missouri bak

===

wtf 1 23

html crosshairs

bak 4 23

-=-=

===

rww

10/22/2026

Kate Riga and Khaya Himmelman @ Talking Points Memo: Missouri Republicans Try To Trick Voters Out of Abortion Rights

In Missouri, where Republicans just can’t get enough of siphoning off their constituents’ power, the GOP is trying to swindle voters into repealing the abortion rights they passed — and enshrined in the state Constitution — just two years ago. They’re calling the legislature-passed initiative on the ballot this cycle Amendment 3 again — the same as the last vote — but this time a “no” vote means keeping abortion rights, the opposite of the last time.

-=-=

AN 10 26

The effort by President Donald Trump to redraw the congressional districts of Missouri in order to benefit the Republican Party has been blocked in court, causing confusion among voters and leading some Republican candidates to find themselves facing a more difficult battle ahead of the November midterm elections.

The redistricting controversy has angered voters all over Missouri, including those in strongly Republican areas, while the Democrats claim that their campaigns have been given a boost by the failed attempt

Fred Wellman, the Democratic candidate running against Republican Representative Ann Wagner in Missouri's second congressional district, described the initiative as "monumentally dumb" and stated that fundraising and volunteer involvement increased following the courts' rejection of the map, according to The Guardian.

The Republicans had wanted to convert Missouri's six-to-two lead in its U.S. House delegation into a seven-to-one ratio. Acting on Trump's advice, members of the GOP approved new boundaries in September 2025 that would have diminished the district based in Kansas City and currently represented by the Democratic Congressman Emanuel Cleaver.

However, an organized petition campaign cast the plans into question. The group called People Not Politicians gathered over 300,000 signatures requesting a referendum on the map, which then led to legal action regarding whether the districts could come into effect without prior voter approval.

The Republican Missouri Secretary of State, Denny Hoskins, at first refused to certify the referendum on the grounds that the state's petition procedure did not cover redistricting; however, in September the Missouri Supreme Court disagreed and instructed the state to use its earlier congressional boundaries.

On September 25, the U.S. Supreme Court kept the result as it was, preventing a further effort to reinstate the map which had been supported by the Republicans for the November election. The redrawn districts had already been employed in the August primaries, which caused uncertainty as to which candidates voters would encounter in November.

As absentee voting got underway, more than a million voters were affected according to The Associated Press because the authorities and the courts had given conflicting instructions as to which version of the map should apply to the November election.

Eric Leventhal, who is a voter in the St. Louis area and backed Wellman in the primary, said to The Guardian that he didn't any longer know which congressional district he resided in and described the whole thing as "dizzying and embarrassing, frankly."

At the same time, Cleaver stated that he had come across Republican voters who were willing to back him following the redistricting controversy. He described the original action as "pure, undistilled cheating."

Wellman stated that the legal reversal had made the district more competitive in relation to Wagner and had brought attention to his campaign outside of Missouri; however, the result of the election has still not been decided.

Missouri voters will also be voting on Proposition A in November, with a rejection of the legislature's 2025 map resulting from a 'no' vote and approval of the map for future use coming about with a 'yes' vote.

Even though they have suffered setbacks in the courts, Republican officials have indicated that further redistricting attempts are still possible following the midterms.

===

-=-=

AN 9 26

With the 2026 midterms less one and one-half months away, a chaotic redistricting battle rages on in deep red Missouri. And MAGA Republicans are continuing to fight a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the state's congressional map.

Politico's Josh Gerstein, early Wednesday morning on X, reported, "BREAKING: Missouri redistricting fight hits [Supreme Court] for 3rd time. Opponents of plan likely to shift 1 House seat to GOP say appeals court basically defied earlier SCOTUS ruling. Kavanaugh sets short fuse, orders response by 2PM Wednesday."

CNN's Aaron Blake, responding to Gerstein's tweet, posted, "There are less than six weeks until the election, and we still don't know which districts Missouri is using."

Gerstein, in Politico, explains, "Opponents of a GOP-friendly gerrymander in Missouri are again asking the Supreme Court to put the plan to rest with a definitive ruling. It's the third time the issue has reached the High Court in the past few weeks. Both of the prior trips resulted in rulings against the state's new, GOP-friendly House map, but a federal appeals court panel rekindled the fight Monday when it ordered the state to use the new map in November."

Gerstein continues, "The new emergency appeal from redistricting opponents asks Justice Brett Kavanaugh to block this week's unusual decision from the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, which came despite a unanimous ruling from Missouri's top court that the election should proceed under an existing map that gives Republicans a 7-2 advantage over Democrats in the state's House delegation. Kavanaugh put the latest request on a short fuse. He ordered state officials and Republican candidates seeking to stick with the new map to respond by 2 p.m. Wednesday."

Gerstein notes that although "the new pro-GOP map was used for primary elections" in August, the Missouri Supreme Court "ruled those lines never went into effect because a successful petition drive meant the new map required approval from the state's voters in a referendum prior to being adopted."

"The U.S. Supreme Court's first snub of the Republican-led effort came on September 8, when Kavanaugh turned down an emergency appeal by state officials seeking to overturn the Missouri Supreme Court's decision," Gerstein notes. "However, within minutes of Kavanaugh's order, U.S. District Judge Stephen Clark, a Trump appointee, granted a restraining order two GOP candidates sought against using the older lines for the general election. A challenge to Clark's order eventually reached the full Supreme Court, which put it on hold two days later."

Gerstein adds, "While no justice noted any dissent from the ruling, the justices also offered no explanation for it, which the 8th Circuit appears to have interpreted as leaving them free rein on the issue."

-=-=

AN 8 26

TARFF MIZZOU

At a time when the Republican Party is fighting for life under an unpopular president, an economic analysis reveals the red state of Missouri is looking at serious problems as President Donald Trump escalates his prolonged trade war between the U.S. and Canada, according to the Kansas City Star.

Trump may have tried to change the name of Lake Ontario to “Lake America” in his latest sleight to Canada, but there’s nothing symbolic about the impact of the 50 percent tariffs the Trump administration levied on $20 billion worth of Canadian goods. There’s also nothing symbolic about the pain of the retaliatory tariffs Canada plans to impose on roughly 700 American products beginning Sept. 8.

“The Kansas City metro area exports about $4 billion in goods to Canada annually, including vehicles, plastics, chemicals and agricultural products," according to a 2025 study by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.

“Any variation in tariffs may be sensitive,” said Ariel Dvoskin, who studies trade theory and teaches economics at the University of Missouri Kansas City, “and the [50 percent] variation that we are talking about right now … would substantially affect the exports from KC.”

Dvoskin pointed out that a whopping 37 percent of Kansas City’s exported goods go to Canada, which puts this Trump-voting state in a nasty bullseye. “When you increase tariffs, of course, those who suffer first are workers because prices go up and their real wages go down," Dvoskin said.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce study identified Kansas City as one of the U.S. cities that would take the hardest hit in a trade war between the North American allies, with Kansas City the third-most vulnerable city in a prolonged trade dispute because of its dependence on Canadian demand.

The info was based on 2023 data, but Andrew DiCapua, the chamber’s principal economist and the study’s author, told the Star that the results still apply today.

“Kansas City really is at the center of this trade war,” DiCapua said. “ … It raises costs for businesses. I mean, someone needs to pay for this. Even if it’s not passed on to consumers right away, someone still needs to pay for the tariffs. So smaller businesses that rely on these supply chains are going to have to eat those costs.”

Frank Lenk, director of economic research at the Mid-America Regional Council, told the Star that Kansas City’s auto industry is among the clearest targets because vehicles are one of the region’s largest exports and much of that trade is tied to Canada. Lenk added that Trump’s trade war can also hike manufacturing costs for companies like Ford and General Motors because parts and materials move back and forth across the border before final assembly.

They can either absorb those costs and threaten their financial integrity and workers or pass the costs down to customers in a colossal wallop.

-=-=

---

AN 7 25

Republican lawmakers’ decision to overturn a voter-approved expansion of paid sick leave means benefits Missouri workers accrued in recent months will disappear on Aug. 28.

They also placed a question on the 2026 ballot rolling back abortion rights that voters enshrined in the state constitution in November.

It’s not the first time the GOP-dominated legislature overturned voter-approved laws in recent years. But this time, the backlash could have long-lasting consequences.

In the short term, proponents of the paid sick leave law are eyeing a new initiative petition to reinstate the benefit in the state constitution, while abortion-rights supporters expect to raise millions to fend off a new ban.

But another coalition hopes to go even further.

IFrame Content

Respect Missouri Voters, a bipartisan constellation of organizations, this month submitted 38 versions of a new initiative petition seeking to undermine the legislature’s ability to overturn voter-approved measures.

Most would require 80% of the legislature to agree before a law or constitutional amendment enacted by initiative petition could be revised or repealed. They also would prohibit the legislature from making the initiative and referendum process more difficult.

The group’s PAC reported $200,000 cash on hand on July 1, with another $170,000 in large donations since then. That includes $10,000 from former Republican U.S. Sen. John Danforth.

“This is our one shot,” said Benjamin Singer, CEO of one of the coalition’s members, Show Me Integrity. “If we don’t act now, they’ll succeed in silencing us forever.”

Missouri Gov. Kehoe signs bill repealing paid sick leave

IFrame Content

Republicans have taken notice, with some pondering a preemptive strike to change the initiative petition process before any campaign gets off the ground. But others worry it may already be too late and wonder if the GOP overplayed its hand with its recent moves.

“The legislature doesn’t really seem to understand, they’ve kicked the hornet’s nest,” said James Harris, a veteran Republican consultant in Missouri. “We may be about to cross the rubicon… where the legislature loses a lot of its power.”

The showdown is decades in the making.

After Missourians approved a constitutional amendment to limit taxes in the 1980s, the Democratic-led legislature tried to make changes to the initiative petition process that were criticized at the time by GOP Gov. John Ashcroft as an attempt to silence voters. He ultimately vetoed the bill.

In 1999, Missouri voters rejected a ballot measure that would have allowed concealed carry of firearms. Despite the defeat, the legislature revisited the issue after Republicans took the majority and ultimately passed a concealed carry bill in 2003.

Voters passed a ballot measure in 2010 called the “Puppy Mill Cruelty and Prevention Act” that specified appropriate living conditions for breeding operations with at least 10 female breeding dogs. It also capped the number of animals that a business could use for breeding at 50.

Soon after, lawmakers passed a bill that peeled back key parts of the new law, including the cap on the number of breeding dogs.

The puppy mill vote inspired advocates to forgo changes to state law and instead put their focus on putting policy changes in the state constitution — making it much harder for lawmakers to make changes because it would require another statewide vote.

In subsequent years, voters approved constitutional amendments legalizing marijuana, expanding Medicaid eligibility, creating a nonpartisan redistricting plan and repealing a ban on abortion.

But the GOP supermajority wasn’t ready to quit without a fight.

Lawmakers refused to fund Medicaid expansion until the Missouri Supreme Court said they had no choice. They pushed through a ballot measure of their own, approved by voters, that repealed the nonpartisan redistricting plan.

Next year, voters will weigh in on an amendment passed by the legislature putting the state’s abortion ban back in place. The paid sick leave expansion was not a constitutional amendment, allowing lawmakers to repeal it without a new statewide vote.

“I don’t understand the legislature’s strategy at all,” said Sean Nicholson, a progressive strategist who has worked on numerous initiative petition campaigns in Missouri. “A very pro-Trump electorate spoke very clearly on abortion rights and paid sick leave in November. And now we head into a midterm, and we’ve seen in Missouri and other states that shenanigans from politicians become part of the story. The legislature has given voters plenty of motivation to double down on what they’ve already said.”

Missouri Republicans shut down Senate debate to pass abortion ban, repeal sick leave law

IFrame Content

Republicans, who held legislative super majorities as these progressive ballot measures have been approved by voters, have long complained that out-of-state money from anonymous sources have largely fueled these initiative petition campaigns.

They’ve vowed for years to make it harder to change the constitution through the initiative petition process, but the push always fizzled amidst GOP infighting or other legislative priorities.

The threat of an initiative petition that would weaken the legislature’s hand in the process has reignited calls for Republicans to take action quickly. The Missouri Freedom Caucus, a group of right-wing legislators who regularly quarrel with GOP leadership, is calling on Gov. Mike Kehoe to convene a special legislative session to change the initiative petition process.

“Missouri’s Constitution should not be up for sale to the highest left-wing bidder,” the group said in a statement last week. “Without immediate reform, left-wing activists will continue to use this loophole to force their unpopular agenda on Missouri citizens with a mere 51% of the vote.”

Whether Missourians will get another chance to vote on paid sick leave is still up in the air.

Missouri’s law allowed employees to earn one hour of paid sick time for every 30 hours worked, starting May 1. By the time it’s officially repealed, 17 weeks will have elapsed. That means someone working 40 hours a week could have earned 22 hours of paid sick leave.

If workers don’t use their paid sick leave before Aug. 28, there’s no legal guarantee they can do so afterward.

The sick leave expansion was a “job killer,” said Kara Corches, president and CEO of the Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry, adding that “one-size-fits-all mandates threaten growth.”

Richard Von Glahn, policy director of Missouri Jobs with Justice, which advocated for the paid sick leave ballot measure, noted 58% of voters approved the proposal. It was also upheld unanimously by the Missouri Supreme Court.

“Now workers may again face the reality of having no paid sick time to take care of their families without losing out on a check,” Von Glahn said shortly after the governor signed the paid sick leave repeal earlier this month. “This move by the Missouri legislature sets a dangerous precedent for democratic processes in our state.”

---

an 3 25

In an unprecedented move to funnel more public tax dollars toward groups that oppose abortion, Republican lawmakers in Missouri are advancing a plan to allow residents to donate to pregnancy resource centers instead of paying any state income taxes.

The proposal would establish a 100% tax credit, up from 70%, and a $50,000 annual cap per taxpayer. The result: Nearly all Missouri households — except those with the highest incomes — could fully satisfy their state tax bill by redirecting their payment from the state to pregnancy centers.

The move comes four months after Missouri voters reversed one of the nation’s strictest abortion bans, and just as clinics have begun performing the procedure again after overcoming Republican obstacles.

Supporters of the bill, which last month cleared a key legislative hurdle in the state House, say it gives taxpayers more control over where their tax dollars go and allows them to support organizations that help pregnant women and provide alternatives to abortion. Alissa Gross, CEO of Resource Health Services, which runs four pregnancy resource centers in the Kansas City area, told the committee in written testimony that tax credits have led to a surge in donations to her organization and that a 100% tax credit could bring in even more.

“Our ability to impact more men and women for life as well as build healthy families has been substantial,” she said.

Critics argue the state’s support for pregnancy resource centers, also known as crisis pregnancy centers, diverts tax revenue away from essential services such as health care and public education and becomes a funding stream for anti-abortion advocacy. They say many centers do little to actually help women; instead, they say they merely discourage women from getting abortions.

“A 70 percent tax credit with no cap was excessive. A 100 percent tax credit is absurd,” Katie Baylie, a lawyer and reproductive rights advocate based in the Kansas City area, wrote in testimony submitted to the committee. “It is an insult to Missourians that our lawmakers are spending time even considering this bill.”

Experts in tax policy and philanthropy said a dollar-for-dollar tax credit — for any purpose — is rare and could be much costlier for the state than intended, especially if pregnancy centers actively promote it.

There is a big psychological difference for donors between a 100% tax credit and a 70% credit, the experts said. At 70%, donors still have to pay some taxes, but at 100%, there is no reason to make a donation less than their tax liability.

“I could imagine a possibility where there’s a big publicity campaign by these centers, or a viral campaign, and massive numbers of conservative Missourians decide to effectively defund state government in favor of these pregnancy resource centers,” said David Gamage, a professor of tax law and policy at the University of Missouri law school.

However, expansion of tax credits clashes with another Republican push to eliminate Missouri’s income tax altogether. Two proposals to replace it with a higher sales tax recently advanced in the state Senate, although it was unclear whether they could pass. If Missouri were to abolish state income taxes, tax credits would become meaningless.

The bill represents one more expansion of a measure Missouri lawmakers have been growing for several years. Until 2021, Missouri taxpayers who donated to pregnancy resource centers were able to claim a 50% tax credit for their donations, meaning for every $1,000 in donations, a taxpayer’s bill dropped by $500. That’s when an expansion approved by the legislature in 2019 took effect and raised the rate to 70%. That shifted more of the cost of those contributions to the state, since tax credits work by directly reducing the amount of money a taxpayer owes to the state. Unlike deductions, which lower taxable income, tax credits are a dollar-for-dollar reduction in tax liability. When these credits are redeemed, they prevent the state from collecting that revenue, effectively reducing the total income available for public services.

The legislature also removed a $3.5 million-per-year cap on the program and removed its expiration date.

At the time, the change drew little attention because it was tucked into the same legislation that created Missouri’s trigger law to ban abortion if Roe v. Wade were overturned — a move that dominated headlines. And there were few warnings about how much it could cost.

The bill’s official cost estimate, prepared by nonpartisan legislative oversight staff, projected only a modest increase in taxpayer expense. Raising the tax credit to 70% was expected to increase annual tax credits from $3.5 million to $4.9 million. That estimate assumed donations would remain steady.

But they didn’t. The program has grown significantly, with $11.8 million in tax credits authorized in the past year alone. Still, it remains a small fraction of Missouri’s overall budget; Gov. Mike Kehoe has proposed a $54 billion spending plan for next year.

Once again, legislative research is downplaying the potential impact on Missouri’s budget. The fiscal note for the bill accounts only for the jump from a 70% to a 100% tax credit, without considering the likely surge in donations that such an incentive would trigger — even though increasing giving is the entire point of the policy.

The note says that it was “unclear” whether the enhanced tax credit would encourage more people to contribute and claim the credit, which would lead to more foregone tax revenue for the state.

The legislative research staffer who authored the impact statement declined to comment, and the bill’s House sponsor, Rep. Christopher Warwick, did not respond to questions from ProPublica.

Warwick, a Republican from Bolivar, in southwest Missouri, told the tax reform committee that his proposal empowers taxpayers to support important work without the state “trying to verify what programs work.” He said, too, that he would oppose requirements for pregnancy resource centers to report how they spend the money, saying he wanted to “limit the bureaucracy.”

Warwick’s bill would also increase the tax credit for donations to maternity homes from 70% to 100% and for diaper banks from 50% to 100%. The state has not yet studied the impact of those changes.

A matching bill has been introduced in the Senate but has not yet advanced.

Rep. Steve Butz, a Democrat from St. Louis, argued the tax credit would effectively shift charitable giving from individuals to the state.

“This will be the fourth bill I’ve heard that will reduce revenue, which I guess is clearly your goal here — to reduce the revenue to the state,” Butz told Warwick during a legislative hearing on the bill. He argued that if donors receive a full tax credit for their contributions, they aren’t really giving their own money — rather, the state is effectively making the donation for them. “So I don’t know that I’d consider that much charitable giving.”

In an interview, Butz said he considers himself pro-life and has donated to pregnancy resource centers, receiving the 70% tax credit. However, he said he does not believe the program should take priority over others that receive less or no tax incentives for giving.

Missouri’s approach to crisis pregnancy centers reflects a growing divide between red and blue states. While Republican-led states such as Florida, Texas and Tennessee have ramped up funding for pregnancy resource centers, states led by Democrats, including Massachusetts and California, have warned residents the centers mislead patients by posing as medical clinics while steering them away from abortion.

Missouri is among the national leaders in per capita spending on pregnancy resource centers even before tax credits are factored in, according to data from states that fund them. Kehoe has proposed increasing direct state funding by almost 50% to more than $12 million in the fiscal year that starts July 1.

In a statement, Gabby Picard, communications director in Kehoe’s office, said the governor “is committed to supporting services that help women choose to carry their unborn child to term, which is why his budget recommends increased funding” for abortion alternatives, including pregnancy resource centers.

Missouri was the first state to use tax credits to fund pregnancy centers, becoming a model for other states looking to support the anti-abortion movement. One public health expert who has tracked the impact of pregnancy centers said Missouri has been a leader and innovator in this effort. “What Missouri is proposing really makes them an outlier at the top of the game,” said Andrea Swartzendruber, an associate professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of Georgia.

Warwick’s initiative follows sweeping changes to Missouri’s abortion laws.

In November, voters approved a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to abortion and other reproductive health decisions, effectively nullifying a near-total ban that had been in place since 2022, when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

The first abortion performed under the new amendment took place in Kansas City on Feb. 15, after a judge struck down restrictive licensing rules that had prevented providers like Planned Parenthood from resuming services in the state.

In response, Republican lawmakers have introduced a wave of bills aimed at limiting the amendment’s impact. Among the measures is another proposed constitutional amendment that would restrict abortion and ban gender-affirming care for minors — an effort to combine something that voters support with something they don’t in the hopes it’ll turn off abortion-rights supporters.

Some abortion-rights advocates in the legislature see the expanded tax credit as part of a broader push by anti-abortion lawmakers stung by the repeal of the abortion ban. After the amendment passed, those legislators “needed some wins,” said Rep. Kemp Strickler, a Democrat from the Kansas City suburbs.

“But even if the amendment had lost,” Strickler said, “they probably would have been coming forward with these kinds of things.”

---

an 1 25

In the Missouri Legislature, State Sen. David Gregory, a far-right MAGA Republican, is proposing a bill that, if passed, would give a $1000 reward to anyone who reports someone who is in the United States illegally if the report leads to an arrest. And the bill is fueling heated debates among Missouri residents.

Gregory, who served in the Missouri House of Representatives before being elected to the Missouri Senate in 2024, vigorously defended his proposal during a hearing on Monday, January 27.

Gregory told members of the Missouri Senate Transportation, Infrastructure and Public Safety Committee, "This bill seeks to create an ICE program at the state level. That's essentially all it does. This is an ICE program inside the state of Missouri."

But Democratic Missouri State Sen. Barbara Washington, whose district is in Kansas City, is calling out the bill as racist and argues that it encourages Missouri residents to file reports based on a person's skin color or proficiency in English.

During the January 27 hearing, Washington warned, "Don't tell me it is not going to happen because it is happening now."

Missouri Independent reporter Rudi Keller, in an article published on January 28, explains, "Gregory, a Republican from Chesterfield, wants to authorize bounty hunters, usually employed by bail bond businesses to catch absconders, to track down people identified in tips. And if the tip proves accurate, the person arrested would be charged with 'trespass by an illegal alien,' and subject to life in prison without parole if federal immigration authorities declined to take custody."

The New York Post's Jon Levine noted that Gregory's bill would "develop an information system for people to report violations of this act, which shall include a toll-free telephone hotline, e-mail and online reporting portal."

Washington wasn't the only person speaking out against Gregory's bill at the January 27 hearing.

Gabriella Cepeda of the Hispanic Law Students Association at St. Louis University told attendees, "This bill fosters a climate of fear, where people feel unsafe engaging in even the most basic activities beyond going to work or school. They are terrified of being profiled or targeted (for) life in prison for simply existing in the state without documentation. It is not just extreme, it's cruel and unusual punishment."

Similarly, immigrant Aura Velasquez — who has been a U.S. citizen for five years — testified, "It is inhumane to say people should be hunted like a sport. It would turn neighbors against neighbors and friends against each other."

===

court > AG 7 23

https://www.alternet.org/missouri-supreme-court-abortion-ballot/

https://www.alternet.org/scotus-2661580228/

comm dr an 6 23

no lnc twt

'Bombshell' Internal docs highlight flaws in case now before Supreme Court

Brett Wilkins and Common Dreams June 20, 2023

As the U.S. Supreme Court nears a decision on President Joe Biden's student debt relief proposal, an advocacy group on Friday published internal records revealing the "anxiety and confusion" of staffers at a loan company critics say is being spuriously used by Republican attorneys general in their attack on the president's plan.

Internal documents from the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority (MOHELA)—a private state-chartered lender—obtained by the Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) under Missouri's Sunshine Law show that agency employees were confused by then-state Attorney General Eric Schmitt's lawsuit and argument that Biden's relief plan could harm the company.

"MOHELA's own staff agree—the case currently before the Supreme Court that is holding up debt relief for tens of millions of borrowers lacks standing, and it should be tossed aside."

That dubious claim—an independent report showed that not only would MOHELA not be harmed by Biden's proposal, it would make more money—forms the purported basis for MOHELA's standing in the suit, Biden v. Nebraska. Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and South Carolina are suing the administration, alleging that its debt forgiveness plan violates the U.S. Constitution's separation of powers and Administrative Procedure Act.

MOHELA is not even a plaintiff in the case, a fact that critics including progressive U.S. Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) have cited in calling for the dismissal of the suit—one of two student debt relief cases the high court is expected to rule on sometime this month.

"These emails confirm what every honest observer has long understood: Missouri's lawsuit is just a partisan hack job aimed at getting the right-wing attorney general's name in the paper," Ella Azoulay, SBPC's research and policy analyst, said in a statement.

"MOHELA's own staff agree—the case currently before the Supreme Court that is holding up debt relief for tens of millions of borrowers lacks standing, and it should be tossed aside," Azoulay added.

"Just out of curiosity, is MOHELA apart [sic] of the lawsuit going on to prevent the loan forgiveness?" wrote one employee in an email. "Are we the bad guys?”

Another staffer wrote that Schmitt's lawsuit "has nothing to do with us, except that they're using the [Missouri] consumers harm as standing."

Indeed, in an October 2022 letter to Bush—who had inquired about the lender's relationship with the attorney general's office—MOHELA said its "executives were not involved in the decision" by Schmitt to sue the Biden administration.

"I think MOHELA was opposed to this move, but couldn't do anything about it," wrote yet another staffer. "The Mo. state AG needed to claim that our borrowers were harmed for standing, so they're making us look bad by filing this not only with Mo. on it, but especially bad because they filed it in Mo."

During oral arguments in February, the Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority signaled it is poised to side with Republicans challenging the debt cancellation program and strike it down.

Last week, a trio of progressive U.S. lawmakers—Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), and Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.)—implored the Biden administration to have a backup plan to aid student borrowers if the Supreme Court kills its debt cancellation proposal.

FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES

'John Lewis must be smiling': Alabama’s only Black congressperson lauds SCOTUS ruling ›

How a 1892 SCOTUS decision is 'setting up a spectacular legal clash' that could imperil US democracy: Trump biographer ›

Progressive coalition launches campaign to demand Congress act on SCOTUS reform ›

RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB

How the SCOTUS 'Supermajority' is shaping policy on abortion ... ›

Congress' debt ceiling deal made only modest changes to permitting ... ›

https://www.exposedbycmd.org/2023/06/16/leonard-leo-bankrolls-former-lieutenant-to-challenge-gop-incumbent-in-missouris-2024-race-for-ag

Trump’s “judge whisperer” Leonard Leo, the Christian conservative largely responsible for moving the federal court system to the far right in the past decade, is deploying his powerful network to get a friend and former employee elected as Missouri’s next attorney general.

**Will Scharf**, a former federal prosecutor who worked briefly as a vice president at :{Leo:(style="box-sizing:inherit"):}:’s public relations firm :{CRC Advisors:(style="box-sizing:inherit"):}:, is challenging sitting Attorney General Andrew Bailey (R) in the August 2024 GOP primary—and :{leaping ahead:(style="box-sizing:inherit"):}: of him in campaign cash.

Missouri Gov. Mike Parsons (R) appointed Bailey to replace former Attorney General Eric Schmitt (R), who was elected to the U.S. Senate last November. But the new attorney general has seen an exodus of key Schmitt staffers since taking office in January, one of whom told the :{:{National Review:(style="box-sizing:inherit"):}::(style="box-sizing:inherit"):}: that, “Bailey is not going to be the conservative fighter that Eric Schmitt was.” Given his more “business-friendly” approach, conservative activists are concerned that he won’t have Schmitt’s “appetite for pushing back against critical race theory in schools” or going after “woke” corporations, the National Review reported.

Widely known for his tremendous influence in reshaping the U.S. Supreme Court and moving the federal judiciary to the right, Leo is now aiming to “counter what he sees as an increasing leftward tilt in society,” according to :{*The New York Times*:(style="box-sizing:inherit"):}:.

InJanuary 2020, Leo :{told *Axios*:(style="box-sizing:inherit"):}: that he was stepping down from running the right-wing :{Federalist Society:(style="box-sizing:inherit"):}: to lead CRC Advisors with communications executive Greg Mueller, starting with a “minimum $10 million issue advocacy campaign focusing on judges in the 2020 cycle.” Still, Leo remains closely involved with the Federalist Society as co-chair of its board of directors.

Scharf, who served as president of a Federalist Society chapter as a law student at Harvard from 2008–11, also :{reportedly:(style="box-sizing:inherit"):}: worked as a consultant for Leo’s :{Judicial Crisis Network:(style="box-sizing:inherit"):}: (JCN)—since rebranded The Concord Fund—where he was “actively involved” in getting Brett Kavanaugh confirmed as one of Trump’s picks for the Supreme Court.

Both Leo and Mueller, along with Mueller’s wife Charmaine, have maxed out their individual contributions to their hand-picked candidate’s campaign, according to Citizens for Scharf’s :{January filing:(style="box-sizing:inherit"):}:. That month, the candidate :{told:(style="box-sizing:inherit"):}: the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that he considers Leo “a dear friend and mentor.”

Of the $575,000 raised by Defend Missouri, the political action committee supporting Scharf’s run, $500,000 has come from Leo’s Concord Fund, according to the PAC’s :{April filing:(style="box-sizing:inherit"):}:.

If Scharf defeats Bailey and wins in the general election, he will likely join the :{Republican Attorneys General Association:(style="box-sizing:inherit"):}: (RAGA), a :{cash-for-influence operation:(style="box-sizing:inherit"):}: that coordinates the official actions of Republican state attorneys general and sells its corporate funders access to them and their staff.

The Concord Fund is on record as the largest donor to RAGA in 2020, 2021, and 2022, the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) has :{reported:(style="box-sizing:inherit"):}:, giving $4 million last year alone. In 2019, RAGA presented Leo with a “special award” for helping to “shape the trajectory of RAGA and the conservative legal movement more than anyone else.”

RAGA also pays Leo’s Creative Response Concepts—now known as CRC Advisors—$7,500 per month for “consulting,” according to 2022 IRS filings.

In 2022, RAGA Executive Director Peter Bisbee and West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey spurned Bailey, their :{RAGA colleague:(style="box-sizing:inherit"):}:, and contributed $250 and $2,000, respectively, to Scharf instead.

Disclosures reveal that in addition to Leo and Mueller, other executives at CRC Advisors have also supported Scharf’s campaign, with CFO Neil Corkery and his wife Ann each contributing $1,000, President Jonathan Bunch and his wife Amanda each giving $2,650, and Senior Executive Maria Marshall donating $1,000.

For years, the Corkerys have served at the center of Leo’s dark money network. Ann is listed in the filing as an attorney for :{The 85 Fund:(style="box-sizing:inherit"):}:, one of Leo’s right-wing funding vehicles, and earns :{$256,000 per year:(style="box-sizing:inherit"):}: as a counsel for The Concord Fund. In addition to his role at CRC Advisors, Neil has worked for Leo as treasurer of the JCN, president of the Judicial Education Project (as it was known before being renamed The 85 Fund), treasurer of the :{Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust:(style="box-sizing:inherit"):}:, and president of the now-shuttered :{Wellspring Committee:(style="box-sizing:inherit"):}:.

Other Leo operatives who lead organizations at the center of the Right’s culture wars have also contributed to Scharf’s campaign. Will Hild, executive director of the Leo-funded group :{:{Consumers’ Research :(style="background-color:#ff9900;"):}:that is:(style="box-sizing:inherit"):}: on the frontlines in the attacks on so-called “woke capitalism;” and Nicole Neily, president of the nonprofit:{**Parents Defending Education**:(style="box-sizing:inherit"):}: that is purportedly fighting for parents’ rights, both contributed smaller amounts—in the hundreds—to Bailey’s challenger.

Donor at the Center of the Supreme Court Ethics Scandal Backs Scharf

Real estate tycoon Harlan Crow and his wife Kathy, close friends of Leo and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife Ginni, maxed out contributions at $2,650 each to Scharf, according to his April campaign filing.

In April, ProPublica:{reported:(style="box-sizing:inherit"):}: that Thomas has been accepting luxury trips and lavish gifts from Crow for over 20 years without disclosing them. The story featured a painting—:{unearthed by True North Research:(style="box-sizing:inherit"):}:— hanging in Crow’s private resort that depicts him, Thomas, Leo, and others “discussing the law” and illustrates the extremely tight relationship between these men.

Another close associate of Leo’s, the right-wing philanthropist Roger Hertog, gave https://www.mec.mo.gov/CampaignFinanceReports/Generator.aspx?Keys=B2G41dEVPKgI8cDcdGFsgJsm99XwPL2GsUCWbUlfMr0QoUFTilTH3rvZPcTKwORHP6frqbjz1kQ%2bQsn%2fLxrZKI7CJPRcva8W" data-wpel-link="external" target="_blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="box-sizing: inherit; background: 0px 0px; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out 0s; color: rgb(0, 156, 244); text-decoration-line: none;">

$50,000, the second largest donation made to Defend Missouri. He and Leo have been working together in similar activist circles since at least 2005....Rounding out the leading contributions to Defend Missouri are right-wing donors IsaacPerlmutter, chairman of Marvel Entertainment, and his wife Laura,who together gave :{$25,000:(style="box-sizing:inherit"):}:. Perlmutter has emerged as a major GOP donor since Trump’s first presidential run in 2016.

According to Scharf’s :{January:(style="box-sizing:inherit"):}: and :{April:(style="box-sizing:inherit"):}: filings, other major GOP donors who have jumped in early to support his campaign committee include:

Ken Kendrick, owner of the Arizona Diamondbacks baseball team: $2,825
Randy Kendrick, general manager of the Diamondbacks: $2,825
Suzie Kovner, wife of retired billionaire hedge fund manager Bruce Kovner: $2,000
Robert Kraft, chairman of Kraft Group and owner of the New England Patriots football team: $2,825
Bernard Marcus, retired founder and CEO of Home Depot: $2,825
Paul Singer, billionaire co-CEO of Elliott Investment Management: $2,650...">Deborah Hochberg, senior advisor at The Paul E. Singer Foundation: $2,825

https://www.alternet.org/spray-painting-brick-of-lead/

~ trans

an 4 23 no lnx

Missouri Republican defends letting adults marry 12-year-old kids

Brad Reedand Raw Story April 12, 2023

Missouri State Sen. Mike Moon (R) this week defended the rights of parents to marry off children as young as 12 years old.

The Springfield News-Leader reports that Moon made the remarks during a contentious debate over banning gender-affirming care for transgender minors in which Democratic State Rep. Peter Meredith accused him of hypocrisy for supporting the bill despite positioning himself as a champion of parents' rights.

"I've heard you talk about parents' rights to raise their kids how they want," argued Meredith. "In fact, I just double-checked, you voted no on making it illegal for kids to be married to adults at the age of 12 if their parents consented to it!"

Meredith went on to accuse Moon of making it legal for a 12-year-old to be "raped by an adult" as long as their parents agreed to let it occur, which prompted an angry response from Moon.

"Do you know any kids who have been married at age 12?" he asked Meredith. "I do. And guess what? They're still married."

As the News-Leader notes, "Moon's support of child marriage in some instances has been long documented," as in the past he has discussed "a couple he met in college who had married one another at age 12."

Watch the video below or at this link.

FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES

Nearly 50 million people are enslaved around the world: report ›

Tennessee GOP drafts 'completely ridiculous' bill to eliminate age requirements for marriage ›

West Virginia Republicans vote to keep child marriage legal ›

RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB

'Why Is Child Marriage Still Legal?': A Young Lawmaker Tackles a ... ›

Child Marriage Ban Struck Down by West Virginia Republicans ... ›

Wyoming Limiting Child Marriage Sparks Republican Outrage ›

an 4 23

republicans in the Missouri State House of Representatives on Tuesday voted to strip all public libraries of their funding a week after lawmakers debated the budget proposal that Governor Mike Parson submitted to the legislature.

The version that will now head to the State Senate eliminated "not only the $4.5 million Parson had slated for libraries, but also costs for diversity initiatives, childcare and pre-kindergarten programs," Heartland Signal reported.

The move appears to be a retaliatory response to legal action taken by the American Civil Liberties Union.

"Missouri House Budget Committee leader Rep. Cody Smith (R-Carthage) proposed cutting library aid due to a recent lawsuit filed against the state last February," Heartland Signal explained.

"The lawsuit — filed by the ACLU of Missouri on behalf of the Missouri Association of School Librarians and the Missouri Library Association — seeks to declare Senate Bill 775 unconstitutional, a bill that has resulted in over 300 books getting banned from school libraries, many of which include LGBTQ characters or racial justice themes," the outlet added.

https://boingboing.net/2023/03/30/missouri-house-of-representatives-sets-new-budget-for-public-libraries-to-0.html

{{

**https://www.alternet.org/missouri-gop-dont-say-gay/**

35yrs rip off covid $ 150K landscape biz?

an 3 23

no lnx

joe Harding, the now-former Florida Republican lawmaker who authored the extremist "Don't Say Gay" bill could face up to 35 years in prison after pleading guilty Tuesday afternoon to federal felony fraud charges in a scheme to obtain $150,000 in COVID-19 relief funds, according to Florida Politics‘ publisher Peter Scorsch.

Harding, 35, was a construction project manager who started his own lawn care company. He quickly became a right-wing darling after his anti-LGBTQ legislation, officially the Parental Rights in Education Act, was embraced by Florida GOP Governor Ron DeSantis, who signed it into law.

Harding was charged in a December federal indictment with six counts of wire fraud, money laundering, and making false statements in his plot to obtain $150,000 in COVID funds. He resigned from the legislature the following day. He originally pled not guilty.

READ MORE: 'Chilling': Law Enforcement 'Seriously' Investigating Threats Ahead of Possible Trump Indictment Says Top WaPo Reporter

After Harding was charged and resigned, Nadine Smith, the executive director of Equality Florida, responded via social media, saying: "So much harm to students, parents and teachers because of his raw political ambitions. He slandered entire communities and trafficked in lie after lie that has emboldened violent bigotry. He will have his day in court but his legacy is already a despicable one."

Harding is not the only family member accused of criminal acts.

"Harding's indictment follows a September guilty plea from his brother-in-law, Patrick Walsh," Florida Politics reported in December. "As reported by Fresh Take Florida, Walsh pleaded guilty to wire fraud and money laundering charges connected to his receipt of nearly $8 million in disaster relief loans."

Unrepentant to the harm many feel he has done to children and the LGBTQ community, in a statement Tuesday Harding said: "During the past legislative session I have felt the support of millions of Americans while fighting for our shared concerns and for the rights of parents. I will never forget the support I received from every corner of this great country."

READ MORE: 18 Attorneys General Blast Florida's 'Don't Say Gay' Law as Unconstitutional

Harding will be sentenced in July.

Florida's Voice also reported Harding's guilty plea Tuesday.

FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES

Missouri GOP goes 'a step further than Florida' and proposes 'most extreme Don't Say Gay bill': report ›

Author of Florida's 'Don't Say Gay' bill indicted for fraud ›

Hurricane Ian washes away home of Florida's 'Don't Say Gay' law co-sponsor: report ›

RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB

Florida moves to expand 'Don't Say Gay' law in coming legislative ... ›

'Don't Say Gay' law brings worry, confusion to Florida schools | PBS ... ›

'Don't Say Gay' bill signed by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis | AP News ›

an 3 23

no lnx

a trove of leaked emails between South Dakota legislators and anti-trans lobbyists read like excerpts from "The Handmaid's Tale," according to a new report.

The communications between lobbyists, state Rep. Fred Deutsch and other South Dakota legislators use deeply religious language that shows Christian nationalists are pushing restrictions on LGBTQ rights as part of what they believe is a holy war, reported Vice News.

“Know that many have prayed and are praying for you this day," wrote Vernadette Broyles, a lawyer and president of the Georgia-based Children and Parental Rights Campaign in a 2020 email. "Do not back down, nor should you be afraid. Know that the Lord is with you. The children of South Dakota belong to him. He is jealous over them. Let his jealousies be spoken forth in the House of Representatives of South Dakota today so that his children would be made safe. Know you are HIS representative today. Do not be afraid. Stand firm in what is right."

The emails were shared with Vice by Elisa Rae Shupe, a trans woman who had de-transitioned and become an anti-trans advocate before re-transitioning and renouncing her ties to Christianity.

“I fell prey to the belief that if I did what they suggested that I would be cured of my gender dysphoria," Shupe said. "I was encouraged to confess my sins, ask for forgiveness by Jesus, and turn my plight over to the Lord Jesus Christ. I was also asked to accept that my transgender status was a sexually motivated sin and to cure myself by attending a religious 12-step program, which I did for approximately a year."

The messages are peppered with references to blessings, prayers and apocalyptic warfare.

“It is the language of Christian nationalism,” said Thomas Lecaque, an associate professor of history at Grand View University. “It is the language of people who very much believe they are doing God’s will, and it is the language of people who very much believe that they are engaged in a holy war.”

:{Lecaque said South Dakota Republicans, who've gotten three anti-trans bills signed into law byGov. Kristi Noem, and GOP legislatures around the country are trying to eradicate the trans community while presenting themselves as underdogs.

“They are not trying to protect children," Lecaque said. "They are trying to murder the transgender community,”}:

“Stopping the existence of transgender people and the acceptance of trans people in the public sphere is to them some sort of religious imperative,” Lecaque added. “It’s particularly fascinating that this group that has all this money, control in state legislatures, control of the house, they had a presidency, is acting like somehow they are David in the struggle.”

FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES

North Carolina GOP pushes shady law to weaken campaign regulation after a key House race was tainted by election fraud ›

How GOP lawmakers are putting teen workers in harm's way ›

'You brought this to the floor, lady': Passions ignite in Missouri House over GOP bill to control women's clothes ›

RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB

Arizona GOP lawmakers vote to shield themselves from public ... ›

GOP legislators ready bill calling for wolf population goal | AP News ›

GOP pushes for an 'earthquake in American electoral power ... ›

===}}

https://www.alternet.org/missouri-gop-dont-say-gay/

roe’s demise triggers Missouri law forbidding pregnant women from finalizing a divorce

Alex Henderson

July 20, 2022

Under an old Missouri law from 1973, a woman cannot get a divorce finalized if she is pregnant; she can file for divorce, but it won’t be finalized as long as she is pregnant. In 2022, abortion rights defenders...

1 23

missouri judge sides with GOP governor to block Medicaid expansion and override the will of voters

Alex Henderson

June 24, 2021

In 2020, voters in Missouri approved a ballot measure that called for Medicaid expansion in the midwestern state. But on June 23, a judge ruled that the voter was unconstitution

missouri clothes 1 23

https://www.alternet.org/you-brought-this-floor-lady/

mythical late term abortion BS

https://www.alternet.org/minnesota-lawmakers-partial-birth-abortion/

madigan: split on civil war, still fighting?

lots of bad stuff in heartland aleckochalypse?

https://www.alternet.org/2021/07/19-is-raging-in-a-missouri-county-with-low-vaccination-rates-report/

https://www.alternet.org/2022/02/poll-missouri-senate-eric-greitens/

2010 Ginni Tea Party JNZ

http://www.blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/07/14/group-allied-with-ginni-thomas-think-tank-threatens-armed-insurrection/

i think 404?

Group Allied With Ginni Thomas' Think Tank Threatens Armed Insurrection

wayback no vid lnx

posted by Adele Stan

Stan is AlterNet's Washington bureau chief. July 14, 2010

Group Allied With Ginni Thomas’ Think Tank Threatens Armed Insurrection

Liberty Central, the think tank founded and fronted by Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, sure seems to like men with guns.

It was troubling enough to find, as AlterNet reported last week, that Liberty Central is allied with Gun Owners of America. (Our call for comment to Liberty Central’s spokesperson was never returned.)

Further exploration of the Liberty Central Web site finds the group claiming among its “friend” organizations the Missouri Sovereignty Project, whose Web site features a video (posted below) called “Don’t Tread on Me” that shows several libertarian and right-wing figures threatening armed insurrection against the government if certain unspecified actions are taken. There is talk of usurpation of the people’s power by the state.

Among them is Michael Badnarik, the 2004 Libertarian Party presidential candidate. The words, “WHAT SIDE WILL YOU STAND?” appear in gold on a black screen, and then Badnarik appears.

“I sincerely hope that enough people have crossed the personal line in the sand where they will join forces with the rest of us,” Badnarik says, “so that a small number of us are not required to use force and use of arms.”}:

Later in the video, which is a trailer for a full-length DVD, a man who is not identified but appears to be standing in front of a government building, says, “The time when you have to defend yourself from the government is when the law becomes lawless…” After a few frames of a hip-looking woman with pink hair saying that she will never “take a mandatory vaccination,” the editor takes us back to the scene of the man in front of the government building. “There might be shootin’ that day,” he says.

The Missouri Sovereignty Project promotes its own involvement with the film and urges Web site visitors to purchase a copy, with this line appearing above the video player:

The Missouri Sovereignty Project was privileged to be part of this excellent production. Go here to buy your copy.

The film was written by William Lewis and Gary Franchi, directed by Lewis and produced byFranchi. They’re the team that brought you the film, “Camp FEMA,” a propaganda vehicle for a favorite right-wing conspiracy theory that asserts the government is creating internment camps for the unlawful detention of ordinary Americans.

Both “Camp FEMA” and “Don’t Tread on Me” feature 9/11 truther Alex Jones. (Lewis has two 9/11-themed productions of his own, “911 Ripple Effect,” and “911 In Plane Site.”) But more fascinating — and disturbing — than that is what his latest endeavor, “Don’t Tread on Me”, tells us about what’s going on in state legislatures around the country.

“Don’t Tread on Me” features four Missouri state legislators and one Oklahoma state senator who appear to be allied with the Patriot movement and comfortable with a call to arms.

Really, should the spouse of a Supreme Court Justice — one of the most powerful government officials in the United States — be fronting an organization officially allied with groups that state their support for taking up arms against the government?

As we reported last week, Larry Pratt, executive director of Liberty Central “friend” Gun Owners of America, recently appeared to call for war on the U.S. government at 2nd Amendment rally convened on the grounds of the Washington Monument on April 19th — the 15th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing. (Pratt also addressed a meeting of white supremacists in 1992.)

Yes, it’s Ginni Thomas’ First Amendment right to associate with whomever she pleases, and it’s the right of all of her organization’s featured “friends” to state their views. But is this a morally okay thing? Isn’t it a kind of dangerous thing? Then why no outcry from progressives over this?

Liberty Central is the latest addition to what I call Tea Party Inc. — the coalition of AstroTurf groups, right-wing media and insider king-makers bent on harnessing the energy of the grassroots Tea Party movement. Tea Party Inc. has oodles and oddles of money that it’s dying to spend in the upcoming 2010 election, and in all sorts of activities (like the 2nd Annual September 12 Taxpayers’ March on Washington).

As Politico’s Kenneth P. Vogel reported last week, Ginni Thomas says she’s seeking, through Liberty Central, to bridge the gap between the grassroots Tea Party movement and the established players in Washington politics.

The big money groups of Tea Party Inc. have so far pledged to spend at least $61 million in the congressional mid-term elections. Does anybody care that the lady building the bridge between them and the grassroots has a power pedigree and is aligned with armed, anti-government forces?

Here’s the trailer for “Don’t Tread on Me,” as featured on the Web site of the Missouri Sovereignty Project, which is listed as a “friend” of Liberty Central, the think tank headed by Ginni Thomas.

The people interviewed in the trailer are not identified on-screen, but the cast list is as follows: Alex Jones, Michael Badnarik, Oklahoma State Rep. Charles Key, Richard Mack, R.J. Harris, Edwin Vieira, Missouri State Rep. Cynthia Davis, Missouri State Senator Brian Neives, Missouri State Senator Gary Nodler, Missouri State Senator Jim Lembke, Stephen Shute, Jason Littlejohn, Randy Stufflebeam, Justin Sane, Josh Carter, Tom DeWeese Thomas Grady, James Lane and Tracy Ward.

lnx

Liberty Central, the think tank founded and fronted by Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, sure seems to like men with guns.

{{http://web.archive.org/web/20100722050519/http://www.libertycentral.org/

....

jon s salon an 7 22

A right-wing group in Missouri has launched a "woke heat map" documenting instances of "wokeness" in an attempt to fight back against "critical race theory" and alleged "grooming" in schools across the state.

The group, dubbed "Liberty Alliance," says it is "committed to fighting back against the Woke agenda that is permeating all across Missouri."

"The first step in fighting back is uncovering their crazy ideas – from Critical Race Theory to grooming toddlers with sexually explicit books," the organization states on its website. "That is why we have officially launched the Woke Heat Map – an interactive tool designed to expose the insane actions of the radical Left. This map will alert Missourians of craziness happening in their own communities."

"‘Liberty Alliance’ has launched a ‘Woke Interactive Map’ to warn MAGA about instances of woke behavior in a particular community. The site will alert people if either: 1. CRT, 2. Woke Extremism, or 3. ‘Action by a Crazy Leftist’ has taken place," Ron Filipkowski tweeted.

"This is the “Genderbread Person” & the latest example of the insanity that’s in Missouri schools," Eric Schmitt tweeted. "We launched The Students First Initiative to empower parents & bring transparency back to Missouri schools. This was submitted by a Fox C-6 parent We’ll keep exposing the extremism."

Another Twitter user added, "A reminder that on college campuses, anyone that doesn’t fall in line with the left are censored Where are you at @SLU_Official? These actions continued into the night and no one has been punished for vandalizing a peaceful #prolife @SLUSFL display #FreeSpeech [Students for Life]"

Liberty Alliance's map isn't the first of its kind. Over the years, numerous right-wing groups have created rankings, watchlists, and cluster maps to keep track of the left's alleged influence in healthcare and education as well as Corporate America.

Last October, Salon reported on a custom Google map created by trans activist Erin Reed that provides those seeking hormone replacement therapy with the names and locations of nearly 800 informed consent clinics throughout the country.By February of that year, Reed told Salon, her map was repurposed by anti-trans activist Alix Aharon as a resource for organizing protests against doctorswho provide gender-affirming care. That new map, called "The Gender Mapper," was quickly taken down over apparent copyright infringement. However, a new one has since appeared in its place, cataloging roughly 200 clinics in total.

On its website, The Gender Mapper accuses "Big Gender" of testing "experimental medication" on "confused and vulnerable children."

"GenderMapper volunteers work in secret, around the world to collate evidence and document what is occurring," the site adds. "Gendermapper volunteers are unsung [sic] heros- and data is our truth."

Right-wing groups have also sought to crack down on left-wing "indoctrination" on college campuses.

Notable among them isTurning Point USA, a conservative youth advocacy group, which runs a "Professor Watchlist" designed to keep right-wing students abreast of "college professors who discriminate against conservative students and advance leftist propaganda in the classroom."

"The project," its website says, "is comprised of published news stories detailing instances of bias, propaganda, or speech infringement on college campuses."

The site allows users to submit tips and search for professors by name or university. Some professors on the list include activist Angela Davis, linguist Noam Chomsky, author Ibram X. Kendi, and former FBI Director James Comey.As of 2016, there were roughly 200 academics on the list.

In the private sector, conservative are similarly hounding companies that engage in "woke" actions, arguing that Corporate America is prioritizing political correctness over profit.

Alliance Defending Freedom has its "Viewpoint Diversity Score," a 50-company index that "evaluates corporate policies, practices, and activities to determine whether companies respect their stakeholders' freedom of expression and freedom of religion or belief as a standard part of doing business." The list specifically breaks down each company's support of free speech in the market, the workplace, and the public square, analyzing everything from political giving to DE&I (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) policies.

On the index, companies like Facebook and Meta – which face baseless accusations of anti-conservative bias – have notably lower scores than most.None of the firms included on the list score higher than a 35 out of 100.

"The results of our inaugural Business Index reveal that there is much work to be done. Company scores ranged between 2% and 35%, with the average overall score an abysmal 12%," wrote Jeremy Tedesco, senior vice president of corporate engagement for ADF, in The Wall Street Journal. "The poor showing confirms that there is an alarming trend among major corporations to favor virtue-signaling even at the expense of fundamental American freedoms."

Corporations have no legal obligation to promote free speech, a constitutional right designed to protect Americans from governorship censorship and coercion.

miz ppr

Letter to the editor: BLM has director it deserves

Save

The mission of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is simple: "To sustain the health, diversity and productivity of public lands for the enjoyment of present and future generations."

For two years this mission was challenged by the appointment of Acting Director William Perry-Pendley. Mr. Perry-Pendley was never confirmed by the U.S. Senate and proudly advocated the sale of public lands to private entities.

The absence of response from U.S. Sen. Steve Daines was almost deafening.

Today, we stand at a crossroads to save the mission of the bureau. Over her career, Tracy Stone-Manning has clearly shown her ability to create a healthy balance between public land conservation and the desire of private entities to use the land's potential resources. I'm thrilled she was confirmed as director.

However, as Stone-Manning was working her way through the process, Sen. Daines had a lot to say in opposition to her confirmation.

This makes no sense at all if we wish to retain our Montana motto of "Last Best Place," rather than reminiscing on these lands in the past tense. I'm more than relieved that common sense prevailed and the BLM will have the director it deserves.

Pauline Tait,

Billings

missouri judge sides with GOP governor to block Medicaid expansion and override the will of voters

https://www.alternet.org/2021/06/medicaid-2653529375/

In 2020, voters in Missouri approved a ballot measure that called for Medicaid expansion in the midwestern state. But on June 23, a judge ruled that the voter was unconstitutional.

If the expansion went through on July 1, it would expand Medicaid to roughly 275,000 adults in the Missouri. But Republican Gov. Mike Parson, in May, announced that the expansion wouldn't be funded, and Missouri Democrats slammed Parson for defying the will of the voters. A lawsuit was filed on behalf of three Missouri residents with chronic health conditions who cannot afford treatment.

But Judge Jon Beetem of the Cole County Circuit Court sided with Parson, ruling, "The court concludes that the state's refusal to enroll plaintiffs and other eligible individuals in the MO HealthNet program is not unlawful. Notwithstanding a majority vote of the people, an initiative which does not comply with the limits of the Constitution cannot stand."

According to CNN reporter Tami Luhby, Chuck Hatfield — an attorney representing the three plaintiffs in the lawsuit — said he plans to appeal Beetem's ruling all the way to the Missouri Supreme Court.

When Parson announced, in May, that the Medicaid expansion lacked funding, the Republican governor said, "Although I was never in support of MO HealthNet expansion, I always said that I would uphold the ballot amendment if passed. However, without a revenue source or funding authority from the (Missouri) General Assembly, we are unable to proceed with the expansion at this time and must withdraw our State Plan Amendments to ensure Missouri's existing MO HealthNet program remains solvent."

In the United States, millions of people who are either self-employed or do not have health coverage through their jobs have obtained health insurance through the Affordable Care Act of 2010, a.k.a. Obamacare. But Luhby notes that some uninsured Americans find themselves in a "coverage gap" — a problem the Medicaid expansion in Missouri was designed to address.

Luhby explains, "More than 2 million uninsured adults fall into the 'coverage gap,' meaning their incomes were too high to qualify in their states but too low to make them eligible for Affordable Care Act premium subsidies, which are open only to those earning more than 100% of the poverty level in non-expansion states."

FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES

https://www.alternet.org/2021/05/rush-limbaugh/ legis 86 racism~

https://www.alternet.org/2021/04/missouri-gop-leaves-gov-mike-parson-in-political-bind-amid-vote-on-senate-medicaid/

an 220

gOP Missouri state rep proposes bill criminalizing public libraries’ drag queen story hours

Susan Grigsby / Daily Kos

https://www.alternet.org/2020/01/right-wing-review-boards-in-missouri-would-pave-way-for-arresting-librarians-over-books-deemed-inappropriate

no lnx

Right-wing ‘review boards’ in Missouri would pave way for arresting librarians over books deemed ‘inappropriate’

Written by Julia Conley / Common Dreams January 17, 2020

The Missouri Library Association says it is monitoring a bill put forward in the state House by a Republican lawmaker, which, if passed, could create committees across the state with the power to jail librarians for distributing material the panels deem “inappropriate.”

Under the Parental Oversight of Public Libraries Act (H.B. 2044), locally elected “parental library review boards” would be permitted to unilaterally remove books they decide are sexually explicit or otherwise inappropriate for young readers from library shelves.

Libraries that allow children to borrow books that have been banned or whose access has been restricted would risk losing state funding, and librarians could be ordered to pay fines of up to $500 or sentenced to jail time for up to a year.

The Missouri Library Association (MLA), a non-profit which advocates for library service and librarians, said in a statement and on social media on Wednesday that it “will always stand against censorship and for the freedom to read, and therefore opposes Missouri House Bill 2044.”...

an 1219

‘People have died as a result’: Residents of rural Missouri are furious with greedy corporation for closing their only hospital

Now let’s do this everywhere’: Kansas City, Missouri approves free public transit for all

Common Dreams

Lawmakers in Kansas City, Missouri took a “visionary step” on Thursday by unanimously voting to make public transportation in the city free of charge, setting the stage for it to…

"Deeply disturbing’: Missouri health director reveals he tracked Planned Parenthood patients’ menstrual periods

Jessica Corbett / Common Dreams

pallid sturgeon, a bottom-dwelling fish found in the Missouri and Mississippi rivers, has survived since the days of the dinosaurs, but it might not survive Missouri’s Republican politicians.

Rep. Sam Graves (R-Mo.) sponsored an amendment that made it into legislation Trump signed in October, America’s Water Infrastructure Act of 2018, S.3021, to block efforts to help young pallid sturgeon that suffocate and die in the dead zones of the industrialized Missouri River.

“For the sake of landowners, businesses and taxpayers, I believe we must halt these activities until the Corps can prove more harm will not be done to Missourians,” Graves said.

The new law blocks plans by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to build a dozen areas in the river below Kansas City, Mo., for just-hatched pallid sturgeon to feed and grow in slower, shallower water. Six major dams built on the 2,341-mile river between 1933 and 1964 created dead zones with very little oxygen where the young pallid sturgeon suffocate and die. Thefish, which can grow to 80 pounds and live 60 years or more, were listed as endangered in 1990.

Louisiana Governor Signs Anti-Choice Bill as Missouri’s Last Abortion Clinic Is Set to Close

Louisiana on Thursday became the fifth state in the nation to enact a six-week abortion ban, when Democratic Governor John Bel Edwards signed a bill that offers no exceptions for rape or incest. Meanwhile, Missouri is poised today to become the first state in the nation without a single clinic providing abortions, as a judge in St. Louis weighs a last-minute legal challenge to plans by state officials to revoke a medical license for Planned Parenthood’s St. Louis clinic. On Thursday, St. Louis police arrested 17 activists at a state office building as they held a sit-in protest demanding a license renewal. Hundreds more protested outside, chanting “My body, my choice!” This is Kawanna Shannon, director of surgical services at Planned Parenthood’s St. Louis clinic.

Kawanna Shannon: “State of Missouri, please keep your fingers out of our vaginas. Planned Parenthood also does vasectomies. Those men are able to come in with no hassle, no problems, no concerns, and they get their vasectomy free of choice, with no hurdles to jump over. And then a woman comes in, raped by a whole motorcycle gang, and you make her wait 72 hours to think about it.”

Five other states have only a single clinic offering abortions: Kentucky, Mississippi, North Dakota, South Dakota and West Virginia. Later in the broadcast, we’ll speak with Laura Kaplan, author of “The Story of Jane: The Legendary Underground Feminist Abortion Service.”

Part of the fabric of life’: Missouri House passes minister’s bill allowing Bible to be taught in schools

Republicans continued to attack democracy as the Missouri GOP fights to roll back voter-approved sunshine law

Last November, Missouri voters overwhelmingly passed Clean Missouri, a constitutional amendment to extend the state’s open records laws to the state legislature, which has long been exempt from them. It…

“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties.

Trump Eighth Circuit Judge David Stras dissented from an opinion by two other Republican-appointed judges in late November and argued that Missouri’s lobbyist registration and disclosure law violated the First Amendment as applied to an unpaid conservative lobbyist. The majority strongly disagreed with Stras’ attempt to expand the reach of decisions like Citizens Unitedand explained that the state’s interest in transparency and public disclosure of who is trying to influence legislation clearly warranted the minimal burdens imposed by the law.

Ronald Calzone is the president, director, and unpaid lobbyist for Missouri First, a conservative nonprofit organization that regularly lobbies members of the state legislature. He filed a First Amendment challenge to the Missouri lobbying registration and disclosure law. The law simply requires filling out a form and paying a $10 fee once each year, as well as filing additional reports concerning lobbying-related expenditures. The district court rejected his claim that the law was unconstitutional as applied to him as an unpaid lobbyist, and he appealed.

In Calzone v. Summers,Judges Steven Colloton and Bobby Shepherd, both appointed by President George W. Bush, affirmed the lower court decision, but Judge Stras dissented. The majority explained that it was improper to consider Calzone’s additional argument that he makes no lobbying-related expenditures, as Judge Stras did in dissent, because that argument had not been raised below or even in the court of appeals until oral argument, noting that Stras’ view to the contrary was “unfair” to the lower court and to the state. All three judges agreed that Citizens Unitedrequired “exacting scrutiny” of the law as applied to Calzone, but Stras claimed that the state’s interest in “transparency” was not enough.

The majority strongly disagreed, explaining that based on precedent, there was a strong interest in disclosure of who is “pressuring and attempting to influence legislators.” They also noted that even unpaid lobbyists could offer “things of value” to legislators, raising the state interest in “avoiding the fact or appearance of public corruption.” The burden of complying with the law was “minimal,” they stated, particularly if Calzone did not make lobbying-related expenditures as he claimed in the court of appeals.

Overall, the majority concluded, the state system was “precisely that which we have previously held would satisfy” the requirement that such a disclosure law have a “substantial relationship” to the state’s interests. Stras’ dissent, on the other hand, would have further extended efforts in Citizens United and similar cases to misuse the First Amendment to undermine important public disclosure laws.

Tags:

Confirmed Judges Confirmed Fears David Stras Fighting Big Money in Politics lobbying money in politics

JEFFERSON CITY

Ron Calzone has been walking the hallways of the Missouri statehouse for years, meeting with lawmakers and their staffs, testifying before legislative committees and advocating for the conservative causes he holds dear.

But he swears he’s not a lobbyist.

True, he’s founder, director and sole officer of a nonprofit called Missouri First, a group that includes legislative lobbying to influence public policy in its charter.

Calzone never withholds his affiliation with the group when speaking with elected officials. But he is unpaid, never claims to be speaking on behalf of the organization and never gives legislators gifts of any kind.

Thus, he doesn’t believe he should have to register with the state ethics commission or submit reports detailing all of the ways in which he has attempted to influence legislation.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit disagrees.

In a 2-1 ruling on Wednesday, the court found that Calzone’s activity qualifies as lobbying, and the government’s interest in transparency means even an unpaid lobbyist must register and file lobbying reports.

Calzone’s attorneys say the decision is a significant strike against the constitutional right to petition the government and have vowed to appeal. They argue that the court’s interpretation of Missouri lobbying law could end up being expansive enough to require everyday citizens to register as lobbyists or face the possibility of a complaint that could lead to criminal penalties.

“The problem is that every year dozens of groups go down to the Capitol for lobby days, and they have people designated to speak on behalf of these groups,” said David Roland, one of Calzone’s attorneys and director of Litigation for the Freedom Center of Missouri, a libertarian nonprofit that advocates for government transparency.

“And there is no principle distinction between that and what Mr. Calzone does. None,” Roland said. “They are volunteers, but according to this ruling, those people should have to register and report as lobbyists.”

Calzone’s legal drama began on Election Day in 2014, when a complaint was filed with the Missouri Ethics Commission alleging that since 2000, when he founded Missouri First, Calzone had violated state law by lobbing members of the Missouri General Assembly on behalf of Missouri First without registering and paying registration filing fees.

In September 2015, the commission found probable cause that Calzone had violated two state laws and ordered him to register as a lobbyist, file all required reports, cease and desist from attempting to influence legislation until after filing an annual lobbyist registration and other required reports, and pay a $1,000 fine.

Calzone sued to overturn that decision, with the case eventually landing in the court of appeals.

In upholding the commission’s decision Tuesday, the court said the state has “an interest in transparency, which includes avoiding the fact or even the appearance of public corruption and knowing who is attempting to influence legislators and public policy.”

“Though the lobbyists may not be receiving money, unpaid lobbyists could still offer things of value to legislators, creating a sufficiently important governmental interest in avoiding the fact or appearance of public corruption,” the court ruled. “Furthermore, the government and the public have a sufficiently important interest in knowing who is pressuring and attempting to influence legislators, and the ability to pressure and influence legislators is not limited solely to paid lobbyists.”

Dissenting from the majority opinion, Judge David Stras wrote that the ruling appears to apply to all sorts of citizens who might attempt to influence lawmakers. That would seem to include citizen “lobby days” at the Missouri Capitol, when Missourians travel to Jefferson City on designated days to lobby lawmakers specifically on behalf of groups such as labor unions, professional organizations and advocacy groups.

“The law seemingly sweeps up all unpaid political advocacy by anyone who acts on behalf of someone else, no matter how often it occurs and regardless of purpose,” Stras wrote.

The ruling “endangers the free exchange of ideas,” Sras wrote, and could lead to ethics complaints being weaponized against political adversaries.

“Indeed, a political adversary, an unscrupulous government official or even a legislator tired of being held accountable could simply submit a complaint to the (Ethics) Commission accusing a politically active citizen of lobbying... without first registering as a lobbyist,” Sraus wrote. “It may just be simpler for a citizen to skip a lobbying day or pass up the opportunity to call a legislator rather than having to complete tedious paperwork or risk sizable fines and criminal penalties.”

https://www.alternet.org/election-03918/red-state-victory-voting-rights-federal-court-protects-hundreds-thousands-new-voter

Voting rights advocates won a major victory in Missourilate on Friday, when a federal district court ordered the state’s Driver License Bureau to promptly forward address change information for an estimated 200,000 people who recently moved to election officials to update voter rolls before the midterm election.

This technical snafu—where one state agency has not been sharing its latest information with another; in this case, the driver bureau not sharing the latest address information with statewide election officials—is not simply bureaucratic bungling.

It is willfully turning what should be a simple matter—transferring data—into a potential voter suppression tactic. That’s because it could complicate the process for hundreds of thousands of people in states with close races, starting with U.S. Senate contests.

Slightly different variations of this problem have surfaced in Missouri and Arizona.

In Arizona, civil rights groups have been frustrated by its state Motor Vehicle Division refusal to forwarded address changes for an estimated 384,000 people to election offices. That number comes from people who did not check a box on a form agreeing to forward the change of address information, a Secretary of State spokesman said Friday, adding officials were going to fix that problem after the November 2018 election.

Unlike Missouri, voting rights activists in Arizona did not win a court order after suing. As a result, the affected individuals could face a more arduous task of casting a ballot that would be counted—as their voter information on file will not be accurate—unless they take proactive steps between now and the state’s close of voter registration. But, of course, these individuals are probably not aware there’s even a potential problem.

At issue in Missouri, where Democratic U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill faces a tough re-election bid, is whether or not a sizeable number of the estimated 580,000 voters who move within the state every year will have their voting credentials updated as part of getting news driver’s licenses. A 1993 federal law, the National Voter Registration Act, called the motor voter law, requires state agencies to offer voter registration services.

“Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that DOR [Missouri Department of Revenue that oversees driver’s licenses] is failing to provide Missouri residents with the opportunity to register and update their registration information during various license and identification card transactions,” the voting rights attorneys saidthis spring.

“Over 580,000 Missourians move within the state each year—approximately 200,000 of who move to a new electoral jurisdiction,” they explained. “When a voter’s registration information does not reflect their current address no matter whether they have moved within the county or not, the voter must cast a provisional ballot; and, if a voter has moved to a different election jurisdiction, their vote is discarded entirely.”

Late on Friday, U.S. District Court Judge Brian C. Wimes ordered the driver agency to fulfill the NVRA’s voter registration obligations, and ordered the state to send voter applications to people who got a new license in the past year.

“There is no dispute among the parties that ‘ensuring qualified voters exercise their right to vote is always in the public interest,’” the court held. “While the Court is cognizant of the extreme nature of preliminary injunctive relief, the circumstances of this case suggest the public’s interests in the right to vote, and ensuring that state processes follow federal law, outweigh the public costs for Defendants to comply with a preliminary injunction.”

The court ordered the state to act quickly, citing an October 10 voter registration deadline in Missouri for the November 6 election. In contrast, in Arizona, organizations like Mi Familia Vota will be scrambling to urge people to check and possibly update their voter registration information before that state’s October 9 close of registration.

Missouri Becomes First State to Regulate the Word 'Meat'

whoohoo did brownback implosion in next dr kansas affect?

https://www.alternet.org/missouri-right-work-proposition-defeated

on Tuesday night,voters in Missouridefeated Proposition A, a referendum which would have allowed a "right to work" law to go into effect in the state.

This marked the first time a right to work law has ever been defeated by popular vote. It is an enormous setback for Missouri Republicans, who had made imposing this law a signature policy goal after winning full control of the state government in 2016.

Right to work laws, which currently exist in 27 states, ban labor unions and businesses from negotiating a "security agreement" in bargaining, in which a union may collect "agency fees" from workers who are not a member of the union. Since unions generally represent all workers in a workplace, not simply their own members, these fees cover the cost of bargaining for nonmembers and prevent free ridership — and lead to wage increases. Corporations and right-wing politicians, however, have painted these fees as a threat to individual freedom and sought to pass laws banning them — which has depressed union membership and wages around the country. Earlier this year, they persuaded the Supreme Court to void all such security agreements in public sector unions. Workers in the private sector, however, are still free to pursue them in states without right to work laws.

In February 2017, then-Gov. Eric Greitens — who later resigned amid an unrelated sexual assault and blackmail scandal — signed the right to work bill in Missouri.In response, outraged union workers got a referendum on the ballot to overturn it, with AFL-CIO mobilizing steelworkers and construction workers to go door to door to gather hundreds of thousands of signatures.

Republicans were desperate to win this vote, even going so far as to pass a law moving the referendum from the November ballot to the August primary in the hope lower turnout would kill the measure. But in the end, it wasn't even close. Voters rejected right to work 67.5 to 37.5.

In Missouri, workers stood up and said no to the erosion of their right to organize. And the business interests pushing to undermine unions have been put on notice.

ecowatch 5/18 missouri law that soy not meat

http://www.alternet.org/parents-treated-criminals

In researching an upcoming article I’m writing about the St. Louis school system, and the district’s ongoing funding crisis, I came across an astonishing example of who wins and who loses in current approaches to government budget balancing.

As a local St. Louis reporter tells it, during a public meeting about a proposed new $130 million 34-story apartment building in the city, alderman Joe Roddy used a slideshow to make a case for why the city should give the developers 15 years of reduced property taxes, a $10 million subsidy, in exchange for some additional retail space and 305 high-end, luxury apartments downtown.

In a slide show titled “How the City Makes & Spends Money,” Roddy, a Democrat mind you, laid out a hierarchy of those who “make money” for the city at the top and those who cause the city to “spend money” at the bottom.

At the top of his slide were businesses. In the middle were residents with no children and retirees. And at the very bottom – in the tier of city dwellers who place the biggest financial burden on government – were “criminals and residents with children in public school.”

When told that some might take offense at equating families with children needing free public schools to criminals, Roddy countered that the project would “target tenants who are young professionals without children. Attracting that demographic to the city is crucial, he says, and after the tax abatement ends, the revenue windfall for the city will be significant.”

By the way, St. Louis has a history of extending tax abatements for developers to longer terms.

Winners and Losers

The thrust of Roddy’s remarks is well understood by all – in a budget environment of forced scarcity, there are increasingly strong demarcations between winners and losers, and parents who plan on sending children to free public schools are increasingly losers.

To be fair to Roddy, a great deal of St. Louis’s financial constraints, particularly in relation to the city’s ability to cover the cost of education, is the fault of the state of Missouri.

A 2015 accounting of state school funding found Missouri is “underfunding its K-12 schools by $656 million statewide, nearly 20 percent below the required level.” The budget situation for families with children has not improved a lot since then, with this year’s installment cutting spending on school buses, higher education, and social services.

Missouri is one of 27 states that spends less on education than it did in 2008.

The severity of Missouri’s budget austerity seems specifically targeted at districts like St. Louis that happen to be stuck with lots of low-income families with children (Where would they fall in Roddy’s hierarchy?).

A 2016 study conducted by NPR found that St. Louis schools on average spend considerably less per student compared to the highest spending districts in the St. Louis area.

Another more recent analysis by EdBuild finds St. Louis schools have a cost adjusted revenue per student that is nine percent below Missouri’s average. The district gets only 35 percent of its revenue from the state even though the district is challenged to educate a student population in which 68 percent are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, a common measurement of poverty.

Pay to Play, and LearnThe trend of financial inequity for St. Louis schools is worsening, according to Rutgers University professor Bruce Baker, who finds that the district, since 1995, is increasingly at a funding disadvantage compared to the rest of the state.

It’s not hard to see how this is going to play out for parents.

To pay for the costs of crime, under-funded local governments are “increasing fines and fees associated with the criminal justice system,” according to a report by NPR in 2014.

One community where court fines and fees “skyrocketed” to levels that made them a major revenue generator for local government is next door to St. Louis – Ferguson, Missouri, where, you recall, 18 year-old Michel Brown was gunned down by local police nearly three years ago.

As it is for the accused in the criminal justice system, parents in local schools are having to bear more of the burden of education costs.

According to an annual report, known as the Backpack Index, that calculates the average cost of school supplies and school fees, parents will have to pick up more of the tab if they want their children to participate fully in school.

The annual cost to parents is significant at a time when the majority of school children come from households in poverty: $662 for elementary school children, $1,001 for middle school children, and $1,489 for high school students.

A detail highlighted by NBC’s report on the Backpack Index notes that the biggest spike in direct costs to parents comes from fees charged for activities like school fieldtrips, art and music programs, and athletics. These fees far exceed costs for items like backpacks, pens, and graphing calculators.

Families with children in elementary schools can expect over $30 on average in school fees. For children in middle school, the average cost of fees climbs to $195 for athletics $75 for field trips, and $42 for other school fees. In high school, the fees spike much higher to $375 for athletic (often called “pay to play fees”), $285 for musical instrumentals, $80 to participate in band, and $60 in other school fees.

Also in high school, the fees extend to academic courses including participating in Advanced Placement classes, which more schools emphasize students participate in. The average fee for testing related to these courses is $92 and the costs of materials to prepare for these tests, as well as SAT tests, tops $52.

Charging Parents

In 2011, I spotlighted the practice of charging parents direct fees for school programs in five states – Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, and Pennsylvania – and connected the rationale for the fees to austerity budgets.

I noted that schools have an obligation to work with all of the varying interests and abilities of students by offering sports, clubs, after-school activities, service learning, and other programs. But states that continually under-fund education pressure schools to shift the burden of these programs from a shared cost of the community onto only those families who need the services.

The problem is getting worse.

In North Carolina, the recently passed state budget again leaves schools woefully short of what they need, and now state administrators are scrambling to pass down the millions in education cuts.

“On the chopping block,” reports left-leaning watchdog NC Policy Watch, “include offices that provide services and support for local school districts, including intervention efforts in low-performing regions.”

In what appears to be an effort to twist the knife deeper, “the state budget also bars school board members from making up the lost cash with transfers from various GOP-backed education initiatives, including the controversial Innovation School District—which provides for charter takeovers of low-performing schools—and other programs such as Teach for America, Read to Achieve, and positions in the superintendent’s office.”

In the meantime, NC’s budget has winners too, as all budget documents do: “Lawmakers continued to set aside millions for a massive expansion of a private school voucher program. The state is expected to spend $45 million on the program this year, with the plan to expand the annual allocation to $145 million in the next decade.”

Now you tell me, who is the criminal here?

Jeff Bryant is director of the Education Opportunity Network, a partnership effort of the Institute for America's Future and the Opportunity to Learn Campaign.

While journalists and political junkies are focused on the latest implosion of the GOP effort to repeal Obamacare and gut Medicaid, conservatives in several states have been working to decrease the minimum wage that businesses can pay to their workers.

In Missouri, Republicans just passed a law overturning a local measure passed by the city of St. Louis that had raised the minimum wage to $10 per hour.

The new law will prohibit counties and cities within Missouri from creating their own minimum wage laws. It will also roll back the St. Louis minimum hourly wage to the statewide floor of $7.70.

Notably, Gov. Eric Greitens, a Republican, refused to sign the law, even though he spoke out in favor of it. Under the Missouri constitution, bills passed by both houses of the state assembly automatically become law.

In a news conference June 30, Greitens focused on procedural objections to the bill. He faulted the Republican-controlled Senate for utilizing a procedural loophole to block a Democratic filibuster of the measure, which had prevented it from being voted on until the final day of the chamber’s legislative session.

“I disapprove of the way politicians handled this,” Greitens said, as reported by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. “That’s why I won’t be signing my name to their bill.”

The governor’s refusal to sign the law was interpreted as an at of cowardice by some Democrats.

“Signing it would have shown the fact that he is heartless and that he really doesn’t care about the working poor,” state Sen. Jamilah Nasheed told the Post-Dispatch. “So what he didn’t want to do is sign a bill to take money out of the pockets of those who already have an increase, but still do so.”

During the Senate delay, the city ordinance went into effect on May 5. It is unclear how many local businesses will reduce their employees’ wages to $7.70 after paying the higher $10 rate.

Missouri is not the only state where Republican elected officials have successfully targeted minimum wage laws. Until recently, such an action seemed like a conservative pipe dream. Thanks to a years-long hollowing out of the Democratic Party in rural and exurban areas, however, right-wing politicians have become able to pursue policies that were once impossible.

The GOP effort in Missouri came on the heels of an earlier success in March, when Iowa Republicans managed to roll back mandatory pay increases passed by local jurisdictions. It was the first time such a law had ever been passed, according to the National Employment Law Project, a liberal nonprofit group that supports higher minimum wage laws.

Terry Branstad, Iowa’s Republican governor, was decidedly more gung-ho in his response to the idea. He held a formal signing ceremony for the bill and spoke on its behalf, citing his desire for a single wage across the state.

“I think that uniformity is critically important, especially when you have communities that are in more than one county,” Branstad said as he signed the new law.

In February, Branstad said he did favor “a modest increase” in wages, however.

Advocates of lowering the minimum wage have also had success using lawsuits. In October, Kentucky’s Supreme Court overturned a 2014 Louisville ordinance that would have raised the city’s minimum wage to $9 an hour. In a 6-1 ruling, the court ruled that the local law violated the state constitution.

Republicans in Maine have also been successful at changing local minimum wage laws. While GOP efforts in other states have been opposed by low-wage workers, in the Pine Tree State, bartenders and restaurant employees appear to have assisted them and a number of Democrats joined in.

The unusual coalition behind decreasing wages in Maine highlights one of the emerging controversies in the debate over the minimum wage: whether employees who receive tips should be paid the same minimum wage as those who do not.

Under federal law, employers are required to supplement payments to workers who do not earn enough tips to reach the minimum wage threshold. The federal minimum wage for non-tipped employees is $7.25 per hour. Congress has not passed an increase since 2007.

Free-market advocates and restaurant industry representatives argue that adding tips onto a full minimum wage will cripple many food establishments by forcing them to raise prices or reduce staffing levels.

James Dill, a Democratic state senator in Maine, had resisted that position but changed his mind after he received hundreds of of emails and phone calls from waiters and bartenders asking him to support lowering the amount that tipped workers must be paid.

“I believe in a higher minimum wage,” he told the Washington Post. “But the people who this was impacting didn’t want it.”

The measure passed Maine’s House of Representatives 100 to 37 and cleared its Senate 23 to 12. Once it goes into effect in January, the minimum wage for tipped workers will return to the previous state minimum of $3.75 per hour.

During his 2016 campaign, President Donald Trump appeared to support raising the minimum wage requirement to $10 an hour. Since he assumed office, however, Trump has made no movement toward promoting the idea.

According to a poll released in June by the University of Maryland, 74 percent of respondents favored increasing the federal minimum wage to $10 per hour. Even 58 percent of self-identified Republicans supported the higher wage.

see show me TT

koster no 3rd term AG runs for gov 2016 (roades hit am rising?)

public integrity AZ AG

2016 missouri ag schaeffer hawley

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/politics/elections/ad-campaign-targets-schaefer-as-battle-over-hawley-leave-issue/

The Beacon and the Investigative News Network have analyzed data from the Missouri Ethics Commission, followthemoney.org and OpenSecrets.org to determine the biggest donors from 2008 and 2013. We intend to continue adding data to this project for the foreseeable future.

1 Rex Sinquefield, Westphalia, MO Retired financier 576 donations: 180 to candidates and 396 to committees

$28,083,480

2 David Humphreys, Joplin, MO President and CEO of TAMKO Building Products, Inc 159 donations: 111 to candidates and 48 to committees

$5,225,425

3 Stanley Herzog, St. Joseph, MO Herzog Companies Inc. 83 donations: 68 to candidates and 15 to committees

$2,091,975

4 Sam Fox, Clayton, MO Harbour Group, former ambassador to Belgium 139 donations: 94 to candidates and 45 to committees

$1,751,147

5 William Danforth, St. Louis, MO Chancellor emeritus, Washington University 160 donations: 135 to candidates and 25 to committees

$1,422,116

6 James & Virginia Stowers, Founder of American Century Investments, MO Founder of American Century Investments 17 donations: 6 to candidates and 11 to committees

$1,326,398

7 Ethelmae Humphreys, Joplin, MO TAMKO's Chairman of the Board 91 donations: 73 to candidates and 18 to committees

$1,081,175

8 Jack Taylor, St. Louis, MO Retired Founder of Enterprise Rent-a-Car 115 donations: 83 to candidates and 32 to committees

$983,135

9 Roy Pfautch, St. Louis, MO International Public Affairs Consultant 142 donations: 115 to candidates and 27 to committees

$929,050

10 August Busch III, St. Charles, MO Former President of Anheuser-Busch109 donations: 74 to candidates and 35 to committees

$887,040

11 James Nutter, Kansas City, MO James B. Nutter & Company 226 donations: 141 to candidates and 85 to committees

$851,360

12 John McDonnell, St. Louis, MO Former Chairman and CEO of McDonnell Douglas 35 donations: 24 to candidates and 11 to committees

$745,733

13 Kenneth McClain, Independence, MO Attorney at Humphrey, Farrington & McClain, P.C. 99 donations: 65 to candidates and 34 to committees

$718,685

14 David Steward, Town and Country, MO Chairman and Founder of World Wide Technology 165 donations: 119 to candidates and 46 to committees

$696,422

15 James McDonnell III, St. Louis, MO Son of James S. McDonnell, founder McDonnell-Douglas 119 donations: 85 to candidates and 34 to committees

$684,600

16 Marilyn Fox, Clayton, MO Philanthropist 78 donations: 56 to candidates and 22 to committees

$664,925

17 Jerry Hall, Monett, MO Executive Vice President of Jack Henry and Associates 42 donations: 27 to candidates and 15 to committees

$633,450

Get data for your state

Donor API

Source: Contribution data from the Missouri Ethics Commission, followthemoney.org and OpenSecrets.org. If you see a duplicated donation or know of a donation we've missed, e-mail Jason Rosenbaum at jrosenbaum@stlbeacon.org.

AG Koster says Missouri will join lawsuit challenging the EPA’s new carbon-emission regulations

Oct 9, 2015, 09:37 AM

- Koster argues that EPA has exceeded its authority in setting new standards and that the cost of compliance puts Missouri’s economic strength at risk -

Jefferson City, Mo. – Attorney General Chris Koster today said Missouri will join more than 20 other states in suing the EPA for exceeding its authority in issuing new regulations, collectively known as the “Clean Power Plan,” that set strict limits on carbon emissions for each state.

In a speech at the Missouri Electric Coop’s annual meeting in Branson this morning, Koster explained that he supports Missouri’s ongoing efforts to produce energy more cleanly and efficiently, but that EPA’s plan sets a compliance schedule that is economically risky and robs Missouri of its competitive advantage in low consumer and industrial electrical rates.

“Cleaner energy production is an important goal,” Koster said, “and one Missouri’s energy producers are already working toward.” Koster observed that over the past decade Missouri utilities have added more than 2,200 megawatts of generating capacity from wind power and other renewable resources.

Despite this progress, Koster noted that Missouri’s energy producers estimate that complying with EPA’s deadlines would cost the state more than $ 6 billion. He argued that Missouri is better off maintaining the competitive advantage it enjoys through low-energy costs while continuing to develop low- and zero-emission sources of energy on a more reasonable timeline. “Renewable energy is a vital piece of our state’s energy portfolio,” Koster said. “It is essential, however, that we achieve this goal in an economically responsible way that makes sense for Missouri.”

Koster also emphasized that Missouri’s recent history with EPA justifies skepticism when EPA creates sweeping regulatory schemes imposing new obligations on Missouri residents and businesses. During Koster’s tenure as Attorney General, Missouri successfully challenged new EPA regulations regarding mercury emissions and water rules, arguing in each case that EPA unlawfully encroached on Missouri’s sovereign authority to regulate its air and water.

“I will continue to fight against federal overreach and to keep Missouri strong,” Koster concluded.

Koster said that he intends to join with other states in challenging the new regulations when they are formally published. EPA has not publicly announced a firm publication date.

The full text of Koster’s speech is available here.

===

Yesterday, Spence Jackson, a spokesman for Missouri state auditor Tom Schweich—who committed suicide last month—was found dead [3] of “an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound.”

The deaths of Jackson and Schweich have sparked outrage in Missouri. In the final days of his life, Schweich was subject to both an overt and covert campaign attacking him personally, including rumors that he was Jewish (he did have Jewish lineage on his grandfather's side but was a practicing Episcopalian).

In his eulogy for Schweich, former Missouri Senator John Danforth issued a strong rebuke [4] of the campaigns waged against the former state auditor, saying, “Words do hurt. Words can kill. That has been proven right here in our home state.”

In the days leading up to Schweich's suicide, he alleged that the state's GOP chairman, John Hancock, was telling people he was Jewish.

“Until recently, I mistakenly believed that Tom Schweich was Jewish, but it was simply a part of what I believed to be his biography,” Hancock reportedly emailed [5] to his party's central committee (he did not attend Schweich's funeral). Hancock did not explain why Schweich's faith was relevant.

It wasn't an explanation that Danforth bought. “Someone said this was no different than saying a person is Presbyterian. Here's how to test the credibility of that remark: When was the last time anyone sidled up to you and whispered into your ear that such and such a person is a Presbyterian?”

In addition to a whisper campaign against Schweich's faith, his intended campaign for governor of Missouri made him the target of political rivals who already began hitting him with paid advertisements. In one radio ad, composed by Ted Cruz adviser Jeff Roe's Axiom Strategies [6], he was called a “little bug” and compared to the television character Barney Fife due to his physical build.

AlterNet called Axiom Strategies and requested Roe's comment about both suicides. We were told that Roe has not answered any media requests on this topic. As of this writing, the Cruz campaign has not gotten back to us with a comment.

In an interview with CNN yesterday, Cruz said he was “not going to engage in the personal mudslinging, in the negative attacks on people's character.” If that were true, why would he hire someone who played a role in such a brutal smear campaign?

disenfranchise

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/:{2015:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}:/03/16/oregon_automatic_dmv_voter_registration_passes.html

PEABODY MISSOURI

yikes, CU meets local ordinances:

Early in April, coal industry executive Shaun McCutcheon won big when the Supreme Court swept away limits on how much money wealthy donors can contribute to federal political campaigns. But in St. Louis, Mo., coal interests are trying to prevent people from even voting.

This story began when ordinary citizens joined together and took a stand against both climate change and their city’s destructive practice of granting enormous tax breaks to big business while cutting funding for public services. They talked to thousands of residents who were upset that St. Louis keeps giving away tens of millions of dollars of badly needed public money to Peabody Energy (the world’s largest private-sector coal company) and the lobbyists, banks, and law firms that enable it. And after hearing over and over again that “there oughta be a law” against corporate welfare for polluters, they did what we learned in civics class: they wrote a law that would ban public financial incentives to unsustainable energy producers and their major business partners.

They didn’t just write the law: Under the banner of Take Back St. Louis, they walked door-to-door, talking to friends, neighbors, and strangers about their idea. They collected over 22,000 signatures — more than 10 percent of all the voters in St. Louis — on a petition for a ballot initiative. The city’s elections board verified the signatures, and began preparing to print ballots.

This is where you might expect to hear about a vigorous election campaign, with arguments from both sides put to the voters, a spirited debate about the future of St. Louis and our planet, and finally, the voters making their choice at the ballot box. You might even expect to hear about the coal company spending millions of dollars to fight the initiative in the days before the vote.

But you’d be wrong: There was no vote. Instead, the coal company’s lawyers rushed to court and asked a judge to block the election on the grounds that the law would unfairly discriminate against the coal company and its business partners, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. The judge agreed, and cited the Supreme Court’s infamous Citizens United decision for the theory that business entities “are entitled to constitutional protection as citizens.” He issued a preliminary injunction blocking the vote, and scheduled a trial for March 31.

At the trial, Take Back St. Louis provided evidence about the environmental damage caused by burning coal, and the damage to the fabric of St. Louis caused by the city’s penchant for giving away public dollars to big business. The other side didn’t put any witnesses on the stand. The judge may make his final decision any day now.

Not everyone will agree that this ballot initiative is the best policy, and that’s fine. The Take Back St. Louis folks think they can convince a majority of St. Louis voters, and they’re willing to take on the coal interests in a contest for votes. But first, the court has to get out of the way. Now that the judge has the evidence, he has a chance to get this right, lift his injunction, and let the vote proceed.

Whether or not you think that giving tax breaks to coal companies and their business partners is a good idea, we should all agree that this is a question for voters, not judges. Because it was bad enough when coal companies could simply open their checkbooks to flood elections with unlimited spending; now they won’t even let people vote.

Ron Fein is the Legal Director for Free Speech For People, an organization dedicated to challenging the misuse of corporate power and restoring republican democracy to the people.

http://grist.org/business-technology/do-coal-companies-have-more-rights-than-voters/

---

http://www.takebackstlouis.com/the_initiative

---

may 30

On Tuesday, a St. Louis judge threw out a ballot initiative that would amend the city charter to prohibit tax breaks for fossil fuel companies and their major business partners. Before residents even had a chance to vote.

The story began when citizens took a stand against both climate change and St. Louis’ destructive practice of granting tax breaks to big business while cutting funding for public services. They wrote a law and collected enough signatures to put it on the ballot for a public vote.

But nobody can vote.

Coal allies, fearful that the initiative would pass, pursued a two-pronged strategy to prevent it from ever reaching the ballot. And the success (so far) of that strategy shows why the democratic system is rigged in favor of big corporations and special interests.

First, the court challenge. This week, the judge issued a final order preventing St. Louis residents from voting on the initiative. The judge theorized that state law doesn’t allow cities to make rules about who gets tax breaks, and that the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause prevents voters from saying that they don’t want to give tax breaks to coal companies and their business partners. On the latter point, the judge opined that, under the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, “business organizations are ‘persons’ entitled to equal protection as well as other constitutional rights.”

Second, the legislative challenge. While the case was pending, the mayor’s office pushed a curious amendment to an obscure state bill. In the middle of a bill about county prosecutors and sewer districts, you’ll find a provision that specifically prohibits the city of St. Louis from passing, by ballot measure, any restrictions on tax breaks for coal mining companies. There’s only one coal mining company in St. Louis known to receive city tax breaks: Peabody Energy.

So in court, the claim is that coal companies’ constitutional rights are violated by a citizen initiative to stem the flow of special tax breaks. And in the Legislature — where Peabody donors spent almost half a million dollars in the last two elections — the legislators slip in a special provision preventing St. Louis voters from taking a vote on whether to give tax breaks to Peabody.

Is democracy in St. Louis only for those who can pay? The office of the mayor — whom Peabody funds — has helped to both challenge the initiative in court and lobby the Legislature to prevent St. Louisans from voting on city policy.

We’re at a turning point. The Supreme Court keeps striking down common-sense rules to limit the influence of wealthy donors and corporate interests in our political system. Next week, the U.S. Senate is holding a hearing on a constitutional amendment to restore our ability to limit the influence of money in politics, and the full Senate will vote on it this year.

Ultimately, this isn’t just about tax breaks for one coal company in one city. It’s about our democracy, and why we must fight to reclaim it.

Ron Fein is the legal director of Free Speech For People, and co-counsel to the Take Back St. Louis campaign, along with a Missouri-based legal team. Stuart Keating is a St. Louis attorney with a practice specializing in environmental and corporate law, and is co-counsel to the Take Back St. Louis campaign.

---

links http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/judge-keeps-take-back-st-louis-initiative-off-ballot/article_2a1a22aa-21d8-5577-890a-a9401aae3c16.html**

may 27/14

Opponents of the “Take Back St. Louis” initiative succeeded Tuesday in their effort to block the measure from going before voters in the city.

St. Louis Circuit Judge Robert Dierker issued an order prohibiting the city’s Election Board from putting the measure on a ballot.

Dierker’s ruling is a defeat for Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment, or MORE, which led a petition effort to block tax incentives for any company that engages in “unsustainable” energy production — or does $1 million a year in business with such an entity.

Opponents filed suit Jan. 31 to keep the initiative off the April 8 ballot. The suit described the proposed city charter amendment as “intentionally arbitrary and vague” and “disastrous public policy.” It said many businesses could be blocked from receiving city services, perhaps unknowingly because of vague definitions in the measure.

In his 24-page ruling, Dierker said the proposal would “exclude a variety of enterprises from qualifying for benefits under the statutory regime of economic incentives or, (in MORE’s) parlance, corporate welfare.”

MORE’s main target is Peabody Energy, which received tax breaks from the city when it expanded its headquarters in 2011. The group has said tax breaks would be better directed to help small businesses and revitalize poor parts of St. Louis.

Backers of the initiative said that, although they were disappointed by Dierker’s decision, the setback would be temporary. Supporters said in a statement that they were confident an appellate court would put the measure before voters in August or November.

The Take Back St. Louis initiative was begun to correct what the statement said were Mayor Francis Slay’s “failings in gouging the St. Louis public schools and other public programs in order to subsidize corporations.”

Organizations active in the Take Back St. Louis effort will continue to support those who organize against “unsustainable energy producers” such as Peabody and hold the St. Louis Development Corp. accountable for creating living-wage jobs, initiative backers said.

Dierker’s ruling is in a suit filed by Jane Dueker, a lawyer and former Peabody lobbyist.

He ruled that the “manifest purpose” of MORE’s effort “is not so much to advance the use of approved fuels, as to punish enterprises which deal in the disfavored fuels and to punish the enterprises which deal with the disfavored energy producers for their presumed role in furthering the business of the disfavored producers.”

Tim Bryant covers commercial real estate, development and other business stories for the Post-Dispatch. He blogs at Building Blocks, the Post-Dispatch development blog.

6 may mayor/state block: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/political-fix/slay-s-office-turns-to-legislature-to-block-local-ballot/article_ec94707c-78ad-5edc-8895-fc1f8e7b2164.html**

Missouri Governor Jay Nixon has vetoed a bill that included a drafting error copied-and-pasted from American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) model legislation, and criticized ALEC members for having "simply parroted ... the ALEC model act without alteration."

"While some may believe that such an error is 'close enough' for a model act, it cannot be allowed to become the law of this State," Nixon, a Democrat, wrote in his veto message. "Particularly in an area of the law that is the subject of ongoing litigation, a glaring defect such as this cannot be ignored."

Missouri Senate Bill 508, sponsored by ALEC member Sen. Mike Parsons, was modeled after the ALEC Navigator Background Check Act, and aimed to create new hurdles for health care “navigators” who enroll Missourians in healthcare plans under the Affordable Care Act. The bill was voted on by ALEC's corporate and politician members at ALEC's December 2013 meeting, and became official ALEC policy in January 2014.

The original ALEC model legislation would have required a navigator to submit fingerprints to the state highway patrol for a background check, and referenced the federal Public Law 92-554 -- but the correct reference is to Public Law 92-544, which deals with federal criminal records. The error in the ALEC model bill was copied-and-pasted verbatim into the Missouri legislation.

"Some state legislatures that have considered similar navigator-related legislation derived from ALEC model legislation have taken the opportunity to fix the incorrect reference from the ALEC model before enacting it," such as Arizona, Nixon wrote in his veto message. "However, like the Missouri General Assembly, other state legislatures considering such legislation have simply parroted the incorrect reference from the ALEC model act without alteration," noting that politicians in neighboring Kansas made the same mistake.

This isn’t the first time that ALEC politicians have pushed ALEC legislation without paying much attention. Two years ago in Florida, Florida state Rep. Rachel Burgin (R) forgot to removeALEC’s mission statement from a bill she introduced.

The Navigator Background Check Act was one of several ALEC model bills introduced in the Missouri legislature in 2014, according to a list compiled by Progress Missouri. Between 47 and 57 Missouri politicians are ALEC members, according to a report from Progress Missouri, Center for Media and Democracy, Common Cause, and Missouri Jobs with Justice Voter Action.

ALEC held its most recent meetingin Kansas City, Missouri in May.

http://www.prwatch.org/node/12526

1. Missouri Legalizes Shooting People for Being in Your Section

Feeling the Castle Doctrine defined “castle” too narrowly, Missouri State Representative Joe Don McGaugh proposed a bill allowing any citizen to use deadly force to protect against unlawful entry of private property. “This is a common sense extension of the law that would empower a nanny or babysitter, or anyone with the owner’s permission to occupy a property, to defend himself or herself against an intruder,” he said.

Unfortunately, McGaugh didn’t write his bill very carefully, and the Missouri House ended up passing a law that endorses use of deadly force by anyone pretty much anywhere. The bill allows for force by “occupants” of “private property"— conditions written so loosely that occupants could refer to a diner or a baseball game attendee or someone watching a movie, while invasion could mean anybody they feel intruding on whatever property they happen to be on.

As Think Progress explained [3], the bill is basically Stand Your Ground, except it replaces the threat of immediate physical harm with the feeling of invasion. Feel threatened in a business by someone you don’t think belongs there? Take out your gun and start shooting. Or, to quote Charles Pierce [4], “If you're at a Royals game, don't even think about moving down to the really good seats unless you feel lucky, punk.”

===

Missouri May Be Next State to Ban Tesla Motors

Cliff Weathers / AlterNet

The Sierra Club has joined with Organizing For Action, an Obama-allied nonprofit group, to organize constituents of Rep. Ann Wagner to protest on Wednesday afternoon outside the congresswoman's Ballwin, Mo., office in an effort to get her to acknowledge the reality of manmade climate change.

The protestors claim the Missouri Republican has ducked questions on climate change science, and point to her participation in Americans For Prosperity's "No Climate Tax Pledge," which opposes any legislation relating to climate change that includes a net increase in government revenue.

"She's got her head in the sand," Michael Berg, an organizer for the Missouri chapter of Sierra Club, told HuffPost in an interview Wednesday. "She clearly does not admit that this is a problem and will not do anything to confront it."

Environmentalists were particularly troubled by an email Wagner sent to a constituent regarding her position on climate change, which was later reprinted in full on a little-known blog.

"The field of climate science is in its relative infancy and it appears that some within the public policy world have made dubious assessments of scientific information in order to further their own political agenda," Wagner wrote in the letter. "Our policy response to this dilemma should not be based on inconsistent and unsound science or driven by the fear of a supposed catastrophe."

Wagner spokesman Patrick Howell confirmed that the letter was written by Wagner and signaled she is open to meeting with activists to discuss their concerns, though he declined to elaborate on her opinions about climate change. "The congresswoman is always willing to meet with these groups," he told HuffPost.

The protest comes as OFA is laying the groundwork for legislative action on climate change, the first step of which involves targeting so-called climate deniers in Congress. Last month the group emailed its reported 20 million subscribers a "greatest hits" video compilation of congressmen whom it's identified as climate deniers. That video targeted Republican Sens. James Inhofe (Okla.) and Marco Rubio (Fla.), as well as House Speaker John Boehner (Ohio) and others.

This week OFA held 50 events around the country that run the gamut of praising members of Congress for their work to combat global warming, to taking on climate deniers.

"The big success is that people were organizing very locally, figuring out what was important in their congressional disctrict and running their own plan based on that," said Ivan Frishberg, the organization's climate change campaign manager. "For a lot of these places, it was just a first step. This was the first action, and then we'll be building for future actions over the course of the summer and the rest of the year."

===

Missouri: http://www.alternet.org/print/food/look-out-corporations-promote-right-farm**

Progressive Populist [1] / By Margot Ford McMillen [2]

Look Out: Corporations Promote ‘Right to Farm’

May 9, 2013 |

Every year for the last six or eight, family farmers and small-town residents in Missouri have had to fight off legislations designed to take away our local control and put all the lawmaking privileges in the hands of state lawmakers. Taken to the extreme, this would mean that county, city and township ordinances and laws would be void. No more city zoning, no health ordinances guaranteeing special treatment such as special regulations against noise, air pollution, water pollution and so forth, for county residents that demanded it.

The beneficiaries of these laws would be corporate do-badders who want to export costs like cleanups or health care for employees. Without regulations, they could get taxpayers to pay for pollution and social justice atrocities. It would be business as usual for them, only better!

This year, we have been dealing with bills introduced simultaneously in the Missouri House of Representatives and Senate to ensure “modern farming practices” forever. The resolutions on the House side said, “No state law shall be enacted which abridges the right of farmers and ranchers to employ agricultural technology and modern livestock production and ranching practices, unless enacted by the General Assembly.”

Never mind that “agricultural technology,” “modern livestock production,” “ranching practices” are not defined. And never mind that they would seem to suggest methods of production like Confined Animal Feeding Operations and genetically altered crops. If these resolutions passed, citizens would be asked to vote this dangerous language into our state constitution. Where it would reside forever.

As I write this, just a few days after tax day, it looks like we’ve beaten back this particular monster. It is possible, of course, that all we’ve done is cut off one head to reveal two or three more, but the citizens have been calling lawmakers, pointing out the errors of the bills, and gaining support as the session moves forward.

But here’s the larger question: Where the heck did this idea of changing the constitution come from? We know who it benefits — the industrial agriculture system — and we know who it hurts — ordinary citizens. But who wrote this bill, now called “right to farm,” and who financed the possibility that it would get traction?

Thanks to the magic of Google, I quickly found three states with efforts for constitutional amendments similar to Missouri’s proposals. Another few keystrokes and I found the source of the language. It came from ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council. And on the ALEC website, a few more clicks took me to the list of legislative members from Missouri.

In November 2012, North Dakota, a state besieged with fracking (and, yes, ALEC has policies and sample legislation favoring that subject also) passed a “right to farm” amendment into the constitution. Its language is eerily like the proposal in Missouri: The right of farmers and ranchers to engage in modern farming and ranching practices shall be forever guaranteed in this state. No law shall be enacted which abridges the right of farmers and ranchers to employ agricultural technology, modern livestock production and ranching practices.

While you might think this guarantees farmers against the frackers, please note the seriously vague and troubling words “modern,” “technology,” and the confusing phrase “no law shall be enacted …” So, in North Dakota, no county, township, parish, city or any governmental body will be able to pass a law or ordinance to protect themselves from chemicals, GMOs, CAFOs or any other kind of industrial farming scheme.

Not only will farmers be affected. This amendment can have serious repercussions for consumers: North Dakota, one of our chief wheat-raising states, will not be able to refuse to plant untested (and untrusted) GMO wheat under this Constitutional clause.

The same sort of language is being considered in Montana, another primary wheat-raising state, and in Indiana, one of the buckles on the corn belt. The Hoosier experience, summed up by Indiana’s TribStar.com, sounds just like Missouri. They say:

“House Joint Resolution 5 and Senate Joint Resolution 27, identical pieces of legislation making their way through the two chambers, seek to amend the Indiana Constitution to prevent any legislative body from adopting any rules regulating farming ...

“The amendment, apparently, would prevent any rules regulating large industrial agricultural businesses such as confined animal feeding operations. It would also prevent any laws that protect public health and private property rights for Hoosiers who are not farmers. Even zoning laws could be challenged.”

These dangerous laws could spell the end of rural life and the endorsement of fields farmed with robot tractors, sprayed by drones carrying Agent Orange and growing untested GMO crops with serious health consequences.

State by state, beginning in Indiana this fall, voters will confront this amendment and industry will spend the big bucks to get it passed. Find out if it’s active in your state, and who supports it.

Then call your friends and neighbors and work to defeat it.

See more stories tagged with:

Right to farm [3],

Missouri House of Representatives [4],

confined animal feeding operations [5],

constitution [6],

deregulation [7],

alec [8],

american legislative exchange council [9],

gmo [10],

cafo [11],

north dakota [12],

house joint resolution 5 [13],

senate joint resolution 27 [14],

modern farming practices [15]

JEFFERSON CITY • The Missouri Legislature has approved a bill that seeks to block the implementation of Agenda 21, a non-binding United Nations action plan that promotes sustainable development.

The anti-Agenda 21 bill now goes to Gov. Jay Nixon, following the House’s final approval of the bill Wednesday night.

“This is truly a bill that’s going to help protect Missourians and their private property rights,” said state Rep. Lyle Rowland, R-Cedarcreek.

The U.N. adopted the voluntary action agenda in 1992. It was meant to address issues of poverty, management of natural resources, and other goals The United Nations initiative does not hold the force of law in the United States, but it has drawn recent attention from some conservatives who have pushed similar bans in other states.

The far-right John Birch Society, one of the leading anti-Agenda 21 advocacy groups, claims on its website that the plan will "curtail your freedom to travel as you please, own a gas-powered car, live in suburbs or rural areas and raise a family.”

“Furthermore, it would eliminate your private property rights through eminent domain,” it claims.

Rowland, during a debate on the legislation last month, said the bill is about protecting property rights.

“Just because Agenda 21 hasn’t been approved by the federal government – there’s a lot of things that we get hit with that there hasn’t been any legislation passed on,” he said, suggesting that initiatives could come through the executive branch.

House Minority Leader Jake Hummel, D-St. Louis, compared the bill to legislation that would regulate “space aliens.”

Other Democrats questioned why the Legislature was spending time on that legislation and not other bills they deemed more pressing.

But many other Republicans have bristled at suggestions that the legislation is silly or unnecessary.

“This isn’t a far-fetched idea or issue,” Rep. Diane Franklin, R-Camdenton, said during the recent debate. “We have to protect private property rights.”

Rep. Jeff Grisamore, R-Lee’s Summit, said he believes there are ties between Agenda 21 to the Occupy movement and anti-Walmart sentiment.

“This piece of legislation is a very legitimate concern,” he said.

The passage of the anti-Agenda 21 legislation is among several bills the GOP-controlled Legislature has tackled this year that observers have sought to mock because of their right-wing ties.

The House passed a bill, which has not been approved in the Senate, that would ban the use of surveillance drones. Proponents say the bill will ensure privacy rights and have implied that it’s needed to keep the federal government from spying on Missouri residents.

Following the Agenda 21 vote Wednesday, the House gave final approval to legislation that targets the use of Sharia and other foreign laws in the United States, which Democrats also questioned.

“We’re talking about the boogey man in Sharia land,” said Rep. Mike Colona, D-St. Louis. “It’s a waste of time. There is no boogeyman out there.”

It's unclear whether Nixon, a Democrat, will sign the bills, quietly let them pass or try to block the bills from becoming law by veto. Both were approved with slight veto-proof margins.

(The anti-Agenda 21 legislation is SB265 and the foreign law bill is SB267)

Elizabeth Crisp covers Missouri politics and state government for the Post-Dispatch. Follow her on Twitter at @elizabethcrisp.

The cleanup is still underway from a massive pipeline spill in Mayflower, Arkansas, but you don't hear anything about it at public hearings across the nation dealing with the Keystone XL (KXL) pipeline. Resolutions supporting the controversial KXL pipeline have now been introduced in seven states, but while TransCanada, the American Petroleum Institute (API) and the Chamber of Commerce have been lobbying in force for the bills to pass, there have been few opposing voices by either Democrats or environmentalists at public hearings dealing on the measures. The massive pipeline project will transport tar sands crude oil from Alberta to Gulf Coast refineries for processing and export and once underway, the project will be a major contributor to global warming.

In February, CMD reported on state resolutions calling for the approval of the KXL pipeline project in Mississippi, Michigan, Minnesota, and Missouri. The language in three of these resolutions closely matched a "backgrounder" from TransCanada. The forth resolution, introduced in Missouri, mirrored a resolution from the American Legislative Exchange Council.

In the last few months, Ohio, Kansas, and Indiana have introduced very similar resolutions, which also feature paragraphs from TransCanada’s own materials. Although these resolutions are non-binding, they will be showcased by industry lobbyists as evidence about how state legislators (and by extension the public) feel about the pipeline project in an attempt to influence the pending State Department decision on KXL. While opponents of KXL have been active on many fronts, their absence from state legislatures nationwide has been notable.

Industry Turns Out in Force, But Face Little Opposition

koch funded voter dis

main officials ALEC gov etc

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/16/liberal-group-identifies-30-alec-model-bills-in-missouri/

Which is why some news out of Missouri on Tuesday was particularly stomach-churning: Just hours before Giffords made her way into the nation's Capitol, an unknown provocateur was stalking the halls of the Missouri Capitol, tagging the doors of lawmakers—most of them Democratic women—with images of rifle crosshairs. From the Columbia Daily Tribune:

Orange stickers with an image of rifle crosshairs were found Tuesday on the office doors of several Democratic state senators, prompting an investigation by Missouri Capitol Police, Senate Administrator Jim Howerton said. The stickers were on the doors of all four Democratic women in the Senate—Jolie Justus and Kiki Curls, both of Kansas City, and Maria Chapelle-Nadal and Robin Wright-Jones, both of St. Louis, Justus said. One similar sticker was found on the nameplate outside the door of state Rep. Scott Dieckhaus, R-Washington.

...

It's an apt moment to recall that Giffords once criticized Sarah Palin for using a map that literally put political enemies in the crosshairs. "We need to realize that the rhetoric…for example, we're on Sarah Palin's 'targeted' list, but the thing is, the way she has it depicted, we're in the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district," Giffords said in an interview with MSNBC in spring 2010. "When people do that, they've gotta realize that there are consequences to that action."

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2012/01/gabby-giffords-missouri-cross-hair-stickers-democrats