Ethics reform dealt a major setback in Missouri House

Monday, April 26, 2010 | 9:06 p.m. CDT; updated 9:18 a.m. CDT, Tuesday, April 27, 2010

JEFFERSON CITY — Ethics reform legislation was dealt a significant blow on Monday night when the Missouri House Rules Committee voted to block the legislation from reaching the full House.

The committee voted along party lines, 7-4, to send the amended reform bill back to the House Ethics Reform Committee, which drafted the legislation with the support of all 12 of its members. The bill's $5,000 cap on individual campaign contributions and the Republican complaint that it does not restrict the executive branch enough caused the bill's return.

Some of the Republicans who voted against it said the bill could still pass the full House before the May 14 deadline. Democrats disagreed.

"It's dead," Rep. Jeff Roorda, D-Barnhart, said of the legislation. He said Republicans who believed the legislation could make its way through two committees, the House floor and a conference committee with the Senate in the next three weeks were being dishonest.

"We got way too much to deal with in the next three weeks to expect that this will come back up again," he said.

Majority Leader Steve Tilley, R-Perryville, who sponsored a piece of ethics legislation this session, voted to send the bill back but said it will have enough time. During a heated discussion with Minority Floor Leader Paul LeVota of Independence, he challenged the Democrats' argument that this move would kill the bill.

"I think the minority leader either doesn't know the rules or he isn't being honest," Tilley said of LeVota. "This bill can most certainly get to the governor's desk in time."

The current bill was originally passed by the Senate, but the Ethics Reform Committee amended the legislation to essentially replace it with its version.

"I'll tell you, I don't know what the other members think, but I'll treat this bill the same as any other," Rules Committee Chairman Mike Parson, R-Bolivar, said. "I'm not rushing it over any other."

Rep. Bryan Pratt, R-Blue Springs, said he opposed moving the bill to the full House because it is not strong enough in reining in Gov. Jay Nixon and the executive branch. He said he wants language that would bar anyone who donates money to the governor from serving for him and also to create a long waiting period between legislators retiring and coming back to the Capitol as lobbyists.

"I thought we would have a stronger bill," Pratt said. "You want to talk about campaign finance and play to the news media, but I'm upset about this whole bill."

Rep. Brian Munzlinger, R-Williamstown, said contribution limits decrease transparency because politicians will just shift money between places. He said he would be inclined to support the same bill, just with limits removed.

"They will always get the money," Munzlinger said of candidates for office. "But without limits, at least we will know where it comes from."

Rep. Kevin Wilson, R-Neosho, who sponsored the House legislation and chaired the Ethics Reform Committee, was headed on his way out of the Capitol around 7 p.m. when he found out that his bill had been sent back.

He said he wasn't sure what, if any, changes would be made, but he said he would need to discuss taking donation limits out. He has previously said that limits were likely going to be the most contentious aspect of a reform bill with nearly 30 provisions, but he hoped it wouldn't stall the bill.

"Clearly, it stalled the bill," Wilson said. "I can't tell you what I don't know, but I think we'll have to discuss limits and figure out how to get this bill through."

Rep. John Burnett, who is the only representative to serve on both the Ethics Reform and Rules committees, said he also worries reform is dead. He said the reform committee likely will refuse to remove the limits, even if it makes the bill more palatable.

"I know we can't get the support of all 12 members if we take them out," Burnett, D-Kansas City, said. "So much depends on the limits that taking them out might unravel a bunch of things we wanted to do."

Burnett lamented Monday's vote and said, with at least 55 new representatives coming in next year, this was probably the best chance for reform to pass during Nixon's first term, which doesn't end until 2013.

Roorda said he found it ironic that the bill might fail because of opposition to campaign limits, even though it might already preclude any donations from lobbyists.

"I said all along it'll be illegal to take a hamburger from a lobbyist, but it'll be legal to get a $100,000 check," Roorda said. "Now I don't think we'll even get that far."

Like what you see here? Become a member.

Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Sue Nelson April 27, 2010 | 6:31 p.m.

I am sure Parson will treat this bill like any other. He will do whatever Ron Richard tells him to do. And neither one of them will be inclined to limit those donations since they usually only take $5000 or more at a time.

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.