Monday, November 19, 2007
Gov. Blunt Is Wrong
Back in 2002, The Missouri Senate passed a bill creating "Missouri Sheriff Methamphetamine Relief Team" (MoSMART). That was seven years ago, and the problem is still there, no matter what the statistics say. Almost as many people die from the use of Meth as those who are admitted in to treatment. Missouri incarcerates more drug users then violent offenders, murders and rapist get probation or parole more often. Now Governor Blunt want to spend $1.8 million in a program that will continue to exactly what it has done for the past seven years, nothing. If the program worked then why are there still more users, more labs, and more dealers of Meth, then there was fifteen years ago? In theory, the problem has had enough time to eradicate the problem, but it has barley effected the problem. With $1.8 million we could create a state substance abuse treatment facility, where these ill persons who are afflicted with drug addiction can be treated. If an addict is arrest for a drug related offence and the court sentences them to five years the addict can serve those five years in the state treatment center and would not be released until they serve their five years and complete the program. The incrimination of a drug addict is as logical as incriminating a person with schizophrenia. Persons with a mental illness need help, and not addict receives beneficial treatment in a prison. Don’t get me wrong some should be incarcerated; addiction is no excuse for crimes like murder, rape, or arson. Anyone who commits homicide or burglary shall pay restitution to their victims and to the state. It does not matter if they have an addiction, a mental illness, or a bad upbringing; they have a debt to pay society.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Fiscal Responsibility
Fiscal Responsibility
Voters approve taxes increases, why not voter approval on spending limits. After all it is our money; they should spend it according to the will of the people.Government spending is out of control and it time the votes have some control over it. So I propose that the voter approve annual budget spending limits, which the Governor would have to restrict balancing the budgeting to. It would be limited to that amount and no more. This limit would be revised by voter approval every four years. If the state budget is over the approved spending limit then the Governor shall cut spending and balance the budget to meet the yearly spending limit. When the spending limits are termed at the end of the four year period, the Governor shall analyze state income and spending, review increases and budget cuts to determine if the spending limits shall be increased or reduced. The finds shall be finalized as a proposition and submitted to the Secretary of States office to be placed on the November ballot occurring in conjunction with the Presidential Election, for voter approval.This will generate fiscal responsibility in the State and grant control unto the people over State spending.
Voters approve taxes increases, why not voter approval on spending limits. After all it is our money; they should spend it according to the will of the people.Government spending is out of control and it time the votes have some control over it. So I propose that the voter approve annual budget spending limits, which the Governor would have to restrict balancing the budgeting to. It would be limited to that amount and no more. This limit would be revised by voter approval every four years. If the state budget is over the approved spending limit then the Governor shall cut spending and balance the budget to meet the yearly spending limit. When the spending limits are termed at the end of the four year period, the Governor shall analyze state income and spending, review increases and budget cuts to determine if the spending limits shall be increased or reduced. The finds shall be finalized as a proposition and submitted to the Secretary of States office to be placed on the November ballot occurring in conjunction with the Presidential Election, for voter approval.This will generate fiscal responsibility in the State and grant control unto the people over State spending.
Friday, November 9, 2007
Primary Election 2008
Primary Election 2008
Sorry Neo-Cons, I'm not going away. In fact, THE INCE2008 is currently raising money for the soul purpose of purchasing signs.That right, signs! , Signs that will be places all over the state. We already have an order in for 1500 signs and we will be ordering more.This is the first serious of campaigning tactics out on the Ince2008 camp.I will let Blunt and Nixon fight, while I gain respect and creditability.Wait, we have only just begun. This campaign will make history, and by August 2008 this grassroots cause will be monumental, I promise.Signs and supports will grow. TV Ads will run. Speeches and luncheons attended. The momentum will grow. For the Grace of God is upon this campaign.Next month, I will be purchasing (with my own money) a Van. I will have it decaled with Ince2008 campaign logo, I'll hire a driver and I will hit the campaign trail.The Ince2008 train has left the station and it is building up steam. It will hit the August 2008 primary with such force that the entire country will hear it, and Nixon, well he will feel it long before November 2008.The excitement it growing here at the campaign head quarters for myself, my family and volunteers. More support is encouraged and we are growing in numbers, while Blunts approval rating falls.This is a historical movement and I hope you join us and be apart of the history.I have been quite for several months. I have been ill and have had a death in my family. I have been taking care of my Mother who is grieving over the loss of her brother. I believe in the importance of family and I put them first, and God above all.I thank everyone who has been supportive of my throughout this time of calamity and need. I have re-evaluated and assessed the situation and have seen the need of my candidacy, and now that I am feeling better and my mother is as well. I feel it is time to kick the campaign up in to full gear. I do this for God, Family, and State. I remember my uncle Gary Lee Davis, a Sergeant in Vietnam that served his country in a time of an unpopular and remember his sacrifice. In memorial, I know he would not want me to quite or with drawl from this race. This campaign is in his memorial."All gave some and some gave all" so for Sergeant Gary Lee Davis I will give all to this campaign.
Sorry Neo-Cons, I'm not going away. In fact, THE INCE2008 is currently raising money for the soul purpose of purchasing signs.That right, signs! , Signs that will be places all over the state. We already have an order in for 1500 signs and we will be ordering more.This is the first serious of campaigning tactics out on the Ince2008 camp.I will let Blunt and Nixon fight, while I gain respect and creditability.Wait, we have only just begun. This campaign will make history, and by August 2008 this grassroots cause will be monumental, I promise.Signs and supports will grow. TV Ads will run. Speeches and luncheons attended. The momentum will grow. For the Grace of God is upon this campaign.Next month, I will be purchasing (with my own money) a Van. I will have it decaled with Ince2008 campaign logo, I'll hire a driver and I will hit the campaign trail.The Ince2008 train has left the station and it is building up steam. It will hit the August 2008 primary with such force that the entire country will hear it, and Nixon, well he will feel it long before November 2008.The excitement it growing here at the campaign head quarters for myself, my family and volunteers. More support is encouraged and we are growing in numbers, while Blunts approval rating falls.This is a historical movement and I hope you join us and be apart of the history.I have been quite for several months. I have been ill and have had a death in my family. I have been taking care of my Mother who is grieving over the loss of her brother. I believe in the importance of family and I put them first, and God above all.I thank everyone who has been supportive of my throughout this time of calamity and need. I have re-evaluated and assessed the situation and have seen the need of my candidacy, and now that I am feeling better and my mother is as well. I feel it is time to kick the campaign up in to full gear. I do this for God, Family, and State. I remember my uncle Gary Lee Davis, a Sergeant in Vietnam that served his country in a time of an unpopular and remember his sacrifice. In memorial, I know he would not want me to quite or with drawl from this race. This campaign is in his memorial."All gave some and some gave all" so for Sergeant Gary Lee Davis I will give all to this campaign.
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
My Party Affiliation & Qualifications to run for Governor
My Party Affiliation & Qualifications to run for Governor
Statement:August 4, 2007
The following is a statement from Candidate C. Anthony Ince, on political party affiliation:
"Recently I have had my ideologies questioned, if they are Republican or Libertarian. Also it has been questioned if I am qualified to be Governor. So I am posting this statement to answer those questions specifically.""I consider myself a Jeffersonian in political principle, and I am as conservative as Ronald Reagan. When Reagan ran for Governor of California, his conservative pledges where to reduce the cost and size of Government, and to return as much power as possible to the private sector. These are similar pledges to those in my platform. So yes, I am economically conservative.""I have much in common with Republican Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. His Freedom Principles posted on his Congressional web page match up with my principals perfectly.""The Ron Paul Freedom Principles":"Rights belong to individuals, not groups. Property should be owned by people, not government. All voluntary associations should be permissible -- economic and social. The government's monetary role is to maintain the integrity of the monetary unit, not participate in fraud. Government exists to protect liberty, not to redistribute wealth or to grant special privileges. The lives and actions of people are their own responsibility, not the governments."I support the separation of church and state.I favor States' Rights and a strictly limited federal government.I strongly support Representative Democracy.I believe citizens have a civic duty to aid the state and resist corruption.I believe that the national government is a dangerous necessity to be instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation or community; it should be watched closely and circumscribed in its powers.I believe Republicanism, also known as representative Democracy, is the best form of government and representative democracy is needed to prevent the tyranny by the majority, as Madison explained in Federalist No. 10.I believe that the wall of separation between church and state is the best method to keep religion free from intervention by the federal government, government free of religious disputes, and religion free from corruption by government.I believe that the federal government must not violate the rights of individuals. The Bill of Rights is a central theme.I believe that the federal government must not violate the rights of the states.I believe that Freedom of speech and the press is the best method to prevent the tyranny of the people by their own government.I believe that a standing army and navy are dangerous to liberty and should be avoided; much better was to use economic coercion such as the embargo.And the belief in these principles makes me a Jeffersonian.As to the question of if I am qualified to hold the office of Governor of Missouri Is easy answered.Art. IV, § 3 and Art. VII, § 8 Constitution of MissouriAt least 30 years of ageCitizen of United States for 15 yearsResident of Missouri for 10 years before electionI am 31 years of age, I was born in the United States so I am a citizen by birth, and I have been a resident well more than 10 years.If it is experience that you’re talking about, I have no more experience then the first Governor of Missouri Alexander McNair. And I am as much a political freshman as Robert Marcellus Stewart the 14th Governor of Missouri. And I am far more qualified then Frederick Dozier Gardner who was Governor of Missouri from 1917 to 1921. The list goes on and there are others not even connected with Missouri.
I am currently the Missouri Republican Liberty Caucus state coordinator, and I was the 2006 Chairman of the Business Advisory Council.
Sincerely,
C. Anthony Ince, Republican
Statement:August 4, 2007
The following is a statement from Candidate C. Anthony Ince, on political party affiliation:
"Recently I have had my ideologies questioned, if they are Republican or Libertarian. Also it has been questioned if I am qualified to be Governor. So I am posting this statement to answer those questions specifically.""I consider myself a Jeffersonian in political principle, and I am as conservative as Ronald Reagan. When Reagan ran for Governor of California, his conservative pledges where to reduce the cost and size of Government, and to return as much power as possible to the private sector. These are similar pledges to those in my platform. So yes, I am economically conservative.""I have much in common with Republican Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. His Freedom Principles posted on his Congressional web page match up with my principals perfectly.""The Ron Paul Freedom Principles":"Rights belong to individuals, not groups. Property should be owned by people, not government. All voluntary associations should be permissible -- economic and social. The government's monetary role is to maintain the integrity of the monetary unit, not participate in fraud. Government exists to protect liberty, not to redistribute wealth or to grant special privileges. The lives and actions of people are their own responsibility, not the governments."I support the separation of church and state.I favor States' Rights and a strictly limited federal government.I strongly support Representative Democracy.I believe citizens have a civic duty to aid the state and resist corruption.I believe that the national government is a dangerous necessity to be instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation or community; it should be watched closely and circumscribed in its powers.I believe Republicanism, also known as representative Democracy, is the best form of government and representative democracy is needed to prevent the tyranny by the majority, as Madison explained in Federalist No. 10.I believe that the wall of separation between church and state is the best method to keep religion free from intervention by the federal government, government free of religious disputes, and religion free from corruption by government.I believe that the federal government must not violate the rights of individuals. The Bill of Rights is a central theme.I believe that the federal government must not violate the rights of the states.I believe that Freedom of speech and the press is the best method to prevent the tyranny of the people by their own government.I believe that a standing army and navy are dangerous to liberty and should be avoided; much better was to use economic coercion such as the embargo.And the belief in these principles makes me a Jeffersonian.As to the question of if I am qualified to hold the office of Governor of Missouri Is easy answered.Art. IV, § 3 and Art. VII, § 8 Constitution of MissouriAt least 30 years of ageCitizen of United States for 15 yearsResident of Missouri for 10 years before electionI am 31 years of age, I was born in the United States so I am a citizen by birth, and I have been a resident well more than 10 years.If it is experience that you’re talking about, I have no more experience then the first Governor of Missouri Alexander McNair. And I am as much a political freshman as Robert Marcellus Stewart the 14th Governor of Missouri. And I am far more qualified then Frederick Dozier Gardner who was Governor of Missouri from 1917 to 1921. The list goes on and there are others not even connected with Missouri.
I am currently the Missouri Republican Liberty Caucus state coordinator, and I was the 2006 Chairman of the Business Advisory Council.
Sincerely,
C. Anthony Ince, Republican
political party affiliation
Political party affiliation
Statement:August 4, 2007The following is a statement from Candidate C. Anthony Ince, on political party affiliation:"Recently I have had my ideologies questioned, if they are Republican or Libertarian. Also it has been questioned if I am qualified to be Governor. So I am posting this statement to answer those questions specifically.""I consider myself a Jeffersonian in political principle, and I am as conservative as Ronald Reagan. When Reagan ran for Governor of California, his conservative pledges where to reduce the cost and size of Government, and to return as much power as possible to the private sector. These are similar pledges to those in my platform. So yes, I am economically conservative.""I have much in common with Republican Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. His Freedom Principles posted on his Congressional web page match up with my principals perfectly.""The Ron Paul Freedom Principles":"Rights belong to individuals, not groups. Property should be owned by people, not government. All voluntary associations should be permissible -- economic and social. The government's monetary role is to maintain the integrity of the monetary unit, not participate in fraud. Government exists to protect liberty, not to redistribute wealth or to grant special privileges. The lives and actions of people are their own responsibility, not the governments."I support the separation of church and state.I favor States' Rights and a strictly limited federal government.I strongly support Representative Democracy.I believe citizens have a civic duty to aid the state and resist corruption.I believe that the national government is a dangerous necessity to be instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation or community; it should be watched closely and circumscribed in its powers.I believe Republicanism, also known as representative Democracy, is the best form of government and representative democracy is needed to prevent the tyranny by the majority, as Madison explained in Federalist No. 10.I believe that the wall of separation between church and state is the best method to keep religion free from intervention by the federal government, government free of religious disputes, and religion free from corruption by government.I believe that the federal government must not violate the rights of individuals. The Bill of Rights is a central theme.I believe that the federal government must not violate the rights of the states.I believe that Freedom of speech and the press is the best method to prevent the tyranny of the people by their own government.I believe that a standing army and navy are dangerous to liberty and should be avoided; much better was to use economic coercion such as the embargo.And the belief in these principles makes me a Jeffersonian.As to the question of if I am qualified to hold the office of Governor of Missouri Is easy answered.Art. IV, § 3 and Art. VII, § 8 Constitution of MissouriAt least 30 years of ageCitizen of United States for 15 yearsResident of Missouri for 10 years before electionI am 31 years of age, I was born in the United States so I am a citizen by birth, and I have been a resident well more than 10 years.If it is experience that you’re talking about, I have no more experience then the first Governor of Missouri Alexander McNair. And I am as much a political freshman as Robert Marcellus Stewart the 14th Governor of Missouri. And I am far more qualified then Frederick Dozier Gardner who was Governor of Missouri from 1917 to 1921. The list goes on and there are other not even connected with Missouri.
I am currently the Missouri Republican Liberty Caucus state coordinator, and I was the 2006 Chairman of the Business Advisory Council.Sincerely,C. Anthony Ince, Republican
Statement:August 4, 2007The following is a statement from Candidate C. Anthony Ince, on political party affiliation:"Recently I have had my ideologies questioned, if they are Republican or Libertarian. Also it has been questioned if I am qualified to be Governor. So I am posting this statement to answer those questions specifically.""I consider myself a Jeffersonian in political principle, and I am as conservative as Ronald Reagan. When Reagan ran for Governor of California, his conservative pledges where to reduce the cost and size of Government, and to return as much power as possible to the private sector. These are similar pledges to those in my platform. So yes, I am economically conservative.""I have much in common with Republican Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. His Freedom Principles posted on his Congressional web page match up with my principals perfectly.""The Ron Paul Freedom Principles":"Rights belong to individuals, not groups. Property should be owned by people, not government. All voluntary associations should be permissible -- economic and social. The government's monetary role is to maintain the integrity of the monetary unit, not participate in fraud. Government exists to protect liberty, not to redistribute wealth or to grant special privileges. The lives and actions of people are their own responsibility, not the governments."I support the separation of church and state.I favor States' Rights and a strictly limited federal government.I strongly support Representative Democracy.I believe citizens have a civic duty to aid the state and resist corruption.I believe that the national government is a dangerous necessity to be instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation or community; it should be watched closely and circumscribed in its powers.I believe Republicanism, also known as representative Democracy, is the best form of government and representative democracy is needed to prevent the tyranny by the majority, as Madison explained in Federalist No. 10.I believe that the wall of separation between church and state is the best method to keep religion free from intervention by the federal government, government free of religious disputes, and religion free from corruption by government.I believe that the federal government must not violate the rights of individuals. The Bill of Rights is a central theme.I believe that the federal government must not violate the rights of the states.I believe that Freedom of speech and the press is the best method to prevent the tyranny of the people by their own government.I believe that a standing army and navy are dangerous to liberty and should be avoided; much better was to use economic coercion such as the embargo.And the belief in these principles makes me a Jeffersonian.As to the question of if I am qualified to hold the office of Governor of Missouri Is easy answered.Art. IV, § 3 and Art. VII, § 8 Constitution of MissouriAt least 30 years of ageCitizen of United States for 15 yearsResident of Missouri for 10 years before electionI am 31 years of age, I was born in the United States so I am a citizen by birth, and I have been a resident well more than 10 years.If it is experience that you’re talking about, I have no more experience then the first Governor of Missouri Alexander McNair. And I am as much a political freshman as Robert Marcellus Stewart the 14th Governor of Missouri. And I am far more qualified then Frederick Dozier Gardner who was Governor of Missouri from 1917 to 1921. The list goes on and there are other not even connected with Missouri.
I am currently the Missouri Republican Liberty Caucus state coordinator, and I was the 2006 Chairman of the Business Advisory Council.Sincerely,C. Anthony Ince, Republican
Sunday, August 5, 2007
Abortion
Abortion
The debate about abortion has been a long-winded dialogue amongst politicians for generations. The Pro-Life, the Pro-Choice, the Pro-Abortion, and the Anti-Abortion are the positions on the issue that politicians take no matter what their party affiliation may be. And it seems to be that there is no other position to take on the issue. Especially with PAC's, and Special Interest Groups funding the politicians, who take such positions, it’s surprising that voters don't hear much about alternative medical practices. Any candidate that is seeking money to fund his campaign is either Pro-Choice or they are Pro-Life if you want money.I take a different stand on the issue. I believe that Abortion is outdated, that it is a primitive medical practice just as Primordial as Primitive cranial trephining, the surgical opening of the skull. For course today we have far more advanced tools and medicines, however medical science has progressed and advanced beyond such procedures.Since the 1970's computers have advanced rapidly, medical research in all areas has made remarkable progress. In 1978, the first test tube baby Louise Joy Brown was born. In 1997, Yoshinori Kuwabara of Juntendo University in Japan, developed the first artificial womb that successful in sustain fetal goats for several days. Recently, Hung-Ching Liu of Cornell University was successful with growing cells from the inner lining of a human uterus on a biodegradable scaffold. When growth was complete, it brakes down, leaving an artificially grown uterus. Liu used human embryos from in vitro fertilization and got them to attach to the inside of the artificial womb, where they survived for several days. Liu was not able to determine how much longer the embryos would have survived because the experiment was stopped to comply with regulations that place time constraints on human embryo studies.Ectogenesis is the creation of mammalian life outside the womb. It is the same science used by both Hung-Ching Liu and Yoshinori Kuwabara. I support Ectogenesis over Abortion, the fetal removal from the uterus to an artificial womb. The marriage of these fetal sciences with a 100% success rate is ideal, but most open fetal surgery causes premature delivery. So much more research is needed to advance Ectogenesis in the area I am supporting. The importance of funding research for the advancement of ectogenesis science, and public awareness will be necessary to replace abortion.Imagine a surgical procedure that can successfully remove the fetus from the uterus and place the unborn child in an artificial womb where is grows to full term. That means the pregnancy is terminated and the life of the child is saved, this is Pro-life.C. Anthony Ince
The debate about abortion has been a long-winded dialogue amongst politicians for generations. The Pro-Life, the Pro-Choice, the Pro-Abortion, and the Anti-Abortion are the positions on the issue that politicians take no matter what their party affiliation may be. And it seems to be that there is no other position to take on the issue. Especially with PAC's, and Special Interest Groups funding the politicians, who take such positions, it’s surprising that voters don't hear much about alternative medical practices. Any candidate that is seeking money to fund his campaign is either Pro-Choice or they are Pro-Life if you want money.I take a different stand on the issue. I believe that Abortion is outdated, that it is a primitive medical practice just as Primordial as Primitive cranial trephining, the surgical opening of the skull. For course today we have far more advanced tools and medicines, however medical science has progressed and advanced beyond such procedures.Since the 1970's computers have advanced rapidly, medical research in all areas has made remarkable progress. In 1978, the first test tube baby Louise Joy Brown was born. In 1997, Yoshinori Kuwabara of Juntendo University in Japan, developed the first artificial womb that successful in sustain fetal goats for several days. Recently, Hung-Ching Liu of Cornell University was successful with growing cells from the inner lining of a human uterus on a biodegradable scaffold. When growth was complete, it brakes down, leaving an artificially grown uterus. Liu used human embryos from in vitro fertilization and got them to attach to the inside of the artificial womb, where they survived for several days. Liu was not able to determine how much longer the embryos would have survived because the experiment was stopped to comply with regulations that place time constraints on human embryo studies.Ectogenesis is the creation of mammalian life outside the womb. It is the same science used by both Hung-Ching Liu and Yoshinori Kuwabara. I support Ectogenesis over Abortion, the fetal removal from the uterus to an artificial womb. The marriage of these fetal sciences with a 100% success rate is ideal, but most open fetal surgery causes premature delivery. So much more research is needed to advance Ectogenesis in the area I am supporting. The importance of funding research for the advancement of ectogenesis science, and public awareness will be necessary to replace abortion.Imagine a surgical procedure that can successfully remove the fetus from the uterus and place the unborn child in an artificial womb where is grows to full term. That means the pregnancy is terminated and the life of the child is saved, this is Pro-life.C. Anthony Ince
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
Campaign Finance Debate
On July 19, 2007, The Missouri Supreme Court handed down a ruling in the case of Trout VS The State of Missouri. The Supreme Court declaring the invalidation of section 130.032 of H.B. 1900, – the so-called campaign finance reform bill enacted in 2006. The bill was signed by the Governor and became effective January 1, 2007.
This Campaign Finance debate is juvenile, arguing over giving excess contributions back to the contributors. Yes, the supreme court did declare the amendments where invalid, and they did restore the law to it original state prior to the H.B. 1900. I will not join in on the debate. However, I have researched this issue and this is what I found:
http://www.courts.mo.gov/courts/pubopinions.nsf/ccd96539c3fb13ce8625661f004bc7da/91b8b8cf4837c2bd8625731d0064ee58?OpenDocument
Section 130.032 states, on The Missouri General Assemblies Website: "Chapter 130 Campaign Finance Disclosure Law Section 130.032 Monetary contributions from political party committees prohibited--contributions not to be accepted during legislative session, exception.
130.032. 1. Monetary contributions shall not be made from any political party committee as defined in subdivision (25) of section 130.011 to any candidate committee, continuing committee, or political party committee. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit any candidate committee from making contributions to any other committee."
"2. Any candidate for the office of state representative, the office of state senator, or a statewide elected office shall not accept any contributions from the first Wednesday after the first Monday in January through the first Friday after the second Monday of May of each year at 6:00 p.m. Only candidates for special election to the house of representatives, senate, or statewide elected office may, during such time, accept contributions from the date of the candidate's nomination by his or her respective political party until thirty days after the date of the election.
This is quite strange considering that the Missouri Supreme Court made this statement in is opinion stated, "The result is that section 130.032 as it was constituted before H.B.1900 remains the same.
That section from H.B. 1900 Bill Summaries states:
"(8) Removes the maximum contribution limits per election year for most statewide elected offices by repealing parts of Section 130.032 and prohibits any candidate for statewide office, except candidates for a special election, from accepting campaign contributions during the legislative session"; http://www.house.mo.gov/bills061/bills/hb1900.htm
The Missouri Ethics Commission states the following:
"The Supreme Court’s decision invalidates the amendments to Section130.032 RSMo. As of the date of the decision, candidates should no longer accept contributions in excess of the applicable limits provided by Section 130.032, RSMo (2000)." And, "The individual contribution limits in effect at this time for candidates are as follows: Statewide office: $1,275.00. "
http://www.moethics.mo.gov/Ethics/GeneralInfo/CommMtgs/2007ComMtgs/20070721AdvisoryOpinion.pdf
To conclude, The Missouri Supreme Court did invalidate H.B. 1900 Repeal of parts of Section 130.032 of the Missouri Revised Statue, and the Missouri Supreme Court did restore section 130.032 as it was before H.B. 1900 was constituted. The Missouri Ethics commission honors the Supreme court’s decision and post an advisory statement on the Ethic Commission’s website and states that as of July 19, 2007 Candidate should no longer accept contribution exceeding of the applicable limit for the office a candidate is seeking. In the Governors Race it is $1,275.00.
However, The Missouri General Assembly, or a webmaster has not updated RSMo online or something strange is going on in Jefferson City. The only limitation I found online in the RSMo was Section 130.031 and it only puts a limit on Anonymous Contributions and cash contributions. It is my assumption that any campaign funds receive before July 19 exceeding $1,275 are ethical, and that no candidate shall accept any contributions in excess after that date. Regarding if the candidate should return exceeded funds received before July 19 is something that only The Missouri Ethics Commission and the Missouri Supreme Court should decide. I will be drafting a letter in the next few days asking that very question. So far The Missouri Ethics Commission had partly answered this question but not to my satisfaction. They only advised to stop accepting contributions in excess.
With all the debating between Nixon and Blunt, I would prefer the common sense approach, rather then assuming on my own.
C. Anthony Ince
Republican Candidate
Governor 2008
www.ince2008.com
This Campaign Finance debate is juvenile, arguing over giving excess contributions back to the contributors. Yes, the supreme court did declare the amendments where invalid, and they did restore the law to it original state prior to the H.B. 1900. I will not join in on the debate. However, I have researched this issue and this is what I found:
http://www.courts.mo.gov/courts/pubopinions.nsf/ccd96539c3fb13ce8625661f004bc7da/91b8b8cf4837c2bd8625731d0064ee58?OpenDocument
Section 130.032 states, on The Missouri General Assemblies Website: "Chapter 130 Campaign Finance Disclosure Law Section 130.032 Monetary contributions from political party committees prohibited--contributions not to be accepted during legislative session, exception.
130.032. 1. Monetary contributions shall not be made from any political party committee as defined in subdivision (25) of section 130.011 to any candidate committee, continuing committee, or political party committee. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit any candidate committee from making contributions to any other committee."
"2. Any candidate for the office of state representative, the office of state senator, or a statewide elected office shall not accept any contributions from the first Wednesday after the first Monday in January through the first Friday after the second Monday of May of each year at 6:00 p.m. Only candidates for special election to the house of representatives, senate, or statewide elected office may, during such time, accept contributions from the date of the candidate's nomination by his or her respective political party until thirty days after the date of the election.
This is quite strange considering that the Missouri Supreme Court made this statement in is opinion stated, "The result is that section 130.032 as it was constituted before H.B.1900 remains the same.
That section from H.B. 1900 Bill Summaries states:
"(8) Removes the maximum contribution limits per election year for most statewide elected offices by repealing parts of Section 130.032 and prohibits any candidate for statewide office, except candidates for a special election, from accepting campaign contributions during the legislative session"; http://www.house.mo.gov/bills061/bills/hb1900.htm
The Missouri Ethics Commission states the following:
"The Supreme Court’s decision invalidates the amendments to Section130.032 RSMo. As of the date of the decision, candidates should no longer accept contributions in excess of the applicable limits provided by Section 130.032, RSMo (2000)." And, "The individual contribution limits in effect at this time for candidates are as follows: Statewide office: $1,275.00. "
http://www.moethics.mo.gov/Ethics/GeneralInfo/CommMtgs/2007ComMtgs/20070721AdvisoryOpinion.pdf
To conclude, The Missouri Supreme Court did invalidate H.B. 1900 Repeal of parts of Section 130.032 of the Missouri Revised Statue, and the Missouri Supreme Court did restore section 130.032 as it was before H.B. 1900 was constituted. The Missouri Ethics commission honors the Supreme court’s decision and post an advisory statement on the Ethic Commission’s website and states that as of July 19, 2007 Candidate should no longer accept contribution exceeding of the applicable limit for the office a candidate is seeking. In the Governors Race it is $1,275.00.
However, The Missouri General Assembly, or a webmaster has not updated RSMo online or something strange is going on in Jefferson City. The only limitation I found online in the RSMo was Section 130.031 and it only puts a limit on Anonymous Contributions and cash contributions. It is my assumption that any campaign funds receive before July 19 exceeding $1,275 are ethical, and that no candidate shall accept any contributions in excess after that date. Regarding if the candidate should return exceeded funds received before July 19 is something that only The Missouri Ethics Commission and the Missouri Supreme Court should decide. I will be drafting a letter in the next few days asking that very question. So far The Missouri Ethics Commission had partly answered this question but not to my satisfaction. They only advised to stop accepting contributions in excess.
With all the debating between Nixon and Blunt, I would prefer the common sense approach, rather then assuming on my own.
C. Anthony Ince
Republican Candidate
Governor 2008
www.ince2008.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)