UPDATED: Blunt does away with contribution limits
Dems official response, in e-mailed statements.
“We will soon have the worst of both worlds,” said Assistant House Minority Leader J.C. Kuessner, D-Eminence. “Politicians can take unlimited amounts from deep-pocketed donors while still being able to hide money from sources they don’t want voters know about.”
“Governor Blunt today told Missouri voters that their wishes don’t matter, especially when they prevent politicians from raking in huge amounts of special-interest cash,” said House Minority Leader Paul LeVota, D-Independence. “The will of nearly 1.2 million Missouri voters was undone by just 107 lawmakers and the governor. Lawmakers who supported repealing the state’s campaign contribution limits will have some explaining to do come November.”
“This is a sad day for everyone who believes that regular Missourians, not wealthy special interests, should have the most powerful voice in electing our leaders,” said Attorney General and would-be governor Jay Nixon. ”As Governor, I would have vetoed this bill the moment it hit my desk and protected the integrity of our campaign finance system. By signing this bill, Gov. Blunt has cleared the way for big corporations and wealthy interests to give millions to candidates. It’s a clear step in the wrong direction. Needless to say, Missourians are ready for change.”
Earlier, 15:07 p.m.:
Gov. Matt Blunt’s office just sent word that governor has officially signed the campaign finance bill doing away with Missouri’s political contribution limits.
With this final move, political candidates should be able to begin receiving unlimited contributions August 28. The previous limits held donors to $325 to $1,350 per candidate per election cycle, depending on the race.
The state House passed the bill in one its final acts as the session wrapped up in may.
Republican proponents said that the limits created secrecy in the campaign finance system, because rich donors could effectively circumvent the law by pushing money through various political committees. Repealing the limits, then, would create transparency because of basic reporting requirements on all donations, supporters said.
One particular new requirement says that all donations above $5,000 must be reported within 48 hours.
Blunt spox Rich Chrismer issued the following statement today:
“Gov. Matt Blunt has championed open and easy access to information…
“By signing this legislation, the governor is making Missouri’s campaign finance system more open and transparent. This legislation enhances disclosure and will help limit the amount of money funneled to politicians through political committees by making it easier for members of the press and the public to find abuses…”
Democrats (and some Republicans) opposed the measure, labeling it simply a move to flood campaigns with money. campaign coffers. Moreover, many complained that they believed Missouri public was against the bill.
Chrismer, in the e-mailed statement, took a direct shot at Attorney General and would-be governor Jay Nixon, by repeating GOP allegations that Nixon’s campaign accepted some $19,000 that was allegedly funneled through various political groups from Ameren, when Nixon was investigating the company in 2006.
The Missouri Ethics Commission investigated the Republican complaint and ultimately called the allegations were unfounded; Nixon returned the money to the groups anyway.
Koster supported that bill
Will Rep Kuessner and other Democrats expressing “worst of both worlds” outrage promise to introduce and work for new legislation that both restores the limits and eliminates the party committee shuffle? This election could produce a Democrat legislature and a Democratic governor. Will the Democrats keep their promises if they end up in control?
And how about the 527s, and the large independent expenditures by labor unions? Somehow, if a small businessman throws a couple of grand of his own money to a Republican state rep campaign, that’s corruption. But if the big labor bosses dump millions of dollars taken from blue collar paychecks into Democratic campaigns, that’s “the voice of working America.”
Nick,
Your comparison makes no sense. A businessman is one person donating lots of money, labor unions are groups of people, most of whom make small contributions to their unions political fund. Besides in 2004 labor unions were outspent over 10 to 1 on political campaigns by corporations, so I don’t really think labor is the problem.
I do like applaud your creativity with words however. Labor bosses of course take money from workers and the corporate side is of course a small businessman using his own money. Of course, all donations to unions PAC funds are voluntarily made by union members, but I know you think we are all to stupid and are tricked by our unions bosses (who we elect).
There were 4 so called Democrats who voted for this bribe. Representitives Hoskins, El-Amin, Nasheed, and Hubbard. So I think it will be a safe bet that Dems in the house will address the issue.
MONEY IS FREE SPEECH!!!! WHEN RICH PEOPLE DO ITS DEMOCRACY…WHEN UNIONS DO IT COMMUNISM!!!!!! IM WITH NICK KASOFF ON THIS!!!!!!!!!
Oracle
You are right. Jeff Harris had a bill during the last session that did that. This a press description of the bill:
Harris Pushes For A Ban on Laundering
KY3 Political Notebook
By David Catanese
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
State Rep. and Attorney General candidate Jeff Harris is expected to introduce a bill today to make laundering campaign contributions a crime.
The bill seeks to stop the common practice of donors funneling money through multiple campaign committees, which in turn pass the donations on to candidates who have already received the maximum contribution from the original donor, according to a Democratic press release.
“Since Missouri voters first imposed campaign contribution limits in 1994, creative donors have found ways around the law,” said Harris. “My bill would slam shut and lock the doors to campaign money Laundromat.”
The bill would hold both donors and candidates criminally liable for making or receiving laundered donations with the intent of avoiding campaign contribution limits. A first offense would be class A misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a $1,000 fine. Subsequent offenses could carry a four-year prison sentence and a $5,0000 fine.
Harris said the move is meant to halt the actions of wealthy campaign contributor Rex Sinquefield, who he calls ”one of the most blatant campaign money launderers during the 2008 election cycle.”
Oracle, in addition, Jeff has been publicly saying for awhile not that he is strongly looking at leading a petition drive in 2010 to put the limits back in and to eliminate the party committee shuffle with strong penalties for ”shuffling”.
Chud,
You certainly miss understood Nick Kastoff’s. I don’t think you are agreeing with Nick by your statement. Nick thinks that there is no difference in a single person giving 25K than a union with a thousand members giving 25K through a PAC.
Nick does not seem to understand how such a rich man can cause a politician to become corrupt, causing hard to resist temptation. Our laws should remove all possibilities of such temptations and when a politician is found to be corrupt, his punish should be greater than the average corrupt man not in office.
But, in our system, these corrupt politicians and officials are not held to the higher standard as they should be held to in our country. It’s no wonder that the U.S. and its cities are heading towards such perils. Our leaders are immature and are child-like with the biggest egos and arrogance that is so sinful. They are defunct of minds that are compassionate and that knows what’s right and moral. They fail to realize that no one will escape the consequences of a government that have gone too far corrupt in its ways. They don’t believe this and think that they will suffer no consequences, so why not be corrupt, they figure.
Does anyone know where Republican, Sara Steelman stands on this issue?
I doubt anyone will see this, with this coming so late, but for those wondering if Dems will try to change this if in charge, they definitely will. Nasheed got a lashing after this vote, a certain well-mannered gentleman from southern Missouri ripped into her over this vote on the side gallery. No one was surprised by Hubbard whatsoever, same with Hoskins, el-Amin a little more so, but Dems stand strong on this issue in general. Rep. Kuessner and Dem leadership are definitely going to work in every way possible to undo this brazen disregard for the voters’ will.