If it’s not illegal to have multiple PACs, then what is the point of this stunt? I get that teachers unions are pretty threatened by anyone who want actual reform in education–and I also know they sometimes try to get their way by fiddling with the truth, but I just don’t buy it. It was never a secret–we’ve known for months that Sinquefield created these 100 PACs–if there was anything illegal about it, don’t you think the NEA would have already pounced?

And who says the NEA isn’t political?

Sinquefield’s PACs are little different than labor unions, which establish PACs for each of their locals. The NEA is one of the few unions that doesn’t appear to do this. But if you want to see what I mean, go to the Missouri Ethics Commission website and search on Carpenter or Teamster - you’ll see many PACs. Not 100, to be sure, but so what? As benini said, state law does not limit how many PACs a person can set up.

Of course, the really funny thing is, if you search for “nea” on the Ethics Commission site, you don’t get any NEA PACs, but you get a dozen of Sinquefield’s. All I can say is, Go, Rex!

I think that Nick, Centrist and benini ALL missed the point. The complaint charges violations of the Missouri Campaign Finance Act. The teachers are claiming that Sinquefield essentially was thumbing his nose at the reinstatement of political contribution limits when he recently created 100 Political Action Committees in September 2007 after the Missouri Supreme Court reinstated the limits on campaign contributions. Sinquefield then funded his PACs and directed 76 of them to contribute to political candidates he supports in amounts FAR exceeding the $1,275 limit in an individual’s contribution to a single candidate. For example, $124,000 to Matt Blunt, who at the time was presumed to be running for Governor. The 3rd and 4th quarter reports filed by these PACs show that NO ONE, other than Sinquefield, participated in the creation, funding, and contribution decisions of the PACs. Now if he is the only contributor to these 76 PACs, obviously … Sinquefield has been able to contribute FAR IN EXCESS of the $1,275 limit the law allows.
The point of campaign contribution laws are to ensure that a level playing field of political influence exists between someone living on a teacher’s salary and a multi millionaire like Sinquefield. Why have Missouri Campaign Finance Act, if the wealthy can simply create hundreds of PACs to buy access and influence with a candidate?

No, I think we got that point. However, “thumbing one’s nose” is still not illegal.

I think the bigger point may be that the new campaign finance laws don’t do a better job providing transparency and accountability than the previous system.

Benini- If this was a question about what was legal it would have been filed in a court of law…right? I wouldn’t know I am NOT a lawyer. It is my understanding that this is regarding procedural interpretation and that is why the teachers asked the Commission to hear the complaint. I wasn’t aware that illegal had anything to do with it. I guess I thought this was about whether or not he knowingly evaded the Campaign Finance Act and would be forced to take his money back from these candidates a second time. In this blogger’s mind, the man knowingly evaded the Campaign Finance Act, going so far as to speak openly about it and I think he should have to take his money back. It is my understanding that the teachers filed the complaint and not the NEA which they are all members of. I am just glad to see four classroom teachers ask the tough questions and try to level the playing field. Good for them for having the guts to speak out. I for one, am going to wait and see what the Commission decides.

What is noble about Rex Sinquefield is that he is trying to change the educational system for the better without any self-interest at all. In the noblest of virtues he is pursing education reforms to benefit society. Anyone who thinks the current public school system in the city is adequate is self-delusional. While there may be disagreement over the best method to improve schools, those ought to be aired in the public forum. For teachers to file an ethics complaint diminishes their own respectability and is utterly repugnant. You should be ashamed. Withdraw the complaint and compete in the arena of ideas.

Anyone who thinks Rex Sinquefield (or anyone who donates this sorts of money to politicians) is doing this without any self interest is insane. Clearly these teachers have a self interest in opposing this, but so does Rex in pushing it.
I would agree with Barett Laurie in that the issue here is how Rex is clearly intending to and succeeding at unduly influencing Missouri’s politics. While what he is doing is not illegal and therefore should be allowed, it should encourage people to look at reforming campaign finance laws so that individuals such as Rex do not have this sort of influence.
So far as NIck’s points about unions, different locals are different entities. They represent different employees and they all have to file their own taxes. Why shouldn’t they be able to donate through their local’s PAC’s as individual entities? There have been cases in which different locals of the same union (such as the Teamsters) have supported different candidates. I imagine your complaint is more that more often then not labor is able to effectively coordinate its efforts and thus have the appearance of undue influence. But if we are going to start down that line we should say the Chamber of Commerce should only be allowed to donate and no corporate entity of the COC should donate seperately. But that makes no sense.

Sorry, Mr. Laurie, but it doesn’t matter whether he knowingly evaded the Campaign Finance Act, it matters whether he lawfully complied with it. Whatever the legislature’s intent in passing this act, the fact is that they did not place any restrictions on the number of PACs that an individual may create, they did not create a legal requirement that a PAC have a minimum number of donors to be considered a PAC, nor did they create a legal requirement that a PACs contributions be directed by somebody other than the donors who fund it. They could have done any of these things, but they didn’t. Whether it was stupidity or cunning, they have created a huge loophole which Mr. Sinquefield was clever enough to discover. If the teachers - or you - have a problem here, it should be directed to the legislature, not the Ethics Commission. If the Ethics Commission rules against Sinquefield, which I would say is very unlikely, he will take them to court, where he will win.

Make no mistake about it - NEA is all behind this lawsuit. They maybe using willing stooges as the face on the lawsuit but I would bet none of them could afford an attorney to push forward this action. NEA is a corrupt - anti-child - anti- parental organization that can’t stand the fact that for the first time ever someone else dares to match or exceed them in their attempt to influence policy.

Richard - recommend that in order to not be exposed as a fool you might not want to post and prove it to everyone. What possible benefit does Sinquefield have by supporting scholarships for kids? You make a false accusation and don’t have the guts to even post a flimsy excuse.

Sinquefield should consider suing NEA. Once the rocks start getting turned over - the snakes and rats will flee into the night. Although this filing won’t go any where - check out Bob Connor’s comments on PoliticalFIx - perhaps Sinquefield and his people will get enough insight into MONEA to sue them in a court of law not the Ethics Commission.

After all - it doesnt take a rocket scientist to see that NEA exhibits questionable ethics - just worried about themselves and their organization. John Stossel did a report a few years ago about the teachers’ unions and how they were failing our kids and our country. He went into the lion’s den and took them on and exposed them for what they are - one of the most selfish, liberal unions in existence today. Have to check YouTube to see if Stupid in America is on it.

If more people realized that they are being bamboozled by NEA and their counterparts - public education would change immediately. Unfortunately - people can’t bring themselves to believe that teachers would screw them or their kids in such a way. In fact - most teachers don’t but they do let their “association” get away with it without questioning it.