Amusing. “While criticized early in his administration for expanding the patronage system, former Gov. Matt Blunt had bid out several fee offices over the past couple of years. Those offices will be re-bid as well, Nixon said.”

Where are the holier-than-thou dems that blasted Blunt for bidding those offices out?

The fact is, statutes dictate how much each fee office may receive as part of the total transaction fee. The only variables in such a bid are going to depend upon traffic, rent and labor.

The old system worked, even if you DIDN’T like some of the people who received offices.

What pissed them off, Jim, was losing the gravy train after 12 years when Missourians elected a different party. Had McCaskill won the election, nary a peep would have been uttered at the way license offices are bid.

That being said, fee offices should go for the benefit of a charitable organization, not political donors. I think the Jaycees benefit from Arnold and the Chamber of Commerce runs one in Festus.

Amazed, you and I both know this … I just think someday one of the hypocrites needs to come out.

Instead, they spent hours blogging on ‘Ol Roy’s website about how there was an FBI investigation into how these folks were awarded their offices — when there never was one. They got their offices the same way those who held them under Carnahan and Holden did — and nobody complained.

Perhaps they’d like a little cheese to go with that.

I for one think it makes sense (regardless of party affiliation) to award the fee office to the best bidder. This is taxpayer money we’re talking about here so why don’t we set up a more transparent system instead of the backroom deals that used to charaterize how these things got handed out. Greater transparency in government is always a good thing.

Hey Tony,

Dont you think the stipulations that bids which pay the state money is sorta pay to play?

In fact I would point out that no where is anyone calling for or requesting transparency in these matters - which to me is a bit of deafening silence.

Would you be willing to request the documents similar to how you requested the emails from former Governor Blunt?

There is nothing preventing Nixon from doing exactly what all other governors did in the past. The exception is that Nixon is trying to generate headlines to appease the masses and tickle the media elite.

I still have a lot of respect for you Tony, and would like to hear your thoughts on the matter.

Paul,

Good to hear from you. Hope all is well in Springfield. As to the issue of transparency, see my most recent post. The entire process is being opened up to the public, including the point system and the bidding process. It’s very transparent. Sorry I didn’t make that clear in the first blog post or story. All bids, from winners and losers, will be public record, including how they were scored. The proof will be in the pudding, of course, and I’ll be following it to see how it works once bids are awarded.

As for the pay to play suggestion, I think you misunderstand the plan. Nixon is asking the fee agents to return a portion of the fees paid (which are paid by taxpayers) to the state’s General Revenue fund (not to campaign funds). In effect, he’s asking the fee agents to reduce their profit and return money to the state (which the Legislature will control through the appropriations process). (If the fee agents agree to do so). That’s not pay to play.

Thanks for reading Political Fix!

Tony