Sponsors of Missouri Amendment 1—aptly nicknamed Clean Missouri—aims to increase fairness, integrity and transparency in Missouri politics. With the length and complexity of the 2018 midterm ballot, it’s fortunate that this good-government proposal is first on the ballot, because many voters may fall victim to ballot fatigue long before they get to some of the other issues.

What’s in the Clean Missouri amendment? Here’s a plain-English summary published by the perpetually knowledgeable and helpful League of Women Voters of Metropolitan St. Louis.

Amendment 1 would do the following:

• Reduce campaign contribution limits to $2,500 for state Senate candidates and to $2,000 for state House candidates.
• Eliminate almost all lobbyist gifts to members of the General Assembly
• Require that all legislative records be open to the public, including committee reports, correspondence and electronic communications, and allow taping of all meetings open to the public.
• Require politicians to wait two years after leaving office before becoming paid lobbyists.
• Ensure that neither political party receives an unfair advantage when new legislative district maps are drawn after each census—also known as “gerrymandering.”
• An independent demographer would draw maps that would then be reviewed by a citizen commission that must hold public meetings. Currently, politicians draw the maps to protect incumbents and their parties.

Those final two bullet points are crucial. They are the anti-gerrymandering provisions of Amendment 1. Contending that democracy depends on creating a level playing field in the way districts are drawn, Amendment 1 specifies that when districts are constructed they need to meet the following criteria, in order of priority:

• Make districts as equal in population as practicable
• Comply with the U.S. Constitution, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and other federal laws
• Promote partisan fairness and competitiveness
• Be composed of contiguous territory, coincide with the boundaries of cities, towns and municipalities, and be compact.

The League of Women Voters has been advocating for the kind of redistricting reform specified in Amendment 1 [more details here] and, therefore, supports the proposal.

Here are some illustrations of a few, crazily gerrymandered Congressional districts in other states:

The post Missouri Amendment 1: Cleaning up Missouri politics appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Proposition D on Missouri’s 2018 midterm ballot asks voters whether to increase the tax on a gallon of gas. Should you vote for it?  Good question. If passed, Proposition D would raise the gas tax by a total of 10 cents, over four years. That doesn’t sound so bad, does it? After all, tax included, a gallon of gas in Missouri costs less than the same gallon in Illinois. You could argue that we’re getting a disproportionate bargain, and that voting yes would bring Missouri in line with neighboring states.

According to a summary published by the League of Women Voters of Metropolitan St. Louis, the current tax is 17 cents per gallon for both gasoline and diesel fuel, compared to Iowa’s 31 cents for gasoline and 32.5 cents for diesel fuel. The higher tax is estimated to generate at least $288 million annually for the Highway Patrol and $123 million annually to local governments for road construction.

I generally support tax increases, because it’s clear from the necessity of continuous cutbacks in services, Missouri government is not adequately funded. But then I started thinking about the regressive nature of sales taxes, and how this increase would put a disproportionate burden on people at lower income levels. And then I read an op-ed by former Missouri legislator Joan Bray. As someone who served 18 years on the Missouri legislature—with a major focus on transportation — Bray’s opinion carries weight. She is urging voters to say no to Prop D, saying that it contains a “poison pill that should outrage voters.”  Here’s her argument, as published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

Just like the last two proposals for gas tax hikes, this increase would disproportionately help rural areas by funding only interstates and “letter highways.” Under the state constitution, gas tax goes solely to roads and bridges. None can be spent for urban or rural public transportation, passenger rail, ferries or bicycle paths. This proposal makes sure those modes continue to starve.

I had hoped that after the sound drubbing voters gave the last two gas tax hikes, the concrete cartel in Jefferson City would realize it should address the plight of all transportation modes. But it decided to obfuscate instead. It is promoting the tax for safety — funding the Highway Patrol — while shifting the patrol’s current appropriation to roads and bridges.

The bill’s poison pill defies responsible distribution of state revenue. It sets up the “Emergency State Freight Bottleneck Fund” into which the Legislature would appropriate general revenue. At last, the road and bridge guys could legally take from the pot of money already gutted by tax cuts to build their pet projects.

Who would lose from this sleight of hand? Anyone who relies on state funding for elementary and secondary schools, universities, mental health care, Medicaid, hospitals, criminal justice and prisons, environmental protections, and, not to forget, other modes of transportation without their own special tax like roads and bridges have.

Once again, myopic transportation planners in Jefferson City need to be denied. Locking the state into more funding that ignores the transportation needs of millions of urban, rural and poor Missourians seals the state’s fate in concrete.

Here’s the exact wording that you’ll see on the ballot under Missouri Proposition D. You decide. Full disclosure: Unfortunately, I voted absentee—and I voted yes—before Bray’s op-ed was published. Oops. Someone out there, please cancel me out with a no vote.

Shall Missouri law be amended to fund Missouri state law enforcement by increasing the motor fuel tax by two and one half cents per gallon annually for four years beginning July 1, 2019, exempt Special Olympic, Paralympic, and Olympic prizes from state taxes, and to establish the Emergency State Freight Bottleneck Fund? If passed, this measure will generate at least $288 million annually to the State Road Fund to provide for the funding of Missouri state law enforcement and $123 million annually to local governments for road construction and maintenance.

The post Gas tax [Proposition D] on MO ballot: I voted yes before I knew what I was doing appeared first on Occasional Planet.

On their 2018  ballots, many voters in St. Louis County may be surprised to encounter a quartet of proposed County charter amendments–plus a fifth that is, essentially, a no-brainer. Reading them over for the first time, they can seem obscure, and, as a result, voters may opt to skip over them. But don’t. While they may seem obtuse and “inside baseball,” the proposals are actually worth consideration.

And, incredibly, they are bi-partisan, supported by Republican and Democratic council members.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch offers an excellent analysis of where these proposals came from, and what they are intended to do:

…County Executive Steve Stenger has frequently overstepped his boundaries, and the County Council is taking action to restrain him through several ballot initiatives. County executives have, for decades, treated the council as a rubber-stamp body — a formula for corruption and mismanagement.

Republican and Democratic council members have joined forces to put a stop to this, primarily by restricting the ability of the county executive to abuse his power and by clarifying the council’s role as a necessary check and balance on executive power. We recommend voting yes on the first four county charter amendment items as they appear on the Nov. 6 ballot. Here’s why:

County Prop 1 would codify the campaign-finance limits that the council wants to place on county elected officials. It asks voters to approve a $2,600 limit per election on campaign contributions by individuals or entities to elective office candidates. A key element of the proposition is its prohibition on donations from any person or entity seeking a county contract, extending from 90 days before contract bids are solicited to 90 days after the contract has been awarded. This provision would help eliminate the hint of undue influence in the awarding of government contracts.

County Prop 2 is a response to the sneaky effort by Stenger’s allies to slice off a chunk of Creve Coeur Lake Memorial Park last year to build an ice-rink complex, including a St. Louis Blues practice facility. Prop 2 would require that future land transactions involving county parks be approved by voters.

County Prop B goes to the heart of the power struggle between Stenger and the council. Stenger has used funds transfers within departments, including restrictions of County Council funds, to wield power and limit the council’s legislative powers. Once a budget is submitted by the executive and approved by the legislative branch, it should be respected by both branches. But that hasn’t happened. Prop B would require the county executive to obtain council approval before making such funds transfers in the future.

County Prop C is a straightforward effort to impose transparency on government by requiring the county to create a website where the public can access financial documents. If you want greater specificity about how your taxpayer dollars are being allocated, this website would make access easier.

A yes vote on these four items would restore much-needed balance in county governance.

County Proposition D

The mysterious Proposition D: While it simply asks if there should be a charter commission to revise the County Charter, it is causing consternation among voters. [I know. I’ve been answering the phones at the League of Women Voters. This is a question that a lot of people are asking.] The answer,, as I understand it, is simple: Every ten years, St. Louis County is required to review its charter [which is sort of the constitutional for the county.]. This proposition authorizes the charter commission to do its job.

The post 2018 Missouri ballot: What are these St. Louis County charter amendments about, anyway? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The continuing, confusing saga of voter ID requirements in Missouri continues. On Friday, October 19, at 5 pm, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that voters who do not show a photo ID–but who do show a “secondary” form of non-photo ID, should be allowed to vote a regular ballot, without having to sign an affidavit.

Bottom line: You can vote without photo ID in Missouri’s November 6 midterm election.

Unfortunately, this news comes too late for hundreds of people who have already been trained by county election boards to be pollworkers. [They’re the front-line workers who look at your ID and decide if you’re okay to vote.] Those who have already been trained have been told that voters lacking photo ID will have to sign an affidavit swearing, under penalty of law, that they are who they are and that they do not have a photo ID. Now, that whole procedure has been thrown out. But poll workers may not know about it, and confusion will undoubtedly ensue.

Further complicating the situation is a previous assertion, by Missouri’s Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft, that poll workers can still enforce the affidavit rule.

Voting rights advocates are calling for Ashcroft and State Attorney General Josh Hawley to make it clear that election board employees and poll workers are required to abide by the Supreme Court’s ruling. [You’d think that would be obvious. But in an era in which the rule of law is under siege, it’s not the slam-dunk that it once was.] There’s also been a suggestion that election boards simply do not send affidavits to polling places, so that there’s no opportunity to require voters to sign them.

It’s going to be a messy Election Day. People who are unjustifiably asked to sign affidavits or who are not allowed to vote can call the Election Protection hotline, 1-866-687-8683, which will be staffed by attorneys and law students trained in election law.

The post MO voter ID update: No need for affidavits appeared first on Occasional Planet.

On November 6, 2018, nestled on the ballot between three other amendments to the Missouri Constitution, four statewide propositions and a bunch of local ballot issues, Missouri voters will find a constitutional amendment proposal about Bingo.  It’s  not a huge issue–a lot of us thought Bingo was settled in the 1980s–but there it is, and rather than be surprised in the polling place, you might as well know about it.

The Bingo issue appears as Amendment 4 on the ballot. Essentially, it’s a tweak to existing regulations about Bingo games run by non-profit organizations. It got on the ballot as a result of a vote in the Missouri legislature. Here’s what it’s about:

It’s an amendment to the Missouri Constitution that would reduce the amount of time required for someone to belong to a group before he/she can manage a Bingo game for the organization. Under current rules, you have to be a member for two years. Under proposed Amendment 4, you need to be a member for just six months.

Amendment 4 also would remove the current ban on advertising for Bingo games.

Why is such a minor-seeming correction being voted on as an amendment to the Missouri Constitution, you ask? Good question. A constitutional amendment is necessary because the original authorization approving Bingo in the state came in the form of a constitutional amendment itself. So, to change an amendment to the constitution, you have to pass another amendment to the constitution.

If you can get past the notion that our state constitution–a document that, in my humble opinion, should be a philosophical framework–is not the place for such picayune administrative details, it’s probably worth a Yes vote, just to clean things up a bit and bring Bingo more in line with other gambling gambits in this state.

The post Bingo amendment on the Missouri midterm ballot appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Need a sample ballot? Many Missouri voters are worrying about the 2018 midterm ballot. We’ve been warned: It’s unusually long. It includes a slew of Constitutional amendments, propositions, County charter amendments, retention questions for state judges most of us have never heard of, and, of course, candidates for offices ranging from US Senator to local tax assessor.

We’ve been warned, too, that the length of this ballot could result in an average voting time of, perhaps, 20 minutes. The result could be long lines at polling places, as an unusually energized electorate turns out in larger-than-usual numbers.

So, in the interest of being better informed and getting through the process more efficiently, many voters are asking their elections boards, as well as voter advocacy groups like the League of Women Voters about getting sample ballots in advance.

The good news is: they’re available. The even better news is: They’re available in several ways.

Mass mailing from your election board

Your local election board –at least those in St. Louis City and St. Louis County—will be sending you a printed, sample ballot about a week to 10 days before the election, along with information about the location of your polling place.  However, while mailing out a sample ballot is a very nice, transparent, good-government way of informing voters, the printed version you’ll receive will most likely use very small type, because there is so much to include. It will include all local, state and federal candidates in your area. Also, the mailed-out version will include the ballot language of the issues, but there will be no explanation of what they are. [Because ballots can vary from precinct to precinct, resulting in many versions of the ballot, the election board will probably not be able to mail you an individual ballot. You have to wait for the mass mailing.]

Print a sample ballot from St. Louis County Election Board

Because the candidates and issues can vary from area to area, there’s no one-size-fits-all generic sample ballot. But you can get a customized sample ballot for St. Louis County by going to http://www.stlouisco.com, searching on “sample ballot,” and following the on-screen prompts. You’ll then see a sample ballot for your specific area. You can print it out–but be aware that, because of its length, printing on letter-sized paper will result in some very small print. Still useful, though.

Vote411.org

This very helpful website is a project of the League of Women Voters’ Education Fund. You enter your address, zip code, city and state, and it brings up all the electoral contests and ballot issues in your specific area. By clicking the + sign next to each issue, you’ll get a screen that gives not only the ballot language, but also a plain-English explanation, and a summary of what supporters and opponents say about each issue. You’ll also find a list of all the judges up for retention, accompanied by the rating each received from the Missouri Bar Association.

For each candidate and issue, you can indicate how you want to vote [it’s all confidential, of course. You never put in your name.] To get a sample ballot, click on the Finish button. The site will ask for your cell phone and email address, and it will then send you an on-line version of the ballot, complete with all candidates and issues. Very convenient!

Missouri Secretary of State website

Although it doesn’t get you a sample ballot, clicking on https://www.sos.mo.gov/elections will get you the official title and the Fair Ballot Language” of each of the statewide constitutional amendments and propositions that you’ll see on the Nov. 6 ballot.  Under Fair Ballot Language, you’ll see what each proposal would do, if passed.

Voters Guide in St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Oct. 26

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch —  in collaboration with the League of Women Voters — will include a comprehensive Voters Guide as a supplement in the [Friday] October 26 daily newspaper.  [They do this for every election, including primaries.] The guide will include all the information on the Vote411 website–but it won’t be customized for individual addresses. It covers St. Louis City, St. Louis County, St. Charles County, Franklin County and Jefferson County. You’ll be able to read all of the ballot language for all of the amendments and proposals, plus review all candidates for federal, state and local offices, including their statements about themselves and their positions on current issues. The guide also contains the names and “scores” for all judges up for retention. It’s a very useful tool. We should applaud the Post-Dispatch and the League of Women Voters for this huge undertaking–and we should be glad that we still have a daily newspaper in our region.

If you don’t subscribe to the daily edition, you can pick up a copy of the guide at your local library [the League of Women Voters has a volunteer corps that delivers bundles of them throughout the region]. Copies are also available at churches, synagogues and the offices of many non-profit organizations that request them.

Hint: Make yourself a “cheat sheet” to take to your polling place

It’s not cheating to take your own notes into the polling place. A so-called “cheat sheet” will help you remember what each proposition is about, and how you may have decided to vote when you had the time to review them in advance.

Note: I recently voted absentee in-person, and saw for myself the value of a cheat sheet. The electronic voting machines in St. Louis County include a review screen that appears after you have finished voting on the issues and candidates. That’s where you check to make sure that you voted the way you wanted to, and that the machine recorded your preferences correctly. But here’s the thing: On the ballot issues and amendments, the review screen does not state the issue associated with each amendment or proposition—so you might not remember what, for example, Proposition D was. That’s when a crib sheet listing the item and its topic comes in very handy. Here’s my crude version for St. Louis County.

Read, Google, Ask

Whatever you do, don’t get blind-sided by the ballot on Election Day. If you walk in prepared, you’ll congratulate yourself on being an informed voter. When you see the actual ballot—or scroll through the many screens—you’ll be glad you studied up. And the people in line behind you will thank you, too.

The post How do I get a sample ballot in Missouri? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Rock the Vote? Dance the Vote? How about Confuse the Vote? That’s the situation surrounding Voter ID in Missouri just three weeks before the November 2018 midterm election.

For many years prior to 2017, voter ID in Missouri was relatively straightforward and easy. To vote, you could present any of several different readily available forms of identification, including a Missouri driver’s license, a US passport, a student ID from a Missouri college or university, or something official that included your name and your current address—such as an electric, gas or water bill, or a bank statement, or the voter ID card issued by your local election board. Photo ID was not required.

Then along came photo voter ID mania—the innocent-sounding, voter-suppression gambit foisted upon us by Republican strategists, who disguised it as an anti-fraud measure, which would protect us against supposedly rampant voter impersonation schemes that never existed.

And this year, the voter ID scheme has gone off the rails. Do we need photo ID or don’t we? No one is sure—not even our illustrious Republican Secretary of State, John Ashcroft, Jr. [son of the former US Attorney General and former Missouri Governor John Ashcroft, Sr.].

What’s going on? In a series of warring lawsuits filed this year by voting-rights advocates and the Missouri Secretary of State, the voter ID requirement has come under fire, and has been declared—at various times—both valid and unconstitutional. As of this writing, a Missouri court has ruled that all previously accepted forms of voter ID must be accepted—but that decision is in limbo, because Ashcroft has filed an appeal in the Missouri Supreme Court for a stay of that ruling.

So, we are left with this: Election boards across Missouri don’t know what to tell their pollworkers about acceptable voter ID.

As it stands, according to a training session I attended last night, conducted by a local chapter of The Advancement Project, anyone presenting an appropriate picture ID will be allowed to vote using a regular ballot on November 6. People presenting “secondary” forms of ID—the ones with no photo—will be required to sign an affidavit stating, under penalty of law, that they are who they are—and will then receive a regular ballot. People lacking either the accepted form of photo voter ID or a secondary ID will be given a provisional ballot that will be evaluated later and either accepted or rejected. [Voting rights advocacy groups say that a high percentage of provisional ballots are not counted.]

If the Missouri Supreme court affirms the lower court ruling, the affidavit and the provisional ballot requirements are out. If it stays or overrules the lower court decision, the affidavit and provisional ballot requirements are in.

The net result is the aforementioned confusion. Pollworkers may be unsure about which forms of ID to accept. Election boards—each of which provide their own training to the workers, without a standardized, statewide protocol—may not have time to communicate the most up-to-date ID requirements to the thousands of pollworkers they’re deploying on Election Day. Pollworkers may then have differing perceptions about what’s acceptable, who has to sign an affidavit, who gets a regular ballot and who gets a provisional ballot. And unsuspecting voters may encounter bewildering instructions at their polling places—on an Election Day when the ballot is unusually long and confusing in itself.

Bottom line: Some voters, asked to sign an affidavit, may balk [possibly fearing the legal ramifications of signing an unfamiliar document] and go home without voting. Others may be turned away unfairly by pollworkers who are, themselves, confused about proper procedures.

Here’s what I think: The act of voting should be uncomplicated and routine, because everybody understands what’s required and how it’s done, and because it’s an activity that is organic and valued in a democracy. It shouldn’t be a high-drama situation, fraught with uncertainty. We should err on the side of allowing more people to vote, not fewer. Given the confusion around voting procedures for this election, I’m concerned that some people—even those who vote unimpeded—may begin to doubt the soundness of our voting system and the value of participating in it. And if you don’t trust the vote, what’s left in a democracy? Unfortunately, it appears that confusing the vote, as yet another way of suppressing turnout, is precisely what some people have in mind.

The post Confuse the Vote: Missouri’s cockamamie Voter ID Mess appeared first on Occasional Planet.

If you’re voting in Missouri on Nov. 6, 2018—and you are, aren’t you?—you’re going to find:  not one, not two, but three proposals pertaining to legalizing medical marijuana. If you haven’t thought about them before you get to your polling place, you’re probably going to find them confusing. Each one has a different focus and a different tax rate attached. And you’ll have the opportunity to vote on all three of them. [Of course, you can vote on just one or two, or all three—or none of them, and your ballot will still count.]

So, how do you decide which ones to vote for, and which to vote against? Thanks to Nancy Miller, co-president of the League of Women Voters of Metropolitan St. Louis, you can compare and contrast them. Miller has read each bill closely and has created a spreadsheet analysis of the three bills, spelling out what they propose to do, the tax level associated with each, the implications of each proposal, and the names of groups and individuals sponsoring them.

Having read her analysis, I’ve come to the conclusion that all three are flawed in their own way. But I’ve also come to the conclusion that, in the interest of getting the benefits of medical marijuana into mainstream medical practice in Missouri, we need to find one proposal that makes sense and at least opens the door to 21st Century medical care.

All three legalize marijuana for medicinal use only. All three regulate growing, processing and dispensing medical marijuana.

But there are other, significant differences between the proposals. Here’s my streamlined version of the information in Miller’s highly informative spreadsheet, supplemented with my own commentary:

Amendment 2

What it would do:  Change the Missouri Constitution to allow growing, processing and dispensing medical marijuana.

Administered by:  MO Dept. of Health and Human Services; tax oversight by MO Dept. of Revenue; State Treasurer

Tax rate on sales:  4%

How much money it would raise from taxes: $18 million [$6 million for local governments] per year

Where the tax money would go: Veterans’ health care

Who’s sponsoring it: NORML, New Approach Missouri, Individual donations

Commentary on Amendment 2

Pro – Clearly states what medical marijuana production, distribution and sales would be. Clear explanation of where the revenue will go and what agency of government will have oversight. 

Con – Revenue will go only to health needs of veterans, capital improvement of Missouri Veterans’ Homes, and other services for veterans.

Amendment 3

What it would do: Change the Missouri Constitution to allow the use of medical marijuana; create licensing procedures for marijuana facilities.

Administered by:  Brad Bradshaw, the financier of this initiative, who would be chairperson of the board of directors of a newly created organization [Biomedical Research and Drug Development Institute] to oversee medical marijuana in Missouri. Bradshaw would select the members of this board, who would issue regulations.

Tax rate on sales:  15%

How much money it would raise from taxes: $66 million per year

Where the tax money would go: Biomedical Research and Drug Institute

Who’s sponsoring it:  Brad Bradshaw [Finding the Cures] –  $1 million

Commentary on Amendment 3

Pro – Similar to Amendment 2 in the description on licensing and taxes; immunity of patients, doctors, facilities.

Con – A private individual will be in control of money from taxes paid by citizens. This individual [Bradshaw] will select the administrative board that will make decision concerning every phase of the medicinal marijuana operation. 15% sales tax would be the highest in the US.

Proposition C

What it would do: Change Missouri statutes [not Constitution] to remove prohibitions on personal use and possession of medical marijuana with a written certification by a physician who treats patients diagnosed with a qualifying medical condition.

Administered by: MO Department of Health and Senior Services, and the Division of Liquor Control.

Tax rate on sales:  2%

How much money it would raise from taxes:  $10 million per year [$152,000 per year for local governments]

Where the tax money would go:  Veterans’ services, drug treatment, early childhood education, public safety in cities with a medical marijuana facility.

Who’s sponsoring it: Rex Sinquefield, Missourians for Patient Care, supporters with ties to St. Louis County Executive Steve Stenger; Pelopidas LLC – $1 million.

Commentary on Proposition C

Pro – Worthy causes would receive the proceeds. Lowest tax rate of the three proposals. License fees will pay the cost of administering the program.

Con – ½ of 1% of the tax revenue would be split between the four beneficiary areas, a total of just $12,500 each. As a simple change in statutes, this law could be changed at any time by the Missouri legislature.

How will the winner be decided?

Here’s another confusing aspect of the marijuana ballot issues: Which one wins? We’re not voting for our favorite from a list of three. We’re voting Yes or No on each one separately. To pass, each requires a simple majority of the people voting on it. But what happens if all three get that majority? There’s actually a Missouri law addressing the question of what happens if two or more “conflicting” amendments or statutes are approved. The winner is the one that gets the most Yes votes. However, in this instance, two of the proposals [Amendment 2 and Amendment 3] are constitutional amendments, and the third [Proposition C] is a statutory proposal. Under Missouri law [as I understand it] constitutional law supersedes statutory law, so even if Proposition C passes, it can be superseded by one of the constitutional amendments, if one passes.  Got that? Yeah, me neither.

Vote yes. Vote no. Just vote on Tuesday, November 6, 2018. Democracy is in the balance.

[Full disclosure: I’m leaning toward Amendment 2.]

The post 3 medical marijuana proposals on MO ballot: Compare and contrast appeared first on Occasional Planet.

They’re angry with one another – Claire McCaskill and Josh Hawley, running in the tightly contested U.S. Senate race in Missouri. McCaskill is doggedly pursuing re-election and shows remarkable energy for someone who is 65. Hawley is trying to help Missouri Republicans overcome the stain of their last young knight in shining armor, former Governor Eric Greitens.

Let me suggest ways in which at least one candidate, McCaskill could make her campaign more honest, spend far less money, and do the voters a real service. Here are some proposed talking points for Claire to say:

1. I’m a moderate. Lots of Democratic voters want me to be a progressive. Lots of independents and some Republicans want me to be in the middle. By being in the middle, I will pick up a few conservative Republican votes, but probably less than my previous strategy would indicate.
   • Why am I a moderate? I’m not sure. It’s partly a calculus I have made to maximize my chances of winning re-election. Now there are those on the left who think that I would do better with a more progressive agenda, but I don’t think that’s a formula to win state-wide in Missouri.
   • If I wasn’t running for the U.S. Senate, I’m not quite sure where I’d be. My inclinations are to help those who those who are least enfranchised in our society – women, minorities, differently abled, etc. But I’m somewhat hung up on this “Missouri values” thing, whatever the hell that means. So, I’m not Elizabeth Warren, but I’m certainly not Mitch McConnell.
2. The money I raise. I guess you get inured to it after a while. Really what I do is beg. I know that if anyone outside of politics was asking you for money multiple times a day you would call the Better Business Bureau, or the prosecuting attorney (I once held that job in Jackson County [KCMO]). It’s true that our current laws and the way that they have been interpreted by the Supreme Court allow me to do just about anything that I want to in terms of raising and spending money. But it just seems, well, unseemly. I have a distinct name advantage over my opponent. How much is any advertising going to help me? So, I’m going to stop asking for money, stop accepting money, and stop spending money except for bare necessities and communications that elevate the conversation.
3. About my husband. My instinct is to say “that’s none of your damn business.” But, the fact is that we often live under the same roof and we have shared values, concerns and assets. If I could re-write the script, I would not want my husband in a line of work in which he interacts with the federal government. In fact, I know that the whole idea of nursing homes for profit is somewhat distasteful to many, but there is a need for housing for the eldest and most infirmed among us and he is providing needed facilities and care. As best I know, his facilities are not scandalous like so many that come to our attention.
4. About my opponent. I don’t want to personally attack him. But if I don’t point out certain inconsistencies or curiosities about his views and positions, who will. He says that he supports care for pre-existing conditions, but at Attorney-General of Missouri, he has filed suit to eliminate this protection. And his notion that sex trafficking occurs now because of the sexual revolution of the 1960s makes you wonder about the history classes that he took. In any event, however charming he might be to some, he is so far to the right that he will likely jeopardize the well-being of anyone who needs a government safety net to get over tough times.
5. And about Donald Trump. I know that many Missourians like him and what he is doing. I have to admit that I’m somewhat surprised that he has not done more visible damage to the United States than we have seen. But in insidious ways he is decimating the federal government, particularly the agencies that provide necessary services for all of us, yes, even those of you who think that everything revolves around “Missouri values.” If I was conservative, I might find Trump to be charming. But his humor is mean and so are many of his policies. If it hurts me politically to distance myself from him, so be it. Even I have standards.
6. One final thing. It’s been a good run for me; nearly twelve years in the U.S. Senate. I never claimed that I would term-limit myself (as Susan Collins did), but three terms will be enough, especially since at age 71 my political ambitions are likely done. So, if you re-elect me, I’ll be “one and done.” Fresh blood is a good idea.

I actually think that this might be a good strategy for McCaskill and if she has sleepless nights, this might help reduce them. I won’t remain awake waiting for her to take this strategy. But if she did, what a breath of fresh air it would be to our political process.

The post Trying to cut through the B.S. in Missouri’s U.S. Senate Race appeared first on Occasional Planet.