Dear fellow legislators,Since taking my seat in the House of Representatives earlier this year, I have hadnumerous conversations with many of you about the need for sweeping ethics reform inour state. Far too often, these conversations end with regretful resignation to the belief that nothing is likely to change despite the glaring problems that exist.The purpose of this letter is to articulate some of the most basic problems, the remedies I believe are necessary, and the statutory changes I intend to propose next session in theform of multiple bills. I know what an incredibly difficult task it will be to pass major ethics reform. That’s why I’m starting this conversation four months before the session begins. I want the opportunity to incorporate your input before these bills are pre-filed inDecember.I also intend to highlight a few legislative proposals from last year that I think deserve afresh look this year.Ethics violations occur on both sides of the political aisle. It is my sincere hope that these pieces of legislation will have bipartisan support in 2010.Please contact my office to indicate your interest in co-sponsoring any of the new piecesof legislation next session. Contact the past sponsor to co-sponsor good bills I’mhighlighting from last session.Most importantly, please let us know what changes you would suggest. I don’t promisethat the final bills will include every suggestion, but I will certainly do my best tointroduce legislation that includes bipartisan input, so long as that doesn’t requiresacrificing the prevailing mission of real reform.Thanks for your consideration. The attached document lists our greatest problems, my proposed solutions (and previous proposals by others), and the language I’d like to see inour state’s statutes.I look forward to hearing from you.Sincerely,Jason

NEW PROPOSALS/LANGUAGE I INTEND TO FILE THIS SESSION

Problem: Money Laundering

Unfortunately, it has become common practice by many Missouri politicians to shufflefunds from one committee to another in order to “wash” contributions and mask their source. This risks the possibility of legislators engaging in “pay to play” schemes withoutthe risk of detection because funds can enter the system in one committee and then travelthrough several others over a period of months before finally reaching the legislator inquestion. Our completely unregulated committee system serves little purpose other thanto aid those who engage in the laundering of political money.

Solution: Common sense committee reforms

Because political money is typically “washed” through a variety of committees beforefinding its way into a candidate or party committee, my initial instinct was to eliminateseveral of the committee designations that exist now (continuing, legislative district, etc.).My research indicates that doing so would present a first amendment problem. Therefore,we must settle for regulating the existing system.I propose that we allow only candidate committees to receive donations from other committees. If non-candidate committees are not allowed to donate to one another, thecurrent methods for laundering political money will be impossible without directlyimplicating a candidate’s campaign committee.

Statutory language to be added to RSMo 130.031

“No committee shall transfer funds to any other committee with the sole exception that acandidate committee may transfer funds to another candidate committee. Whoever attempts to transfer funds from one committee to another for the overriding purpose of concealing or masking the origin of a political contribution shall be guilty of a class Dfelony.”

Unfortunately, the outstanding professionals in the legislative drafting office were very busy at the timethat I drafted this document. Therefore, while much of the original language throughout this memo wasinfluenced by their helpful suggestions, I composed a substantial portion of the statutory language myself. Iunderstand that my expertise in the technical skill of drafting is not as refined as many on the House staff,so I’m open to your suggestions regarding clarity, verbiage, etc.

Problem: Donor Anonymity

Currently, the Missouri Ethics Commission (MEC) website only allows users to searchfor contributors to candidate committees. Therefore, a contributor who has receivedunlawful favors from a legislator but does not want to be known as a contributor to thatlegislator or a tangentially related committee can rest assured that only extreme duediligence will reveal their contribution. This severely limits transparency and is partlydue, by design I suspect, to the lack of a requirement for electronic filing by non-candidate committees.

Solution: Bring continuing committees into the light of day

If candidate committees can be expected to file online disclosures, it is not overly burdensome to expect the same of other committees. The law must be amended to requireall committees to file electronically. Additionally, the MEC should be instructed to makeall itemized contributions – regardless of committee type – searchable on the MECwebsite.

Statutory language to be added to RSMo 130.057

“8. All committees required to file disclosure reports with the Missouri EthicsCommission must do so in electronic format as prescribed by the Commission. TheCommission shall make all contributions to any committee registered with theCommission available in an easily accessible electronic format to the general public inaccordance with the requirements for public officials in section 5 above.”