On July 30, 2026, while guest hosting Mundo in the Morning on KCMO Talk Radio, Patrick Tuohey spoke with Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway about her office’s lawsuit against Kansas City over its race- and sex-conscious contracting preferences.

Listen to more from KCMO Talk Radio here.

The post Missouri AG Catherine Hanaway Discusses the State’s Lawsuit Against Kansas City appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

What I didn’t mention was that all three of those districts broke three classic classroom rules I’m sure their students follow (or are supposed to follow, anyway).

1. Never copy your neighbor’s homework.

   The letters sent by all three school districts in response to our request were very similar. Each cited the same list of terms and asked for similar amounts to provide records—Blackwater requested $207,584, while Malta Bend and Gilliam charged $196,908. In fact, the Gilliam School District sent us the form letter copied onto its letterhead but written as if it were from Malta Bend. Interestingly, all three schools are within twenty miles of each other. It seems like Gilliam, Malta Bend, and Blackwater might need to learn to keep their eyes on their own papers.

2. Don’t start your assignment before you read it.

   All three districts responded to a Sunshine Law records request in their reply to us, but they didn’t respond to ours. Instead, they each sent a form letter written in response to another organization’s request on similar topics, which asked the school districts to look for 78 key terms compared to our request’s eight. Malta Bend even neglected to change the name of the addressee in its response letter. It’s concerning that all three districts either didn’t take the time to read our request or chose to send a response written for a completely different situation, rather than understand our inquiry and provide a real estimate.

3. Don’t wait until the last minute to finish your work.

   Gilliam and Malta Bend both responded to our request on the last day allowed under the Sunshine Law. Maybe these districts panicked knowing they hadn’t studied for this transparency “exam.” Whatever the reason, mistakes were made as the response window closed.

In the end, after we reported them to the attorney general’s sunshine office, all three districts charged us nothing to inform us they had no responsive documents, and I had a useful conversation with the superintendent of Gilliam, who only recently assumed his position. To some extent, the unhelpful responses we initially received were understandable, since all three districts have two or fewer schools and, given their relative anonymity compared to big districts, have limited experience handling Sunshine Law requests.

Ultimately, Gilliam, Malta Bend, and Blackwater chose a fast, last-minute, and incorrect reaction to our request rather than taking the time to respond fully and accurately. Our districts and schools should hold themselves to a higher standard.

The post School Districts Should Follow Their Own Rules appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

That’s right. Last week, the Show-Me institute began an updated municipal checkbook project, which entailed obtaining the spending records of every city in Missouri. Every city that had available contact information was sent a request under Missouri’s Sunshine Law. Many cities had data already organized and were happy to share, all of which is available here. Some cities, especially those without already-digitized records, requested a fee before they would gather their data. This is allowed under law, but fees are supposed to reflect only the cost of labor and copying involved, and usually did not amount to more than $100. Arbyrd’s fee was a little more than that. According to the response I received from the Arbyrd City Clerk, our request would “require a significant amount of time and resources to complete and therefore we charge $40 per page with a minimum of 500 pages. This amounts to $20,000.”

Twenty thousand dollars! With no details explaining how a single page of paper could cost $40, Arbyd was prepared to charge us tens of thousands of dollars for information about where the city is spending taxpayer money. This clearly goes against both the letter and the spirit of the sunshine law and was met with a swift reply from Institute staff.

Unsurprisingly, days after our reply explaining that what they were doing violated the Sunshine law and that we would be contacting the Attorney General’s office, Arbyrd backed down. The mayor sent a revised offer, promising a digital copy of their spending information at no charge (we received their information on July 19). As it turns out, Arbyrd’s spending data was available in digital form, but for whatever reason their response to our initial request was to decline to provide it.

The bottom line is that all citizens, not just the most dedicated or persistent, should be able to see how their tax dollars are being spent. Cities should strive to make this information easy to access, without the need to resort to state law. Taxpayers should not have to fight for a $20,000 discount to have transparency in government.

The post The $20,000 Discount: Municipal Checkbook Hall of Shame appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The reason the state bureaucracy resists transparency is simple: the Sunshine Law in Missouri (and elsewhere) is pretty weak, local government officials know it, and many of our state and local officials are reluctant to share information about government operations if they can avoid it. Mandatory document reporting and spending transparency resolve this kind of problem, offering notice to bureaucrats and penalties for noncompliance. I’ve pushed for that reform for a few years now and will continue to do so until it’s passed.

Of course the ideas of “mandatory reporting” and “mandatory transparency” are predicated on active policing of those laws by public officials, like an attorney general or auditor. So I read with great interest an article announcing that the state attorney general’s office had launched a transparency portal of its own showcasing what the office had found in district curricula:

Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt subpoenaed seven school districts Wednesday for information on surveys given to students, and also launched a portal which gives the public access to “objectionable teacher trainings and assignments” uncovered through parent submissions and open records requests. . . .

As part of the Students First initiative introduced by Schmitt in March, the attorney general’s office also launched a transparency portal to compile parent’s submissions and open records requests sent to school districts.

The Students First initiative, launched by Schmitt in March, is designed to “increase transparency in Missouri’s schools” and “ensure a quality education for Missouri’s children by uncovering and eliminating curriculum and policies and practices that prioritize politics in the classroom instead of student education and success.”

You can find the attorney general’s transparency portal here.

It has been remarkable to see how resistant many school districts have been to transparency even when the inquiry has come from a state office, but I think that’s emblematic of a state governing culture that holds good governance and transparency in fairly low regard. That the attorney general’s office has had to sue districts to get documents is a testament to the need for transparency in all facets of government, and I’m glad the attorney general and his office have taken steps to increase transparency while a bumbling state legislature struggles to catch up.

The post Attorney General’s Office Starts a Curriculum Database of Its Own appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on Sticher 

Listen on SoundCloud

The post Missouri Parents’ Bill of Rights, Money for Music, and AG Lawsuit appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A lot of families have found out just this week whether their children will have to wear masks full time when they head back to school. And a lot of families on both sides are very angry. I believe that these families should not be forced to put their children in physically upsetting circumstances—whether that’s mandatory masking or optional masking—and that they need options to move their children to a different educational environment as quickly as possible. The school year is starting or has already started. The court system is slow.

Florida and Arizona have expanded existing scholarship programs to qualify families who have strong preferences on masking policy. Missouri could do the same. We have a new empowerment scholarship account that will become law in days. That program could provide the structure and federal stimulus funds—of which Missouri has received billions for education—could provide the means to put scholarships in the hands of families.  Unconventional times call for unconventional solutions.

The post That’s One Way to Do It—but It’s Certainly Not the Only Way appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This morning, SMI’s Patrick Tuohey joined McGraw Milhaven on The Big 550 KTRS to discuss reports that the Missouri Attorney General is asking to be allowed to enforce portions of a 2015 law that Missouri courts initially set aside in 2016. The law at issue “set minimum standards for municipalities in St. Louis County and capped the amount of revenue they could raise in municipal court from traffic cases.” 

LISTEN: https://soundcloud.com/550ktrs/show-me-institute-reinstating-court-caps

The post Patrick Tuohey on KTRS appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Cole County Circuit Court struck down the provisions for violating the state constitution because they singled out municipalities in St. Louis County, and in 2017 the Missouri Supreme Court agreed.

The Institute’s Joseph Miller argued at the time the reforms were good news and lamented court rulings throwing them out. He wrote:

This is a disappointing outcome for those hoping that the state’s actions last year might rein in those small cities keeping themselves afloat by turning law enforcement into tax collection. On a hopeful note, the state plans to appeal, and the governor indicated a willingness to work with the legislature on a bill that will pass constitutional muster.

However, there’s now reason to believe the Missouri Supreme Court has reversed its thinking. Per the Post-Dispatch article: “[T]he high court ruled in December in a separate case that the logic underlying its previous decision ‘should no longer be followed.’” As a result, the attorney general is asking the circuit court to partially vacate its prior decision and grant relief from the court’s previous permanent injunction. In other words, the attorney general wants to be able to enforce the caps on raising municipal revenues through citations as envisioned by the 2015 law.

Fees and fines are not the only examples where Missouri’s municipalities have taken advantage of taxpayers. Cities and towns also misuse economic development incentives and special taxing districts, to the detriment of us all. It is good that the legislature acted to protect Missourians in 2015. Hopefully their work then will soon bear fruit.

The post Reining in Missouri’s Municipalities appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In effect, the counties are operating debtor’s prisons.

George Richey is one person who has had a run in with these board bills. According to the Missourian,

Of the $3,226 assessed to Richey in 2015, $3,150 is for board at $35 a day.

Almost 2 1/2 years later, Richey is still paying for that bill, with a balance of around $1,600 left as of May. That is, until he was hit with a new board bill in 2016 of an additional $2,275—the result of being jailed because he couldn’t fully pay the first bill.

Missouri is not alone in this practice. According to a study by the Brennan Center for Justice, “as of 2015, at least 43 states authorize room and board fees and at least 35 states authorize medical fees to be charged to inmates in either state or county correctional facilities.”

Through his public defender, Richey filed suit against the state of Missouri seeking to end the practice, and Missouri’s Attorney General lent support to Richey’s effort, noting in an amicus brief filed with the Missouri Supreme Court, “De facto debtors’ prisons have no place in Missouri, and I am proud to stand up against a system that seeks to treat its poorer citizens as ATMs.”

Last week, the Show-Me Institute joined the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, the Fines & Fees Justice Center, the Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center, and Fair and Just Prosecution in submitting an amicus curiae brief to the Missouri Supreme Court. The brief notes that the current system burdens both the individuals being fined as well as the courts, and that there are other, more effective ways to collect debt. The filing concludes:

Jail debt, when imposed on indigent individuals like Mr. Richey, is irrational, unjust, counterproductive, and likely unconstitutional.  This Court should reverse the trial court’s denial of Mr. Richey’s motion to retax costs.

There are plenty of opportunities for criminal justice reform in Missouri, and we have written about many of them in the past. Often such reforms focus on how to maintain public safety while reducing costs to taxpayers. This effort, however, focuses on protecting the liberty of individuals from pernicious government. We hope the courts will agree.

The post Show-Me Institute Issues Brief Regarding “Pay to Stay” appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

While Kohler’s piece is worth reading, you might want to start with the ethics committee report. The report, which is available through a link at the bottom of this post, lists 14 findings in the executive summary on page 3. In short, the committee found that the County Executive’s personal staff negotiated a lease with Northwest Crossing that failed to properly represent the county and did so against the advice of the career professionals who usually conduct such negotiations. The staff is accused of misleading others about the costs and the process by which the contract was negotiated, and that additional costs for the lease were paid through budgetary sleight-of-hand. The committee also found that the Executive and his staff refused to provide documentation when asked.

The deal appears to have exposed county taxpayers to a lot of additional costs. The Post-Dispatch concludes that the lease “will cost taxpayers at least $69 million and could run as high as $77 million.” Skeptics might write this off as mere bureaucratic bungling, but the ethics committee report suggests darker motives.

Because the committee lacks the resources to further investigate, it recommended the full St. Louis County Council refer the matter to both the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri and the Missouri Attorney General.

Irrespective of whether a crime has been committed, the report makes it clear that the County did not have in place the type of basic policies necessary to ensure transparency, accountability, and integrity. Taxpayers should be asking why not.

The post St. Louis County Council Ethics Committee Issues Stinging Rebuke of County Executive appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

But those excuses may have to get more creative if one proposal becomes law. Among other things, the reform would create a “transparency division” in the attorney general’s office to focus on transparency matters. It would also put some teeth into the statutes to ensure that agents of the state are in compliance with Missouri’s Sunshine laws. While the legislation itself was only recently filed, the idea has been percolating for at least a few weeks.

Creation of a transparency division, Hawley said, will ensure that questions about conflict of interest won’t interfere with enforcement of the Sunshine Law. And enumerating penalties for violation of record retention law will help ensure enforcement.

Hawley said many improvements could be made to the Sunshine Law to get it in line with modern technology. But discussion of a large-scale review of the law shouldn’t stand in the way of his proposals aimed at improving enforcement of the existing law, he said.

Comprehensive reform is always welcome. For example, we’d like to see cities regularly report their spending rather than forcing taxpayers to instead chase cities and their excuses ad infinitum. But incremental reforms that move toward those larger ends are also welcome, and it seems like this proposal is well within that track.

The post Enhanced Sunshine Law Enforcement A Good Idea appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

We found the idea that a government body could withhold documents by simply not giving them to a custodian of records troubling at best, and so we filed a complaint with the Missouri Attorney General’s office. They got back to us last week, and thankfully found the MTC to be in the wrong. As the office put it:

“Generally information retained by the commissioners and presented at a public meeting would be considered a public record. If the information had not been previously provided to the custodian of record, we are not aware of any impediment which would have prohibited the custodian from asking the commissioners to provide them with a copy of the information presented during the meeting…”

The Attorney General’s office sent the MTC a letter explaining these facts, along with eight booklets on the sunshine law. While the response of the Attorney General’s office is to be commended, the MTC was able to effectively withhold documents from the public for months. For this circumvention of the sunshine law, the body has received only a slight remonstrance. We can only hope that the Attorney General’s office, among other state policy makers, will pay closer attention and give closer scrutiny to the MTC’s actions in future.

Note: We did not receive the document, but are no longer seeking it because the draft ordinance has been superseded. 

Read the full letter from the Attorney General by clicking on the link below.

AG_Oct14_2015.pdf

The post Taxicab Commission Inappropriately Refused Sunshine Request appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Starting late last year, Missouri has finally started to see action to curtail the use of police forces as tax collectors. In August, the state launched an audit of four Saint Louis County municipalities, and in December the state attorney general sued 13 municipalities for failing to abide by Macks Creek Law.

Enforcement of the existing Macks Creek Law is long overdue, but now a new state bill (SB 5) greatly strengthens the law. The bill would, within two years, bring down the total amount of general revenue a city could receive from fines and fees to 10 percent, excluding smaller cities outside of populous counties like Saint Louis. The bill makes it clear that any amended traffic fines would count toward that percentage. Furthermore, fines collected on Missouri interstates in excess of 5 percent of general revenue would also not be able to be collected by municipalities. As for enforcement, the bill makes it clear that municipalities have to provide an annual addendum to the state auditor regarding its compliance with the measure. Failure to comply triggers a vote for municipal disincorporation.

Some local officials claim that this law hurts municipalities, since the fines protect public safety. This argument falls flat because revenue collected in excess of SB 5’s provisions is simply remitted to the state, which in turn gives that money to the school systems in the county of the municipality in question. If police in local cities need to fine people to protect health and safety, they can still do so. But SB 5 takes away the narrow financial interests of the city government.

SB 5 passed the Missouri Senate and has now reached the house.

The post Changes to Macks Creek Law Making Their Way Through Missouri Legislature appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Unfortunately, many counties do not track the land and improvement data separately in their software systems, so they were unable to provide us the requested info. (I think they should be required to track the data in that manner, but that is another issue.) Some counties that do track those valuations separately in their software quickly sent over the requested information for free. Other counties requested small amounts of money for the work. No problem there.

So far, so good. I was disappointed in the success rate of the information request, but at least every county was straight with us or sent us a reasonable estimated bill. Every county, that is, except Grundy.

The Grundy County Assessor demanded $9,000.

It was $9,382, to be exact. One dollar per parcel in that north central Missouri county, even though we did not want parcel data, just cumulative data. We pointed out to the assessor that we are a research institute and requested that he waive the fees. He declined and wrote, “I have a very large investment to protect.” And then it got good.

We noticed that most of the counties that provided us with the information used the same software, and the software company’s name was at the bottom of those replies. We went to that company’s website looking for public customer lists, etc. (This was not about Grundy County at this point. We realized that we needed to find all the counties that used this assessment software so we could make sure we at least had their assessment data.) The software company’s website lists client testimonials, and who do you think was listed among their clients? That’s right, Grundy County.

So, the Grundy County assessor was demanding more than $9,000 to provide us with public information that he could have gathered from their software in a matter of minutes, if not seconds.

About a dozen Missouri counties using this system provided us with the public information we requested quickly and at no charge. When we pointed this out to the assessor, and asked him to justify the demand for $9,382, he got angry and wrote, “I don’t want to do business with you anyway,” and added that we should “get the information you need somewhere else.” This, of course, ignored the fact that we are a charitable research organization, not a business, and that there is no place to get Grundy County assessment data except from the Grundy County assessor’s office. Also, just whose investment did the assessor think he was protecting?

Our initial request was on June 4, 2012. We filed a Sunshine Law violation complaint with the Missouri Attorney General’s office on July 2. Over the ensuing months, we heard some vague promises that we would get the information. To their credit, the AG’s office stayed on it. Finally, we received it, for free, on Tuesday — March 19, 2013. Even though the original project we wanted it for has been completed for a long time, the data is still helpful for another project I am working on. Plus, it was the principle of the thing . . .

It took more than nine months for us to receive a simple request of public information that probably took the office 2 minutes to send us once they realized they had no choice. The Sunshine Law is important. Keeping public information hidden by obscene fees is immoral and wrong. Apparently, Grundy County Assessor Don Stotts does not feel that way. Thankfully, however, he (or at least his assistant who sent us the data) finally changed his mind.

By the way, 25 percent of the assessed valuation in Grundy County is land, and 75 percent is improvements. This entire nine-month controversy was about us being able to write the preceding sentence.

The post Grundy County Shenanigans appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Many attorneys general have provided direction in their own states, but this group does not include Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster. By keeping quiet on the issue of enforcing the federal health care law, Koster increases the uncertainty in Missouri to a level above that in other states, which hurts business development.

When the government enacts policies that extend its authority to new areas, such as the impending health care regulation, it creates an unknown environment. Economists call this, “regime uncertainty,” a concept developed by the economic historian Robert Higgs. Because the health care regulation is so complex and convoluted, members of the business community are left scratching their heads. Instead of growing their businesses, they will spend time and resources figuring out how to comply.

Regime uncertainty has real, immediate effects for economic activity. It leads businesses and individuals in the private sector to hesitate to make investments or hire additional people. Koster’s silence also makes it difficult for government agencies in Missouri to plan for the future. As officials develop budgets, they need to know whether and how to allocate resources to comply with the health care regulation. The operations of multiple state agencies in Missouri would be impacted by the potential invalidation of the health care law.

Many experts expect that the question of whether the health care regulation is constitutional will go all the way to the Supreme Court. In the meantime, Missouri is in a state of limbo. Regardless of whether a higher court overturns the law in the future, businesses, lawmakers, and individuals in Missouri need to know how to act in the present. Do they need to adhere to the federal health care regulation, or don’t they? As the Republican leadership recently posited, “Must state officials follow its unconstitutional dictates, or should we ignore them as we see the top officials of other states doing?”

Koster didn’t sign onto the multistate lawsuit in Florida, despite having ample opportunity, along with resolutions from the state legislature, the will of the electorate, and his fiduciary duty to consider. The 26 attorneys general who signed onto the lawsuit in Florida have demonstrated that they find the federal takeover of health care to be unconstitutional. Missourians are left to wonder, what does Koster’s hesitation indicate? Does he support the lawsuit or oppose it?

What do we do now, Mr. Koster?

Christine Harbin is a policy analyst for the Show-Me Institute, an independent think tank promoting free-market solutions for Missouri public policy.

The post Missouri: A State of Uncertainty on Health Care Regulation appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Acknowledging the will of the state legislature, a vote by the people, and his fiduciary duty, Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster inched closer to challenging the constitutionality of the federal health care law.

“We haven’t finally formulated what the plans are,” said Koster, following a question by Missouri Watchdog about his plans regarding the health care law during a press conference Tuesday in St. Louis.

Twenty-six states have already joined. Why hasn’t Missouri yet? What’s the delay?

The post Missouri’s Attorney General Is Still Not Yet On Board Florida Lawsuit appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This is an issue that we have been tracking very closely at the Show-Me Institute.

Critics argue that joining the lawsuit will be a waste of time and money for Missouri. This argument is not factually true; Missouri will incur few costs by joining. If Koster decided to join the lawsuit, the only cost for the taxpayers of Missouri would be the time it takes for somebody in the attorney general’s office to write the letter, along with the price of a postage stamp — if that.

Although states are free to help offset the costs of the lawsuit, it is completely voluntary. Furthermore, the maximum amount that they may contribute is $5,000. According to the 2010 U.S. Census, there are 5,988,927 individuals living in Missouri. If they were to split this sum equally, each person would pay less than nine hundredths of one cent to fund Missouri’s contribution to the lawsuit. That’s 9 cents for every 100 residents. Decrying the cost of the lawsuit is a smokescreen argument.

Koster would be wise to free-ride on the Florida lawsuit. Missourians have nothing to lose by joining the lawsuit, but they have much to gain, such as freedom in their health care decisions.

The post Florida Deadline Comes and Goes; Missouri’s Attorney General Is Not Yet On Board appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Encouraging Attorney General Chris Koster to join the lawsuit is a topic that we’ve been tracking closely at the Show-Me Institute. Executive Director Brenda Talent released an open letter to the attorney general on Thursday. I discussed the topic in an editorial that published in the Springfield News-Leader, on the Mike Ferguson show on the Eagle 93.9 FM in Columbia, and in some posts on the blog. The Show-Me Institute also released an “urgent call for action” via email last week.

With the passage of Proposition C, Missouri voters were the first to oppose this attempt by the federal government to take control over health care, and they deserve to have an attorney general that listens to them. The precedent that Missourians set by approving Proposition C could be continued if Koster joins the lawsuit. The fact that the Missouri House has passed a resolution is another signal that Missourians oppose the health care law.

Other states have recently jumped on board, including Wisconsin, Ohio, Wyoming, and Kansas. There’s no compelling reason why Missouri should not be on the list.

The post Missouri House Passed Resolution Encouraging Koster to Join Lawsuit appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Currently, a bipartisan group of more than 20 state attorneys general and elected officials are asking a judge in Florida to invalidate the federal health care reform law. Missourians should encourage their attorney general, Chris Koster, to join this multistate lawsuit, which resumes on Jan. 10. In my view, the precedent that Missourians set by approving Proposition C could be continued if Attorney General Chris Koster joined the lawsuit.

The following are some facts related to the lawsuit:

• Twenty attorneys general are challenging the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the health care reform law that Congress passed earlier this year, in a courtroom in Pensacola, Fla. They are arguing that the law is unconstitutional and would set a dangerous precedent.
• The case involves two arguments. The first is that the requirement for all Americans to purchase insurance is unconstitutional. The second is that expanding the eligibility requirements for Medicaid, the joint federal-state health insurance program for the poor, threatens state sovereignty and will burden state budgets.
• The states party to the suit are Florida, South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Louisiana, Alabama, Michigan, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Washington, Idaho, South Dakota, Indiana, North Dakota, Mississippi, Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, and Alaska. Additional states, such as Wisconsin, are considering joining.
• Americans are divided in their support for the health care legislation. Only 42 percent of Americans say they have a generally favorable view of the law, while 41 percent say the opposite, according to a poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation in December 2010.

Missouri voters were the first to oppose this attempt by the federal government to take control over health care. As Missourians, we live in a democracy. We should have a government that represents the demonstrated wishes of Missourians in this matter, thereby advancing liberty with responsibility by promoting market solutions for health care policy.

I will discuss the effort to encourage Attorney General Koster to join the Florida lawsuit on the Mike Ferguson show on the Eagle 93.9 FM tomorrow, Jan. 6 at 5:00 p.m in Columbia. I encourage our readers to tune in or listen online.

The post Attorney General Chris Koster Should Join the Multistate Health Care Lawsuit in Florida appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In a Springfield News-Leader article, the assistant attorney general explains why selling milk “from a farm,” as state statute requires, should preclude off-site pickup spots:

“A farm is not anywhere defined in Missouri statutes as a vehicle in a parking lot away from the farm premises,” Blome argued.

Of course, no one would define a farm as a vehicle temporarily parked in a lot. But that isn’t a good definition of a food establishment, either — and the state, calling this family’s parked vehicle a food establishment, says it should be subject to the same regulations as a mini-mart or a grocery store.

If you can’t pick up raw milk from a farmer’s vehicle, what can you do with it? You can pick it up yourself at the farm. But suppose you drive your car to a parking lot, meet a friend there, and give him a gallon of the milk. Does your car now become a food establishment? Or maybe you bring your milk home, invite guests over, and serve them milk with dinner. Does your house turn into a restaurant?

The post Disappointment for Family That Sells Raw Milk appeared first on Show-Me Institute.