Separation of Buck and State

James Trout files suit in Missouri

over passage of bill

HB 1900 gags candidates and removes

all donation caps

This past election year the Republican-run House passed an “Ethics”  bill called HB 1900.  However, the title doesn’t match the content, and the confusion is intended to conceal a shameful charade. They legislated that anyone running  for office cannot “speak” or campaign while the current incumbents are cloistered with lobbyists and special interest donors in Jefferson City between the months of January and May, every  year.

Secondly, and more importantly, in the same bill, they removed the caps on donations.  This is a throw-back to the “kingpin” days of obscene campaign checks from a few wealthy donors blitzing  candidates into office. Don’t get me wrong, I love wealthy people. I just don’t want them controlling elections and legislation.

Last year, $325 was the campaign donation limit for House candidates. Everyone running had to knock on a lot of doors, send a lot of letters call a lot of friends to raise money to compete. The exception was a larger dose allowed from party or legislative committees. Today, a fat cat can now write a single check for any amount to fund 100% of  ever more expensive campaigns - for as many candidates as they want elected. One check from one donor - to buy their advocate or “best friend” an election. And money spells a win. Money buys “speech”, it buys PR, and the more you hear from a candidate, glib and  in color, the more likely you are to depreciate any contenders. Lobbyists and special interests already cannot risk alienating an incumbent majority for fear of legislative retaliation, and therefore, must decide between  a promising but powerless contender or the person who already is driving the bus and punches their ticket. In the future, it will only get worse. 

Even though first amendment rights are already protected constitutionally, and even though the voters asked – by a 72% margin – for donation caps a dozen years ago, this current House quietly passed this new “law” to protect the incumbents and the interests of a new class of wealthy influentials. I ran for office this last year in the 91^st district and was defeated. Each of  us running raised about the same amount of money. However, the incumbent had simply connected with 1% more of the voters than myself, so the incumbent kept her seat two more years – Imperfect result for me, but exactly as intended by a process that’s more than 200 years old. I just get to work harder next time. With this new law, hard work won’t cut it.

Our elected officials  are already subject to many influences which produce bad law-making, why add this to the mix? When we count the ways that Missouri has

moved backwards in the last 5 or 6 years, nothing else comes close to diluting the intent of democracy more than this. All our other issues, everything else on the public agenda, now will be decided on the basis of the money it can raise for someone - not on its merits, not on the public trust, not in our interest. This conduct not only skewers choice, it sets a tollgate for law-making that only a new class of  wealthy constituents can afford, and no law-maker can afford to ignore.