Everyone (ok, at least political types) in Missouri knows that the Missouri Supreme Court has knocked down the unlimited contributions. We are all back to the old caps - except Rep. Will Kraus (R - Raytown) and Ron Richard (the fella the Republicans want to be their next Speaker of the Missouri House).
The latest MEC filing shows Ron Richard made many contributions to ensure his successful election to replace Rob Jetton (who is term limited out) to the speaker's chair. Will Kraus took a nice contribution of $2,500 (well over the $350 cap), which accounted for over 50% of the money Kraus raised this quarter.
Richard, in a 16 day period between 7/2 and 7/18, wrote almost $100,000 worth of checks, almost all of which came from big PAC's. Who got this kind of money besides Will Kraus? Admitted felon Nathan Cooper got $500. Jeff Grisamore got $1,000. Ryan Silvey from Gladstone took $1,000. Bryan Pratt took $1,500 and Pratt's Republican opponent for Senator Bartle's seat also took $1,500 (wise move Ron, don't pick favorites, pay them both off!). It took $3,500 for Bob Nance in Excelsior Springs to get behind Ron Richard. Gary Dusenberg in Blue Springs was one of the last to get on board and he only got $1,000.
If this is how Republicans elect their leaders, I am proud to be a Democrat. Rep. Paul LeVota (D) was also elected to a leadership position this quarter. If the D's take back control of the house, Paul would be in the speaker's chair. How many contributions did he make to elected officials to secure his position? Zero.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Stephen...
Do you ever read anything? I see that you continue to recklessly disregard the facts. I don’t really have any desire to personally attack you, but if you continue to write articles that defame with no regard for the truth you leave me with little choice.
The MEC has told the members that they could not keep anything over the limit that was received after the decision date of July 19th.
http://www.moethics.mo.gov/Ethics/GeneralInfo/CommMtgs/2007ComMtgs/20070721AdvisoryOpinion.pdf
You appear to be the only name identified in your post that has failed to meet the standard of ethics mandated for your profession. It may be considered, by the OCDC, to be acceptable to make fraudulent statements of material fact toward a tribunal, but this isn't court, and false statements are not the key to winning.
Post a Comment