“Bidding for office” has been prohibited for a long time. I don’t know whether it has ever been tested in court. It strikes me as a violation of the First Amendment.

More interesting is who fed info to the reporter. The Democratic Party establishment wanted very much to avoid a contested primary (with Sam Page being the anointed one), and I wouldn’t be surprised if either the party establishment or the Page campaign were behind it.

Actually, this seems like a very reasonable law designed to protect the public interest and in an area in which the state would appear to have a substantial and reasonable interest. Hell, even an uber-progressive like Oracle ought to see how being able to “bid” down your salary might give a rich candidate an unfair advantage over a typical Missourian.

Not saying Mr. Carter should get sent up the river for a year, but it would be good to a Lt. Governor who understands the law. Heaven knows enough of legislators are pretty clueless.

Political discussion is the most protected aspect of the First Amendment. When the very political issue at hand is the overpayment in salary for a part-time job; a restriction on the ability to campaign or make assertions about the issue of that salary would fly in the face of the First Amendment.

Vote4Carter.com

I don’t dispute shecky’s view of the virtue of the law. But a law being reasonably designed to protect the public interest does not in and of itself mean that it doesn’t violate the First Amendment. Laws restricting expression of racism would be reasonably designed to protect the public interest (and in fact exist in civilized European states like Switzerland which don’t have our Constitution or Bill of Rights), but such a law would be clearly unconstitutional in this country. It takes more than just a good idea to pass constitutional muster.

But I do like the sound of “uber-progressive.” Thanks, shecky.

And I still wonder who put the AP reporter up to the story. It’s not like AP reporters regularly cruise the web sites of non-mainstream candidates or are up to snuff on obscure laws like the one cited.

Unless Jo Mannies knows something not included in her article, there is nothing unconstitutional in cashing a paycheck and spending the money as he wishes including contributing a portion of it to charity.

Actually, Chad, political discussion or not, if the “state” has a substantial and reasonable interest in restricting speech on behalf of protecting the public interest then more often or not the law is constitutional.

Oracle, there’s a difference between restricting one’s ability to speak openly about their beliefs and one’s taking an action based on those beliefs. You can say racist things in this country, but if you burn a cross then that’s something altogether different — even though you could argue that burning a cross is absolutely an expression of speech, but unless I’m mistaken, it’s not protected speech in this country. While his campaign promise is hardly in akin to that sort of behavior (please do not mistake my point here, I’m just sticking with your example), the same analogy still applies. Carter can say he believes the Lt. Gov. is overpaid, he can lobby the legislature to slash the salary or to implement some sort of performance based compensation. What he cannot do is campaign on a promise to give his salary back.

And Bob, he most certainly can do whatever he wants with his salary. No one has said that’s illegal. He just can’t campaign on a promise to refund the taxpayers or to give his salary away.

I heard Akin wants to do a similar thing.

Hmmm. While there’s lots of good discussion about the constitutional issue, no one else has chimed in on who fed info or lobbied for the AP story. Sounds fishy to me.

What a tool? This guy obviously doesn’t know government any better than he knows the law. A part time job? Lt. Governor Kinder is the president of the Senate, the official chief advocate of the elderly, chairperson of the tourism department, and has taken the lead on many issues including helping us out with the mess the flood left behind. The job would only be part time for a person like this guy.

“Hmmm. While there’s lots of good discussion about the constitutional issue, no one else has chimed in on who fed info or lobbied for the AP story. Sounds fishy to me.”

We’re mostly kibitzers. It may be fishy, but the absence of replies here doesn’t have any correlation to the fish odor.

Try calling the AP reporter, not all sources demand confidentiality.

Seems strange to bash the office you are desiring to be elected.
Why does the UPS man want to occupy this position if it is so part-time and futile?

Chris Bank in Jeff.City—what are some of his previous writings?

Forget the philosophical rhetoric. I think the entire quote has been misconstrued. He simply never made a promise. Who will decide if the office has achieved a more meaningful purpose? It is completely subjective. It cannot be measured. It is a matter of personal opinion.

The author writes that it is against state elections law to promise to take a lower salary or pledge a portion of a public official’s paycheck to charity to attract votes.
Mr. Carter has not said, “If you vote for me and I win, then I will donate X amount of money,” which would violate the election law as the author has described it.

I am certain that Mr. Carter would serve the interests of the people of Missouri ethically and honorably and would bring meaning and purpose to any public office to which he were elected.