There is a fine article over at the Kansas City Post about something that has long bothered me greatly — governments hiring lobbyists to lobby other governments for more money. I don’t need to add anything more, because the article itself says it all perfectly, but the practice needs to stop.
Missouri Government: D’s Don’t Get Degrees
Missouri ranks in 22nd place. Not bad. Not great. A bit below average, sure, but with room for improvement.
In a study by the Chicago-based Better Government Association, Missouri’s state government placed 22nd overall in the Integrity Index. The judging included five categories:
- open record laws
- whistleblower laws
- campaign finance laws
- open meetings laws
- conflict of interest laws
A high point of the study is the fact that Missouri ranked 4th for whistleblower protection laws. Overall, Missouri was handed a 53 percent score. Not a grade that will make it on the refrigerator, especially compared to Lisa’s A+++. Our low point, unsurprisingly involves campaign finance laws, where we ranked 42nd. Wow. Not surprising, especially considering some of Missouri’s stories.
Here’s a little more info on Missouri’s campaign finance laws. And, in case you were wondering, New Jersey placed first overall and Arizona placed first for campaign finance laws.
I’ve Got Some Speech for You
The city of St. Louis is continuing its war against citizens’ right to express themselves. Having already told Jim Roos that he’s not permitted to use the side of his building to call for an end to eminent domain abuse, the city’s meddling bureaucrats have shown themselves to be equal-opportunity censors by citing a local business owner for his signs supporting Senator Obama. Roos, aided by the Institute for Justice, is currently pursuing a lawsuit in federal court to vindicate his constitutional right to share his message. I can only hope that the gentleman who commissioned the Obama sign will do the same.
There was a time when this sort of paternalism would never have been tolerated. Consider this passage from a 1902 Missouri Supreme Court case interpreting the state Constitution (emphasis in original LexisNexis case citation):
[T]he right of free speech, free writing or free publication, were not created by the Constitution which recognizes those rights as now existing, and only seeks their protection and perpetuation. That instrument simply forbids any law to be passed impairing the freedom of speech, and then gives a general and perpetual guaranty against any interference from any quarter whatever, with the freedom of every person “to say, write or publish whatever he will on any subject.” Language could not be broader, nor prohibition nor protection more amply comprehensive.
Wherever within our borders speech is uttered, writing done, or publication made, there stands the constitutional guaranty giving staunch assurance that each and every one of them shall be free. The Legislature can not pass a law which even impairs the freedom of speech; and as there are no exceptions contained in the rest of the quoted section, the language there used stands as an affirmative prescription against any exception being thereto made, as effectually as if words of negation or prohibition had expressly and in terms, been employed.
Alas, with its sign ordinance, the city is saying to its residents that the government’s desire to control which signs go where is more important than the right of individuals to express their views with each other. It is a shame. If the state and federal constitutions mean anything, they mean that free people should not have to seek the government’s permission before sharing their ideas about issues of public concern.
County Seat Mania ? Live From The Gasconade Octagon
If you like studying government, covering politics, and writing about it all on a blog, then yesterday’s Post-Dispatch had a dream article about the dispute over the county seat in Gasconade County. Many Missourians are familiar with the historic county courthouse in Hermann, that county’s current seat government, from their trips to the many wineries in the area. At least, you remember it on your journey to the wineries. But some people in Owensville — and the article makes it seem like a very small number of people are behind this — want to move the county seat to their community, farther south. The Hermann Advertiser-Courier has an additional article about the issue, touching on why members of a committee looking at courthouse reconstruction were not told of an existing agreement between the county commission and the state.
But lets get down to brass tacks. From the Post-Dispatch piece, how often does this happen?
If voters approve the move, it would mark the first time a county seat has been relocated in Missouri since 1930 when construction of the Lake of the Ozarks inundated Linn Creek in Camden County. Prior to that, a county seat hasn’t moved since before the turn of the century. Hermann has been the Gasconade County seat since 1842.
Supporters say they want the move in order to save taxpayer money by moving county facilities into a recently closed school, rather than spending millions on renovating the historic courthouse. People in Hermann see a different motive:
Many opponents of the move blame Lairmore, one of three county commissioners, two of whom are from Owensville. Critics accuse him and a handful of other Owensville residents of orchestrating the move.
[…] Many blame the commissioners for allowing the building to fall into disrepair so it can be condemned.
Some speculated that the proposed move was part of a push to get Highway 50 moved closer to Owensville. Still others believe politicians and power brokers some how stand to make money.
It certainly is interesting. It would be funny to see people claim that Clayton is too far east in St. Louis County, and try to move the county seat to Town and Country. I guess Gasconade could try to imitate Jackson County and have a split county seat, with facilities in both Hermann and Owensville. But, in the end, I must conclude that this is one of the most insane proposals I have heard of recently. Hermann, Mo., is the face of the county. That courthouse along the Missouri River is the face of Hermann. The people of the entire county should pay to renovate it, and the seat should stay where it is.
Calling All Interns: Introducing the SMI Free-Market Question of the Week
As you may know, one of our areas of interest here at the Show-Me Institute is occupational licensing, as in: How do we get less of it? We will be publishing some great work about this very shortly. I know that it is great, because it’s mine. That aside, here is the first Show-Me Daily free-market question for our readers, staff, former interns, etc.
What is the common occupation with the absolute least amount of government involvement?
The second part: What is the most prominent occupation with the least amount of government involvement?
There are plenty of occupations that don’t involve getting a license as a precondition to work, as doctors and lawyers must do. But many of them, such as farmers or bankers, clearly involve a great deal of government contact. What is the common (legal) occupation where you deal, in any way, shape, or form with the government the least? And, along the lines of doctors, what is the most prominent occupation that does not in any way involve a government license? My answer to the second might be clergymen. I don’t have an answer yet to the first.
Fire away in the comments section. …
MetroLink, the Riverfront Times, and Freakonomics, Together at Last
The much-discussed Riverfront Times article about MetroLink from a few months ago is being discussed at the Freakonomics blog. If you are visiting our site, then I am pretty sure you’d also be familiar with their site, book, and phenomenon — so I don’t need to expand. But be sure to check out the discussion, especially in light of the upcoming votes on light rail in St. Louis and Kansas City.
As an addendum, a video is being passed around about Kansas City’s light-rail proposal. In the interest of fairness, if anyone sends us something similar, but in favor of the proposal. we’ll link to that, too.
The Best T-Shirts in Life Are Free
Loyal readers might remember this post from a few weeks back, when I was knee-deep in renewable energy research. To sum it up, I had to put 10 of my closest family and friends on the chopping block, giving their emails to the Missouri Clean Energy proponents in order to get a free T-shirt.
Well, today my efforts finally paid off when I got an email saying that SLU’s post office had a package with my name on it. I instantly ran out the door to the school post office, thinking my Neil Diamond Halloween costume had arrived, but was surprised to see the return address belonged to the Missouri Coalition for the Environment.
To be honest, I had written off the idea of this T-shirt coming weeks ago. I figured it was just a ploy to get email addresses out of me, and that the chances of me getting a T-shirt were practically nonexistent. Plus, I also imagined they read my op-ed and decided I don’t deserve a T-shirt.
But the environmentalists surprised me and were true to their word, and now I have a pretty neat, green (surprise surprise), Missouri Renewable Energy T-shirt. I shall wear it proudly and know that somewhere out there, 10 of my closest friends and family members are receiving rather annoying daily email updates about Proposition C. Totally worth it.
Unfortunate Ruling In Clayton
I’ll leave the legal analysis to others here at the Show-Me Institute, but I wanted to highlight this regrettable ruling in Clayton that will allow suburban school districts to continue to refuse to educate young people from the unaccredited city of St. Louis school district. (This will be, in my opinion, the ultimate result — not necessarily the immediate result.)
Shout Out to Mr. Tiebout
According to a Post-Dispatch article the city of Joplin will no longer allow teachers in its public schools to show any visible tattoos.
Now, at first blush, this seems like an infringement on liberty, and perhaps it is. But it may also be a way for a local government to provide something people want, without the drawback of forcing all to comply. Let me explain.
In 1956, an economist named Charles Tiebout (pronunciation: I’m told his last name rhymes with see-through) put forth the idea that if (a) information is sufficiently available, (b) moving is relatively inexpensive, and (c) there are sufficiently many communities to chose from (there were a few other assumptions that aren’t important here), then communities would be able to most closely match the preferences of their constituents. Joplin has provided an alternative for people who prefer to send their children only to schools where the teachers have no obvious ink. If it were a statewide mandate, I would oppose it on the grounds that it is difficult to aggregate the preferences of an entire state. Because it is local, however, I celebrate the experiment.
For other Show-Me Institute–related references to Tiebout, go ahead and check out our first policy study, published way back in March ’06.
