However, last March a Cole County judge invalidated much of SB5, ruling that several of its most important provisions were unconstitutional. Although the decision will be appealed, it has jeopardized the protections that SB 5 had provided to Missourians.

Regardless of the fate of SB5, concern about court fines and fees should extend beyond traffic tickets and percentages of budgets. State Senator Eric Schmitt (the sponsor of SB5) sponsored legislation in the recently completed session to extend the protections against taxation by citation.

SB 572 (passed by the legislature this session) lowers and caps fines applicable to both municipal traffic and ordinance violations and adds municipal ordinance violations to the calculation of the 20% municipal revenue cap allowed to come from municipal fines and fees.

The use of taxation by citation in any form invites unpredictability and conflicts of interest among the courts and law enforcers. For the benefit of government and the people of Missouri, tax policies should be set so that revenue is reasonably stable and predictable.

The first step to solving any problem is admitting that one could exist. The legislature has recognized that funding municipalities using traffic fine collections, and now municipal ordinance violations, is bad policy—and that’s a great start. The next step is to fully address taxation by citation in all its forms.

The post Making Sure Municipal Courts Are Not Tax Collectors appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The romantic drama grossed about $37,000 over five weeks, which in the realm of independent filmmaking is a pretty good showing. Sure, it wasn't a multi-million dollar box-office hit, but it’s not every day that a movie produced by local filmmakers is good enough to be picked up by anyone, let alone given several weeks of screen time.

But the best part for taxpayers? The movie was filmed and produced without any kind of film tax incentive. It's sad that it has to be said, but filmmaking can, and should, happen without government money.

That fact may be lost on some local and state officials in Missouri.

The state’s own film tax credit program has been gone for a couple years—it expired in November, 2013—but like the creatures in a bad zombie movie, forms of it keep getting resurrected. As I've written before, the last successful attempt was in the form of a film incentive directly underwritten by Kansas City, passed earlier this year. And just this past legislative session, state legislators tried to get in on the act with HB 1645, which would raise the now-dead state film tax credit from the policy graveyard. Although it wasn’t passed this session, there is little doubt that it will reappear in next years’ term.

We have written many times before that film tax credits simply don’t work. Just last week, Tennessee taxpayers learned this lesson when ABC’s “Nashville” was unceremoniously canceled despite having received a taxpayer-funded subsidy to the tune of $45 million dollars.

Instead of relying on taxpayer funds, Missouri should let the opportunity to film in the many architecturally, historically, and scenery-rich cities across the state be the state's contribution to the film industry.

If Missouri officials want to be trusted with taxpayer funds, they should focus on better and smarter investments: promoting a low-tax culture, maintaining state and local infrastructure, and building up strong schools. Anything else is just a costly and misguided illusion that states can successfully play the role of movie producer.

The post Films Can-and Do-Get Produced without Government Handouts appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

As I have written before (here), Missouri’s criminal expungement laws are due for an upgrade.

SB 588 would increase the availability and affordability of criminal expungement applications for certain low-level and nonviolent felony and misdemeanor offenses. Allowing criminal expungement in specific cases will help those who have paid their debt to society and demonstrated successful rehabilitation to move past their mistakes and become productive citizens.

The “ban the box” movement is a related effort, in this case intended to increase economic opportunity for past offenders by eliminating questions concerning criminal records on applications for employment. Following the lead of 21 other states, last month Missouri Governor Nixon “banned the box” on state employment applications with Executive Order 16-04, by requiring that state employment applications not ask about criminal records until the later stages of the hiring process.

The criminal expungement reforms within SB 588 would allow many more low-level offenders to re-assimilate themselves into society by opening up job opportunities beyond government employment. Instead of waiting the two decades required for qualified (nonviolent) felony offenses and the one decade for qualified misdemeanor offenses, rehabilitated nonviolent felony offenders could apply for expungement after five years from the completed sentence; for misdemeanor offenses, the waiting period would only be three years.

SB 588 would contribute to the restorative and rehabilitative functions of Missouri’s justice system. Increasing access to higher-quality jobs should greatly improve the economic prospects of nonviolent past offenders, thereby reducing the chance of recidivism as well.

The post A Second Chance after Successful Criminal Rehabilitation appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Why should we expunge some criminal records? Because an arrest record, even from years ago, can stand between a person and a job. Low-level offenders who have served their time and have demonstrated their successful rehabilitation should not be held back by their past mistakes. They should be given an opportunity to move forward and contribute meaningfully to society. Expungement provides this opportunity.

Missouri currently allows the opportunity for expungement of a limited number of non-violent, low-level felonies and an approved list of misdemeanor offenses (see here for a link to the Missouri Revised Statutes for Expungement) after a period of time. In this current legislative session, Missouri Senate Bill 588, House Bill 1889, and House Bill 2224, would increase the number of times that an offender can petition for expungement and reduce the waiting period between the end of the sentence and eligibility to petition for expungement.

Currently, offenders have to wait 20 years if they committed a qualified (non-violent) felony, or 10 years if they committed a misdemeanor or ordinance violation or were arrested. These reforms would shorten the time for felons to five years and all others to three. Most importantly, these bills would expand the eligibility for expungement of records to include a wider range of misdemeanors, low-level, non-violent felony convictions, and arrests.

As Senator Bob Dixon of Springfield has said: “[this allows] the legislators to have a very frank discussion about a real expungement process that provides a path of restoration to those who have done wrong but have learned from their mistakes and have corrected their ways over a period of time so that they can, among other things, find employment.”

The best way to prevent recidivism is to help rehabilitating offenders get jobs. A 2009 study by the Missouri Department of Corrections (here, p. 26) found that Missouri offenders who were unemployed or employed only part time consistently had higher recidivism rates than those who were employed full time (working 35 hours or more a week).

Reforming criminal expungement strengthens Missouri’s program of restorative and rehabilitative justice and ultimately promotes greater economic opportunity for individuals who have paid their debt to society. That goal is worth pursuing.

The post Giving Non-Violent Offenders a Second Chance appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

While $75,000 may not seem like too imposing a number in terms of the city’s $1.53 billion planned budget for the 2016-2017 fiscal year, it illustrates the misguided focus the leaders of Kansas City have in allocating taxpayer money. In making this investment, the City is missing out on the opportunity to meaningfully invest this $75,000 of taxpayer money into other projects that have clear and constructive benefits and a return on investment. Films do not.

The Show-Me Institute has repeatedly documented the failings of film tax credits in Missouri, most recently in testimony against HB 803, a proposal to reinstate Missouri’s film tax credit program (which expired without renewal in November of 2013) (here), and on the local film tax subsidy experiment that was Gone Girl (here and here). Long story short, movies almost never live up to their promises when it comes to jobs, tax revenue, or long-term economic development.

But it’s not just us. In 2010 and 2012, the Missouri Tax Credit Review Commission called for the state’s film tax credit to be eliminated because they repeatedly found that it was promoting neither long-term economic development nor even simple return on the state’s investment.

In fact, as of 2016, thirteen states (including both Missouri and Kansas)  have recognized that film tax subsidies are not high-yielding, profitable ventures in terms of providing long-term sustainable jobs, increased economic development, or a return on investment (many studies have found these state programs generate less than 30 cents for every $1 spent), and have thus decided to not have statewide film tax incentives.

Past experience shows quite clearly that film subsidies do not work and are not a prudent investment. Instead of chasing after the next Gone Girl, the city should pursue programs that are practical for economic and social development, like good schools, safe streets, and functioning infrastructure. 

The post Don’t Get Too Excited about Film Tax Subsidies appeared first on Show-Me Institute.