multiplied percentages of each candidate which has been divided by the total sample.
1.96 x square root ((Carnahan x Blunt)/785)
For our purposes here we'll call 'em even at 50% each. That's a 3.5% margin of error (3.497%, if you don't want to round to one decimal place).
A commenter responding to questions about the poll added the following:
....Margin of error is +/-3.5 and although there were more female respondents, the data was weighted appropriately to compensate.
[....]
Since the poll was conducted with Random Digit Dialing. Since most younger people use only cell phones (cell numbers are not included in this type of poll) there are more older respondents. Again, though, the data is weighted to compensate. The poll results gained from this sample can be generalized to the larger state population with a 95% confidence level....
It'd be nice to know the interview screen - adult, registered voter, or likely voter - and the period of time in which the interviews took place.
Jo Ann Emerson (r), the incumbent in the 8th Congressional District, is running an ad attacking challenger Tommy Sowers (D) for his support of health care reform.
...Jo Ann Emerson fought the health care bill...
[Jo Ann Emerson Fought Obamacare]
...and is working for repeal...
[emphasis added]
That's interesting.
On August 24th the Congressional Budget Office responded by letter [pdf] to a request for information from Senator Mike Crapo (R) concerning the effect on the deficit if health care reform legislation were to be repealed.
Their answer? Repealing health care reform legislation would increase the deficit by $455 billion:
...Health Care Savings under PPACA and the Reconciliation Act
Finally, you asked what the net deficit impact would be if certain provisions of PPACA and the Reconciliation Act that were estimated to generate net savings were eliminated specifically, those which were originally estimated to generate a net reduction in mandatory outlays of $455 billion over the 2010-2019 period. The estimate of $455 billion mentioned in your letter represents the net effects of many provisions. Some of those provisions generated savings for Medicare, Medicaid, or the Children's Health Insurance Program, and some generated costs. If those provisions were repealed, CBO estimates that there would be an increase in deficits similar to its original estimate of $455 billion in net savings over that period.
[page]
CBO's earlier estimate was based on the forecasts of economic conditions, health care spending, and other technical factors that CBO published in 2009. Since that time, CBO has prepared new baseline projections consistent with updated economic and technical information, and has also extended its baseline to include 2020. We have not updated the estimate of health-related savings reported in March, but CBO has no reason to believe that such an estimate would differ substantially from the original one.
I hope you find this information helpful...
"...I hope you find this information helpful...
Uh, I don't think any republicans will. Just guessing. Do you think Jo Ann Emerson (r) will change her campaign ad? The answer to that is probably no. After all, republicans are getting a lot of mileage out of noise and distortion. Why should Jo Ann Emerson (r) be any different?
...amend Missouri law to require large-scale dog breeding operations to provide each dog under their care with sufficient food, clean water, housing and space; necessary veterinary care; regular exercise and adequate rest between breeding cycles. The amendment further prohibits any breeder from having more than 50 breeding dogs for the purpose of selling their puppies as pets. The amendment also creates a misdemeanor crime of "puppy mill cruelty" for any violations...
The Fund for Animals
New York, NY
7/30/2010
$10,000.00
[emphasis added]
Okay, this looks like it's one of three things - no one in Missouri is sufficiently bothered by the problem this initiative seeks to correct that they want to part with large sums of money to help pass it, or the economy is so bad in Missouri that no one has the big bucks to contribute, or the people that have the big bucks to contribute are contributing to something else. Like, I dunno, say, a ballot initiative that'll gut the finances of Missouri's two largest cities.
Tommy Sowers' (D) campaign started airing a television ad and Jo Ann Emerson's (r) campaign followed suit. The Sowers campaign issued the following statement in response to the Emerson ad:
"Emerson is trying to change the subject, because she doesn't want to talk about her vote for the Wall St Bailout, her trade votes that have killed SE Missouri manufacturing, and [...] the union pension bailout scheme she is sponsoring. All 3 are incredibly unpopular with voters in the district. This also serves as recognition of how threatened Emerson is by Tommy Sowers. She's never mentioned any of her opponents by name in past TV ads, now she's doing it more than 2 months before the election. She thinks her support in the district is a mile wide, but it's an inch deep."
Announcer: Where do they stand? On health care Tommy Sowers wants government in charge.
[Tommy Sowers, Government Run Health Care]
Sowers supports keeping the Obama health care takeover.
[Tommy Sowers, Southeast Missourian, 11,8/09, "Sowers Said He Would Vote For It."]
Higher taxes, more spending, less control of your care.
[Tommy Sowers, Higher Taxes, More Spending, Less Control]
Missouri needs a leader...
[Missouri needs a Leader]
...not an Obama Pelosi yes man.
[Tommy Sowers, Obama-Pelosi, Yes Man]
Jo Ann Emerson fought the health care bill...
[Jo Ann Emerson Fought Obamacare]
...and is working for repeal so doctors make decisions, not bureaucrats. Putting people before politics...
[People Before Politics]
...Jo Ann Emerson for Congress.
[Paid For By Team Emerson. Approved By Jo Ann Emerson.]
Jo Ann Emerson: I'm Jo Ann Emerson and I approved this message.
Okay. Let's deconstruct this just a little bit. To advocate that the health care reform bill is destroying a health care system that's working you should probably point out the stuff you think works.
Let's see, universal access to affordable health care? Nope. People without health insurance get their medical care late and in hospital emergency departments where the care is most expensive. Who pays for that? Uh, the hospitals recoup those costs by charging those with insurance more.
"...Jo Ann Emerson fought the health care bill and is working for repeal..."
Prohibitions against restricting coverage of preexisting conditions? Prohibitions against denying people the insurance coverage they paid for because the actually got sick (rescission)? Really, Jo Ann Emerson thinks those provisions of the health care bill need to be repealed?
"...so doctors make decisions, not bureaucrats..."
Uh, what color is the sky in Jo Ann Emerson's world? Insurance company bureaucrats don't make our health care decisions for us now? Really?
"...Obama Pelosi..."
Uh, Jo Ann Emerson is not running against Nancy Pelosi, she's running against Tommy Sowers, who also happens to be a veteran. That's a nice touch by Jo Ann Emerson, by the way, having veterans surround her at the end of the commercial. I wonder if thiscomment came up while they were filming that scene for her commercial? Just asking.
"...Putting people before politics..."
Her campaign can't be serious in using that cliche phrase in a political commercial - unless they're delusional or think everyone else in the world is too stupid to compare her words with her record.
Uh, by the way, as a member of Congress didn't Jo Ann Emerson have access to government health insurance before the health care bill was signed into law? Just asking.
FiredUp! has done a great job of chronicling Lieutenant Governor Peter Kinder's lawsuit against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). Just go to the FiredUp! Website and search "Peter Kinder suit" and you'll get the whole ugly story. It seems obvious that the suit is a maneuver to spark some enthusiasm on the part of Missouri's roiling Tea Party masses for a future run by Kinder for governor. If so, perhaps he should reconsider.
In the wake of last night's primaries, Think Progressnotes that:
Every single health care plaintiff in a contested primary for governor lost their election - hopefully this will inspire future candidates to abandon their counterproductive opposition to health reform.
Wanna bet Knder won't get the message that opposing "Obamacare" isn't the way to the governor's mansion? Poor baby's in too deep for anything but denial.
Robin Carnahan has maybe realized that she really stepped in it when she voiced her support for the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans last week. After all, it isn't as if retaining the tax cuts is even a popular position, but quite the opposite. According to Jo Mannies at the St. Louis Beacon, Carnahan:
... clarified her position on the Bush tax cuts by saying that she eventually may support a phaseout of tax reductions for the wealthiest Americans once the economy was back on track.
Can we take that as an effort to wade out without losing face?
She's still seriously wrong. The tax cuts for the wealthy - which, as Paul Krugman points out, means cutting "checks averaging $3 million each to the richest 120,000 people in the country" - will cost us big at a time when government revenues are seriously depleted, and give us little to nothing in return. However, given that she's facing off against Roy Blunt, arguably one of the most corrupt wheeler-dealer blasts from the BushCo past, we may have to accept it for what it is.
Aside from this pander - which, by the way, in light of the cost of the tax cuts, directly contradicts the point of her earlier deficit pandering - Carnahan is preferable to Blunt on so many levels it almost hurts to think about it. The same Beacon article, for instance, quotes her remarks at a meeting of the National Educational Association (NEA) where her views on No Child Left Behind legislation not only seem sane and sensible, but also underline the role Roy Blunt played in its failure:
Carnahan said that Blunt deserved part of the blame because he had voted for No Child Left Behind but also voted against the additional money that backers say was needed.
As little as it may be, this type of distinction is important. Think for a minute about Social Security. Do you have any doubt that Blunt would gut it, privatize it, whatever, in a heartbeat? Carnahan's recent performance might make some worry about how easily she would cave in a hard fight, but at least there's a good chance she would do the right thing. Nor is the question academic since I guarantee this particular fight will be coming to a theater near you soon.
So the sad moral of this story is (enthusiasm deficit, anyone?): Boo Blunt! Go Carnahan! But maybe, jut maybe, Robin, try to stand up for Democratic principles in the future - then maybe you won't have to back down with your dinner all over your chin. I promise that there are some of us who won't extend the benefit of the doubt a second time.
...A billionaire has already spent over $1 million out of his pocket to fund a statewide ballot initiative that will force devastating cuts to public services in Missouri's two largest cities.
This ballot initiative will eliminate the earnings tax Kansas City and St. Louis rely on to provide basic services including police officers, fire fighters, snow removal, garbage pickup, street repair, services for lower-income kids & adults, and medical and emergency care.
By eliminating the earnings tax, this billionaire's initiative will force massive budget cuts to St. Louis and Kansas City and will lead to increased sales and property taxes...
Their contributors, not as cash flush as the anti-tax billionaire, are gearing up to oppose Proposition A. Via the Missouri Ethics Commission:
CONTRIBUTION OF MORE THAN $5,000.00 RECEIVED BY ANY COMMITTEE FROM ANY SINGLE DONOR - TO BE FILED WITHIN 48 HOURS OF RECEIVING THE CONTRIBUTION
Missouri National Education Association
Legislative Crisis Fund
Jefferson City MO
8/17/2010
$10,000.00
AFSCME International
Washington DC
8/17/2010
$15,000.00
[emphasis added]
Working people, teachers, and higher education. Hmmm.
These amounts are paltry in comparison to the proponent's committee - second quarter campaign finance report filed with the Missouri Ethics Commission on July 15th:
Now, I'm not too keen on Sharia law, but neither am I keen on Christian theocracy. While I have no evidence that Muslims in the U.S. want to impose Sharia, there's lots of evidence that many in the Christian-leaning right-wing here in Missouri would just love, as Loudon suggests, to take back the country and stick me with their version of biblical law.
Robin Carnahan has maybe realized that she really stepped in it when she voiced her support for the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans last week. After all, it isn't as if retaining the tax cuts is even a popular position, but 