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.