Davis: Campaign Finance Reform Measure Receives Unanimous Approval

"You know you're in love when you can't fall asleep because reality is finally better than your dreams." –Dr. Seuss

This has been a really tough week. There were so many issues that people are passionate about debated on the floor during this week’s sessions. Whether it is doing our best to protect the lives of the unborn, or protecting our citizens by ensuring those who drive on our roads can understand English by requiring driving tests to be in English only, or Constitutionally allowing the right for people to pray, we have done what is right for Missourians. Sometimes decisions are tough but right must prevail and I promise to always do what I believe to be right.

FLOOR ACTION: Monday, March 7^th

HCS HB 108, sponsored by Rep. Jason Smith (R-150), was third read and unanimously passed, 156-0. This bill deals with the regulations surrounding contributions to political action committees and provides some much needed revisions to our campaign finance laws.

HCS HB 174, sponsored by Rep. Mike Thomson (R-4), was ordered perfected and printed. Currently there are nine districts for which each district contributes one member to the University of Missouri Board of Curators. Since the districts are being reduced to eight, this bill allows for at least one, but no more than two, members of the Board of Curators to be from one of the eight districts.

HCS HBs 112 & 285, sponsored by Rep. David Day (R-148), relating to tax classification of sawmills, was ordered perfected and printed. The classification change from commercial to agricultural and horticultural reduces the property tax rate from 32% to 12%. This is a wise move for supporting this struggling segment of the business community in Missouri. The vast majority of these businesses are family run small businesses providing needed regional employment during tough economic times. Creating an environment friendly to their survival is a positive for saving Missouri jobs and businesses.

HB 167, sponsored by Rep. Jerry Nolte (R-33), was debated on the floor at great length this week. This is the “English Only Driver’s Exam” bill. MODOT spends millions of dollars on road signs in the name of safety which are in English, the official language of our State. It is not good government policy to then turn around and provide licenses (a privilege, not a constitutional right) to anyone who cannot read them and be aware of situations on our roadways.

FLOOR ACTION: Tuesday, March 8^th

HJR 2, sponsored by Rep. Mike McGhee (R-122), was perfected and printed and then passed on Thursday. This bill proposes a Constitutional Amendment that would guarantee a person’s right to worship or pray on public property. It would also be a reaffirmation of a person’s right to choose any or no religion. This is one of the cornerstones of our nation.

HCS HB 266, sponsored by Rep. Jason Smith (R-150), was ordered perfected and printed. This bill changes the weight limitations for hauling livestock and/or agricultural products on state highways in Missouri. The concern over damage caused by an increase in weight would be offset by fewer hauls.

HB 339, sponsored by Rep. Darrell Pollock (R-146), was ordered perfected and printed. This bill changes the regulations surrounding the carrier of last resort obligations for telecommunications companies. It is a good bill to reduce unnecessary regulations and potential cost in the telecommunications industry.

FLOOR ACTION: Wednesday, March 9th

The perfection debate on HB 167 ended today. If it is worth millions of dollars to put road safety signs up for public safety, we should make sure that drivers can read ALL of them.

HCS HB 213, of which I am the Chief Sponsor, came up for its first debate on the Floor. This bill is commonly referred to as the late term abortion ban. The bottom line is that it is a constitutionally defensible position that the State should protect those who are most needy. With respect to the neediest, who could be more in need of protection than an unborn child? In the State of Missouri, if you are an unborn child who has reached a level of viability, you are currently not afforded any legal protection. We must take the steps necessary to correct this injustice and HB 213 does exactly that.

Third Read Thursday, March 10th

Today, the House gave final passage to the following bills described above: HCS HB 174, HCS HBs 112 and 285, HCS HB 266, HB 339, HB 167 and HJR 2.

Common Sense Legislation Concerning Puppies

I was not surprised that Proposition B passed last November. Proposition B was the legislative initiative designed to further regulate the pet breeding industry in Missouri. I assumed that the language on the ballot approved by Secretary of State Robin Carnahan described this entire industry as “puppy mills” could have only one outcome – a favorable vote. Despite the outcome, I was surprised in the closeness of the vote. The measure passed by the very thin margin statewide of 51.6% in favor. This was surprising in that statewide public opinion poll taken in February of 2010 showed that over 90% of the respondents favored this legislative change.

The vote in the 128^th Legislative District was markedly different than the statewide vote with over 60% of voters opposed to this proposal. Similar to the 128^th District, this measure failed in 103 of Missouri’s 114 counties. This change of opinion from February to November of 2010 was a result of some grass roots opposition to this measure which helped the voters to recognize the problems with this proposal. As the campaign proceeded, many voters recognized what the Springfield-News Leader editorial opined, “the measure [was] well intentioned, but not in the state’s best interest.”

I certainly support humane treatment of all animals. I know that those who voted in favor of Prop B were certainly well intentioned. Following a careful examination of the inadequacies of Prop B, it is clear to me that changes need to be made. At the urging of many of my constituents, a bill was filed to make some common sense changes to this legislation. The goal of this proposed legislation (House Bill 131) is to prevent abuse of animals associated with dog breeding. I know this is the intent of the voters. The voters did not intend a wholesale destruction of the dog breeding business in our state. It is my belief that some modifications of Prop B can maintain the will of the voters and allow the dog breeding business to continue.

The first problem with Prop B is that it eliminates thousands of jobs. In the public hearings of this bill in the Missouri House Agriculture Policy Committee, no one disputed this conclusion. Everyone agrees that no existing licensed dog breeder could meet its requirements. Unfortunately, neither the Veterinarians Associations, the Missouri Department of Agriculture or other associations with industry standards were consulted when the language was created for the legislation. One example of Prop B weakness would be the mandatory temperature range for dog facilities that would ban the use of heat lamps for pups. Veterinarians who testified confirmed some young puppies would die under this regulation. Another shortcoming of Prop B is that it provides no funds to ensure regulation of the pet breeding industry. Prop B also fails to address the issue of unhealthy puppies who enter into the market place.

The current version of this legislation which has passed out of this committee allows hundreds of family owned licensed pet breeding facilities who do a good job to stay in business. It helps retain several thousand jobs in rural Missouri. It doubles the required number of veterinarian visits to the facilities. It increases the license fee to provide funding for inspection of licensed facilities and to promote Operation Bark Alert which targets unlicensed facilities. This legislation increases from a maximum fee of $500 to $2000 plus an additional $25 for Operation Bark Alert. The bill uses scientific principles, industry standards, veterinarians, and Department of Agriculture to help set requirements. It requires puppies purchased from exempt operations to have the same vaccination and health standards as those sold from licensed facilities. The bill increases the penalty for breeders having stacked cages without impervious barrier. It further defines the process in which the Department of Agriculture handles repeat offenders of violations in their facilities and requires the Attorney General and prosecuting attorneys to file charges.

By eliminating the 50 breeding dog limit of Prop B and recognizing that all breeds do not have the same health and space requirements, this legislation allows good dog breeders to stay in business. In addition to criminal penalties violations, this provides injunctive relief and civil penalties up to $1000 for each violation. The legislation clearly provides more regulation on the dog breeders than existed under prior law, but regulation improves the business of dog breeding rather than eliminating it.

When Missouri legislators have an idea for a piece of legislation this is the process of what happens:

1. Give your ideas to house research to write the bill.
   
2. The bill gets assigned to a committee where any member of the committee can propose amendments to “fix” problems with the bill or to make it better fit their ideas. Testimonies are heard from those who support as well as those who oppose the piece of legislation.
   
3. The bill is then debated on the floor of the house where amendments can be proposed by ANY member of the house to do the same “fix” or make it “better.”
   
4. After it passes the house it goes to the Senate where any member of the Senate can propose amendments to the bill to again “fix” of make it “better.”
   
5. After it passes the senate, it goes back to the house etc.
   
6. Then the governor signs it or vetoes it.
   

There are MANY times that the bill can be changed or amended to fix problems with the bill when it is legislation proposed by our elected officials. Unfortunately, when an initiative petition, Like Prop. B, is placed on the ballot, it is ONLY the writers of the petition that write the language. In the case of Prop B, it wasn’t even Missouri citizens who wrote the language. The multi page Prop B only had a small sample of the entire bill on the ballot, there were many other provisions that the general public had no idea existed. There have been many times that these initiative petitions have either been declared unconstitutional, problematic, unfunded or simply bad policy. Many times in the past, the legislature has had to go in and fix some bad things that have happened because of these petitions. It is not the desire of any elected official to totally undo these petitions, but we have to fix some unintended consequences and make it good public policy for our state.