Open Government

Republicans successfully filibustered a vote on the DISCLOSE Act today, bowing to corporate and Tea Party pressure on behalf of wealthy interests.   But before the vote, Sen. Claire McCaskill passionately argued for greater transparency in campaign spending. 

As summarized by McCaskill's office, "The bill would force corporations that make political donations to disclose their donors and be held accountable for any ads they sponsor. It would also ban contributions from foreign-controlled corporations, large government contractors and companies that have received substantial government assistance. McCaskill believes that American voters have a right to know where campaign donations are coming from and who paid for political ads that they see on television."

Minutes ago on his Health Care In Action blog, Peter Kinder posted "a list of our contributors to date."  He hilariously declares that "our legal challenge has been transparent from the very beginning," but it is good that he finally released the information.

A quick review of his document shows that he's raised just $6,600 to date from 152 donors.

Twenty-four hours ago, he belligerently refused to release this information.  Why the quick change of heart? 

In at least three different radio interviews (for Missourinet, KMOX and KFTK), Peter Kinder deflected questions about his refusal to let the sunshine in on the finances of his Health Care In Action, LLC and Healthcare In Action, Inc. organizations.  Instead, Kinder tried to muddy the waters by raising questions about a lawsuit challenging the August ballot's Proposition C.  That lawsuit alleges legal and constitutional violations because the resolution passed by the General Assembly "strayed from the Introduced Bill's original purpose [and] include[d] more than a single subject." 

But instead of just calling for the plaintiffs of the lawsuit challenging Proposition C to reveal their donors, Kinder repeatedly declared that George Soros, "SEIU thugs" and "the corrupt ACORN crowd" were behind the suit.  I don't have any idea who's funding the anti-Prop C lawsuit, and Peter Kinder doesn't either. But that didn't stop him from presenting speculation about that suit as fact. 

Kinder's statement to Missourinet's Brent Martin:

We will disclose our donors. Look, this is a smokescreen, of course, that we would expect from the source in the statement [the Missouri Democratic Party].  I've said we will disclose our donors.  Who's funding the lawsuit is a side issue. It will be answered.

By the way, the same left-wing Democrats funded, no doubt, by the SEIU, by the corrupt ACORN crowd, by Mr. Soros with his billions, have filed a bogus lawsuit in this state two weeks ago seeking to deny Missourians the right to vote, four weeks from yesterday, August 3rd, at the primary election, on the Health Care Freedom Act.  Now, what do they fear about Missourians having their say? 

I have said this morning at the press conference, I'll disclose my donors when they disclose theirs. Why don't you go back to the Missouri Democratic Party and tell them to disclose their donors.  On the day that they do that, you'll get disclosure of mine.  But I've committed to doing that anyway at a point later this year.

Reading through the audits released today by State Auditor Susan Montee's office concerning operations in the General Assembly, I grew more than a little depressed. There is good coverage of their contents from the AP, Tribune and Post-Dispatch, and the audits are available in full below the jump.

A spot-on editorial from the Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal:

Rep. Denny Hoskins should have shouted "no" at Sen. Delbert Scott and the ill-conceived bill to reduce public information about elected officials; instead, Hoskins erred on the side of government secrecy by agreeing to handle Scott's bill in the House.

The bill would hide information from the public about elected officials in 61 cities, including Knob Noster. Public officials now fill out a form naming their potential conflicts of interest. Voters should know if a real estate dealer on a city council might have land of interest to the city, whether a banker is involved with city deposits, whether a developer might seek friendlier zoning laws and so forth. A simple form helps do this, but Hoskins and Scott want to end disclosures in some cities under the premise that the forms are a bother and might discourage people from public service.

The premise is hogwash....

Read More »

Share

• Tweet Widget
• Google Plus One
• Facebook Like

Earlier this week, the House refused to expand the Sunshine Law so that it includes legislative offices, and the editorial board at the News-Leader finds this a wee bit hypocritical:

What's good for the goose might not be so good for the gander after all -- at least not in Jefferson City.

House lawmakers voted Tuesday to require many kinds of government bodies to be more accessible to citizens.

But a majority failed to pass an amendment sponsored by Jake Zimmerman to clarify that the Sunshine Law applies to their individual offices, too.

We applaud the movement forward of HB316. It would create earlier notice requirements for certain public meetings, increased fines for those who violate the law and more openness at the Missouri Ethics Commission.

But those representatives who passed the bill while hypocritically opposing Zimmerman's amendment deserve some vigorous feather- ruffling. They include many Southwest Missouri Republicans.

For your reference, the following Representatives are opposed to open their offices to the public.