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.

Right you are, JasonB. When it comes to self-interest, the NEA and other teacher’s unions take the proverbial cake. There is this misconception that teachers unions are pro-student, and pro-education, when the reality is, just like other unions, they are pro-job (and pro-power). This doesn’t necessarily bode well for kids–sometimes, what’s good for teachers is also good for students, but sometimes it isn’t. Teachers’ unions have a quarter of a century ruling the roost in public education, and I think in St. Louis especially, we’re tired of the free fall of test scores and graduation rates. I am interested in new ideas, and I don’t care if they come from a millionaire or the crazy guy in my apartment building.

If you really want a discussion of unethical behavior, take a look at “The War Against Hope” by former Ed. Secretary Rod Paige, then let me know who the unscrupulous bully is.

If you have limits people should not be able to launder money through committees to avoid the limits or disquise the source of contributions.

Shameless political plug with apologies to Nick Kasoff and the many Republicans contributors I enjoy reading on this site.
Jeff Harris has a great bill which is designed to stop this practice. You can find a description of the bill at
http://www.electjeffharris.com/news/newsclip.php?clipID=46

The courts have only agreed to any limits because there are other ways such as these PACs for people to express themselves. As Bob Connor said, the law allows one person to have all these PACs. The “people’s” approved limits were bounced out of court quicker than a quarter off a marine’s bunk. It is a slippery slope when you start prohibiting free speech.

Of course Harris has no problem with prohibiting speech, especially if it benefits him. He is nothing but a populist demogouge. He says whatever he thinks people will like to hear. It sounds good for him to be saying “stick it to the rich guy” when in fact, he would be sticking it to everybody.

The fact is anyone can give to any campaign. The fact is, most of us won’t and then when somebody else does, we resent it.

I think if we get back to the question of this complaint, that is whether one individual should be able to to influence Missouri’s politics in this sort of way. I certainly agree that what Rex is doing is not illegal, but that does not mean that it is not fair to critisize it or bring attention to it as these teachers have done. I predict many of the defenders of Rex on this post would scream bloddy murder if the NEA did something like this, but when Rex does it, it is perfectly fine. My point is, you can’t have it both ways. I would error on the side of limits and restrictions that prevent either Rex or the NEA from doing this sorts of things. Good for the teachers for raising the issue.

Jackson

The current limits were approved by the court as not violating free speech and I don’t see how having limits that are a little more than 1000 dollars sticks it to the little guy.

I don’t see Jeff as a populist demogouge. Populist maybe demogauge no. He worked as a corporate attorney in Kansas City and took easily more than a six figure pay cut to enter public service.

Jeff voted against the same sex marriage ban something that as a gay man I care deeply about. I didn’t perceive that as the populist side of the issue. We got killed at the polls. A lot of Democrats ran from us because it made political sense to do that. Jeff didn’t.

As a pretty hard core D, I do think the Republicans are putting their best foot forward with Mike Gibbons. I won’t vote for him but he has been at least willing to listen to us and politely disagree. I think both Jeff Harris and Mike Gibbons are good people.

Richard - You may be right that Sinquefield’s supporters would be upset if the NEA was doing the same thing. But that’s beside the point. The important thing here is that what he did was not illegal, and the NEA knows it. This is just a publicity stunt. If they want to prevent it from happening again, this is a matter that should be handled by their lobbyist, not the court.

Nick,
You and I agree on this point, although I think doing a publicity stunt might actually help get the attention of some politicians, so this makes perfect sense for them to do. I imagine the court will disagree with the NEA’s position, but by that time they will have made their point and should be on their way to getting this changed legislatively. Of course, with Republicans controlling the legislature and Rex giving many of them big donations, that might be a hard sell.

Might want to get all your facts straight Richard. Do a little work instead of repeating what you read. If you did that, you would find that Sinquefield has given a lot to democrats too.

The NEA’s publicity stunt won’t affect anything except to be yet another example of their “anything to keep us in power” efforts.

Jackson,
You are right, Rex has given to some Democrats.But you miss my point. Republicans are the ones in power and who could do something about this and the fact that Rex gives so heavily to many of them suggests that they are unlikely to act against him. In fairness it should be noted he does give some to some Democrats, Rodney Hubbard, TD El-Amin and Jonas Hughes come to mind. But that does not disprove my point, it only strengthens it. The support Rex has built for himself and his tactics will enjoy some bi-partisan support.
The question we need to ask ourselves is, is what he is doing good for Missouri? To that end those of us who support Rex should imagine how we would feel if someone with a different political agenda was doing this. I will so far credit only Nick on this blog with thinking this through.
I disagree that the efforts of these teachers will not accomplish anything. It has certainly elicited some responses from people who read this blog and I am sure will get the attention of some legislators. I just do not think any of the legislators who might oppose Rex’s doing this will have any power to do anything about it.

Hey Richard - you haven’t been paying attention to the discussion in Jefferson City this year if you think this will raise the attention level. There has been a lot of discussion revolving around how much someone’s freedom of speech should be restricted.

Jackson is on the right track. The NEA has very little respect in the Capitol. This cheap stunt will add nothing more to the discusion and hopefully will further erode the remainder of whatever respect NEA still has.

The NEA has little respect in the capital? That is interesting since they are essentially a labor union (association) and they are able to get meetings with Governor Blunt and at times get their legislation passed or stop bills that they oppose. If they were as insignifigant as you suggest they are then why do people (on the blog) always complain about the powerful teachers unions that stand in the way of education reform?
While I know there has been a lot of attention already on how much influence one rich man should be allowed to have on Missouri’s elections, I do think this will at least add more fuel to the fire.

Now it is you Richard who is missing the point. The NEA has not lost their desire to control and destroy public education in the Capitol and they do have a few legislators who try to cater to them. Fortunately it is only in the Senate that they can actually stop anything. Unfortunately - they still wield too much control in local districts ruining them.

I know of many legislators who meet with the NEA - at least the teachers from their districts - who have no intention to follow their input. That doesn’t stop the NEA from continuing to try to continue to screw up public education. They have actually been forced to “team” with others to get or stop things from happening. Try their best - their influence isn’t as great as they once enjoyed in the Capitol but it doesn’t stop them from trying.

Which is exactly why they try stupid pr stunts like this. They attempt to create a “situation” that appeals to the “common man” but when one really looks it over - it screws the common man with the full intent of recapturing the union’s power and control.

It is more likely at the behest of Nixon that this was done. He pulled his usual “me too” stunt when the so-called “education roundtable” people came out against a citizen of this state - an action that bombed. A month or more later - Nixon says “me too” and the only sizzle he got out of it was from the NEA whoremongers who were already supporting him - nothing from the common man. In the meantime - a larger number than you list of his own party continue to take money from that Sinquefield devil.

The fire is already fading on this PR stunt. A few more sparks will be seen I’m sure but it too will result in dieing embers.

Wow the democrats hate it when someone beats them at their own game!

Let’s talk about the real issue here. VOUCHERS!

If Rex was on the NEA’s side, they’d never file a complaint. They wouldn’t say he was bypassing the intent of the law. Oh no! Then he’d be playing the game they’ve played for years.

Think about this…

Americans’ education spending per student is almost twice that of most Western European nations. However, France, England, Germany, Spain, et al., continue to outrank us in Science and Math among other subjects. How is that?

Could be many different things. Our system is set up for failure. Thanks to powerful teacher unions who have had an unequal share of influence over the government for years, we cannot fire incompetent teachers. We cannot give performance-based raises. We cannot hire private-sector professonials to teach science and math (because they are supposedly unqualified to teach). Students don’t compete for coveted spots in the top schools. Instead they are assigned to a school based on where they live. Teachers claim this is important to the communities because schools are central to a community’s identity. Give me a break! Are schools about building a Kum - by - yah (sp?) community or about educating kids?

Competition is the answer. I am glad Rex came along in this state. He is selflessly devoted to this cause. He is the first (group or individual) that can reasonably compete for influence against the NEA or MSTA. It’s about time someone beat them at their own game!

Think about this. When an American student graduates from high school, he/she has one of the worst public educations in the world and is far behind his/her counterparts in other 1st world countries. However, in the 4 years it takes to get a Bachelor’s he/she can meet and exceed his/her counterparts. Why are our colleges doing a much better job at educating? UM, could it be COMPETITION?? Our colleges and universities compete to get students.

The free market isn’t a hard concept to learn. Too bad our teachers don’t get it, otherwise they might actually teach it!

What is with all of this Rex adulation, are you guys paid by him to praise his name and openly worship his visage in public?