In blocking a well-qualified appointee to serve on the University of Missouri Board of Curators, Sen. Jim Lembke, R-Lemay, had a choice: He could proffer an argument that was self-indulgent, egotistical blather. Or he could tell the whole story.

He chose the former, which was bad enough. But the whole story is far more worrisome. Here's what happened:

On Thursday, Mr. Lembke led a filibuster against Gov. Jay Nixon's appointee, Columbia attorney Craig Van Matre, a Democrat.

Mr. Lembke and a few colleagues went to the Senate floor and railed against Mr. Van Matre, but not because of any of his qualifications. No, they criticized him for writing a newspaper opinion article in 2007 criticizing Republican attacks against the nonpartisan process by which appellate level judges are chosen in Missouri.

Mr. Van Matre argued — correctly — that Senate confirmation of gubernatorial appointees would allow individual senators to hold up qualified judges because of personal or political grudges. He criticized Republicans leading the charge against the Missouri Non-Partisan Judicial Plan as doing the bidding of key donors.

Cue Sen. Kevin Enger, R-Farmington, one of Mr. Lembke's filibuster partners.

"If this guy is going to say this stuff about us, he shouldn't expect us to approve his nomination," Mr. Engler said, thus proving Mr. Van Matre's point.

If that were the real reason for opposition to Mr. Van Matre, it would do plenty to sully the Senate's reputation. But there's more.

On Wednesday evening, the night before he started his own filibuster against Mr. Van Matre's appointment, the Senate was debating a Democrat-led slowdown against an unrelated bill. But Mr. Lembke was absent. He was in Columbia, at a fundraiser hosted by friends and business partners of developer Jeffrey E. Smith.

Mr. Smith is the developer who profits so much from low-income housing and historic redevelopment state tax credits that he almost single-handedly scuttled last fall's special session. The session was called to consider new economic development proposals (including the China Hub in St. Louis) that would have been paid for by reining in other tax credit programs.

It turns out that Mr. Smith doesn't much care for Craig Van Matre, either.

Mr. Smith usually hides behind political action committees that make it difficult to track his numerous donations. But on Wednesday, the vice president of his company, through a family trust, gave $1,000 to Mr. Lembke at the Columbia fundraiser.

Mr. Lembke pulled in at least $6,000 that night.

The very next day, Mr. Lembke made sure Mr. Van Matre will not be a curator, leaving the university's board short a well-qualified member while it is discussing one of the most important issues of the year, how it will make up for a proposed 12.5 percent cut in state funding.

Coincidence? We don't think so.

For many years, Mr. Van Matre counted Mr. Smith http://www.vanmatre.com/DynamicAttorneys.shtml?wldpid=2950357_1&mailpagename=ObfuscatedForm&p=yes"> as a client. That changed in 2010 after Mr. Nixon appointed Mr. Van Matre to the tax credit review commission. Along with his colleagues on the commission, Mr. Van Matre recommended that the tax credit system be reformed, taking money out of Mr. Smith's pockets.

So Mr. Smith fired his attorney.

In December, two committees that Mr. Smith controls, Alliance for Elderly Health Care and Alliance for Special Needs, gave Mr. Lembke $1,000 each. All the money in those committees comes from one of Mr. Smith's companies, whose entire business model is dependent on protecting the flow of state tax credits, which he then sells for a profit, using some of the money for construction, and some of it to influence public policy.

It's true that Mr. Lembke is a longtime critic of the Missouri judicial selection plan, but he's also fashioned himself up as a critic of tax credits, aligning himself with fellow Republican conservatives angry that the money comes right off the top of Missouri's revenues with no legislative oversight.

So why would an employee of Mr. Smith, the architect of these direct-campaign donations, give $1,000 to one of Mr. Smith's chief critics?

"I have no idea," Mr. Lembke told us.

Perhaps a few questions from Senate colleagues and St. Louis constituents might jog his memory.