New law may open floodgates for political spending
A political science professor at Northwest Missouri State University is ready to red-ink his fall lesson plans for a state and local government course.
When Rich Fulton starts to lecture his students on states that limit individual contributions to political campaigns this semester, he’ll have to draw a line through Missouri.
The reversal comes courtesy of a new law authored by a local senator that went into effect last week.
“Missouri has basically flip-flopped,” Mr. Fulton said.
The Legislature previously eliminated contribution limits in 2006, but the Missouri Supreme Court overturned the decision on a technicality.
Sen. Charlie Shields, R-St. Joseph, sponsored a bill that reinstated the change this spring, which lawmakers finally backed during the last breaths of the legislative session this May. With Gov. Matt Blunt’s subsequent signature, the bill became law Thursday, the pre-designated day for most laws.
“It’s kind of unusual for a campaign law to go into effect between the primary and general elections,” said Joe Carroll, director of campaign finance for the Missouri Ethics Commission.
Candidates also have to report any contributions that exceed $5,000 within 48 hours of receipt to the Ethics Commission.
Mr. Shields and other Republicans had argued the changes would increase transparency since the public could track the donations more easily, while Democrats resisted the move, contending money going into campaigns would skyrocket.
“Generally that helps Republicans, in that they have more of the larger givers,” Mr. Fulton said. “There’s already a great deal of money in campaigns, but what this will do is generate more for the state offices.”
So far, only candidates in statewide races and two state party committees have reported contributions that exceed $5,000.
Candidates have reported 88 of the contributions since Thursday, according to information the Ethics Commission queried for the News-Press mid-Tuesday.
Among them was Savannah’s Brad Lager, a Republican senator who reaped a $7,500 donation from the Nodaway Valley Bank in Maryville for his state treasurer campaign.
Multiple zeroes also trail the donations for other Republicans in statewide races: Kenny Hulshof for governor; Mike Gibbons for attorney general and Peter Kinder in his bid for re-election to lieutenant governor.
The two Democratic candidates included Jay Nixon for governor and Sam Page for lieutenant governor.
The highest donation from an individual racked up to $100,000, which Mr. Hulshof, Mr. Nixon and Mr. Kinder each received.
Limits still are in effect for committees, such as the Platte County Republican Central Committee, which donated its max of $13,450 to Mr. Hulshof’s campaign on Saturday — the last expected contribution of that size.
“The committee as a whole will not give as much in the future because if a person wants to give more themselves they won’t have to give to the party,” said Chairman Jim Rooney, of Weston, Mo.
Alyson E. Raletz can be reached
at alysonraletz@npgco.com.
This story has 19 comments. Click here to join in on the discussion.
Story Tools
Hyperlink Legend
E-mail story
Print friendly version
iPod friendly version
Today's Top Headlines
Smurfit workers go on strike
Cotter takes his wings to state post
Raises, insurance in doubt for county employees
Senator wants to dampen river parties
U.S. Bank robbed on Belt
- More Headlines
- Recently Discussed
yet another reason to send good time charlie home to tarkio.
Posted by doctor_pepper on September 3, 2008 at 8:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)I believe you have your politicians mixed up. Sam Graves is from Tarkio...
Posted by gopguy on September 3, 2008 at 8:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)Heritage,
Posted by heritage on September 3, 2008 at 8:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)That comment shows how uniformed you are. Charlie is not from Tarkio. Get a clue.
whoooooops, my bad, shields is the highway re-namer. i guess you two actually think that the estimable sen shields championing this cause is a good thing? or are you just nit picking about the faux pas? i won't be voting for either man, in any case.
Posted by familyguy on September 3, 2008 at 9:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)Sour grapes, heritage. If the Dems can't get bigger donations, that's not Senator Shields fault. If this bill assisted the Dems I'm sure you wouldn't be so quick to condemn.
Posted by heritage on September 3, 2008 at 9:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)i am not a republican, family guy. i call each election as i see it. as an aside, i think that obama has debunked completely the myth that small contributions cannot finance a campaign. the times, they are a'changin'.
Posted by joetowner on September 3, 2008 at 10:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)get a clue heritage. Obamam has taken plenty of money from PACs, whether he would like you to believe it or not.
And furthermore, this is a fantastic change within our system. McCain/ Feingold campaign finance reform sucked. Doesn't change the fact that I'll still be voting for Mccain, but that legislation was garbage. All it did was muddy the system and make political contributions more clouded. So instead of someone giving $50,000 to finance a campaign, they just send the contribution to a PAC and then the PAC turns around and contributes to the actual campaign. So in essence, the funding is still coming through, but now we just have no damn clue who actually is funding the campaigns.
Let someone donate as much money as they want to to any campaign out there. And then make it as clear as possible, so politicians are left accountable for who has financed their campaign. There's no reason for limits to be on political contributions, and there is no reason for everything to have to be transferred through PACs so that we never really know who actually is giving to a certain candidate.
I commend the lawmakers for making the process more visible.
Posted by apmastrangelo on September 3, 2008 at 10:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)Argue what you wish but the bottom line and real matter at issue here is that any candidate of any party with ties to big money now has the advantage. If anyone not understanding that elections are won with $$$$$$$$$$$ best wake-up to reality.
Posted by joetowner on September 3, 2008 at 10:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)Contribution limits have been established throughout the country because people have recognized how easy it is to sway the voters when you can bombard them with adds and material, some of which often providing little fact.
Get real, this change in the law does nothing to level the playing field of elections and all to do with favoring those with access to deep pockets.
Who cares? I think if you just make it clear who has given, then it shouldnt matter. If Heartland Health wants to fund Mark Sheehan's campaign against Rob Schaaf to the tune of $100+k, then so be it. Just let it be known that is where it is coming from, as oppossed to various State PACs. If some wealthy businessman in St. Joe wants to self-finance Schaaf's campaign, again who cares? I'm just tired of not knowing who is giving to these candidates, when all you see is various PACs is pretty much where all their financing is coming from. Just make it more transparent.
Posted by ninja_man on September 3, 2008 at 12:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)you all have it wrong... campaigns are paid for with drug money.
Posted by gopguy on September 3, 2008 at 1:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)Heritage....Do you believe that the names and dollar amounts of contributions to campaigns should open and accesable to the public?
Previously, large donations were 'funneled' through committees, obscuring the original donors identity, and therefore the intent. This new law will not change the amount given to campaigns, only make it open for all to see.
For that, Heritage, Sen. Shields should be commended.
Posted by apmastrangelo on September 3, 2008 at 2:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)gopguy - If you think the new law will make things transparent I suggest you involve yourself with the inner circle of some high profile races. There is more scheming that goes on, in the name of financial disclosure, than "Carter's has Liver Pills".
Posted by gopguy on September 3, 2008 at 3:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)I am more involved in local, state, and federal campaings than anyone here that posts. I can assure you that!
Posted by apmastrangelo on September 3, 2008 at 3:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)gopguy - Does not address the primary issue but think we are still close on a variety of political issues. While willing, I would not suggest comparing credential's on the subject though.
Posted by gopguy on September 3, 2008 at 3:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)I agree that we are close on the subject, but I would love to share credentials.
Posted by heritage on September 3, 2008 at 3:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)joetowner, i completely agree that transparency would be nice dream. and, yes, i am voting against the heartland machine this election, but i am relatively sure that, sadly, the voting public ( especially at local and state levels) is not interested enough to do much more than vote for the name they recognize.
gopguy, i think i could have held my own nicely with you in the political involvement arena when there was a party i had any faith in.
Posted by gopguy on September 3, 2008 at 4 p.m. (Suggest removal)I doubt it.
Posted by apmastrangelo on September 3, 2008 at 4:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)gopguy - Perhaps in time but suffice to say, as with yours, we have apparently touched on many of the same. Only difference may or may-not be the nature and evolution of each.
Posted by hcat on September 3, 2008 at 8:50 p.m.This comment was removed by the site staff.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them.
Rules: We don't allow comments that degrade others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation or disability. Epithets, abusive language and obscene comments will not be tolerated... nor will defamation. Brief quotes are okay as long as the source is given. Blatent cutting and pasting is not acceptable.Robust, even heated debate we like. Straying off-topic or flaming, we don't. Please read our user agreement.
Requires free stjoenews.net registration.