Missouri Governor Mike Kehoe finds himself in the midst of a political storm as he champions two constitutional amendments set to appear on the August ballot. The governor’s stance on these measures has ignited a fierce debate about the influence of out-of-state money in Missouri’s political landscape.
The first amendment, Amendment 4 aims to raise the bar for citizen-led constitutional changes. Currently, supporters of such initiatives need to collect signatures and secure a simple majority statewide. However, Amendment 4 proposes that these measures must also win approval in each of Missouri’s eight congressional districts. This higher threshold has sparked controversy, with critics arguing that it could stifle democratic processes and make it more difficult for citizens to enact change.
Amendment 4: Raising the Bar for Citizen-Led Initiatives
Governor Kehoe has been vocal about the need to protect the state constitution from what he describes as out-of-state special interests. In a video posted on the social media platform X, he stated, Our constitution shouldn’t be the victim of out-of-state special interests who spend millions to deceive voters and pass out-of-touch policies.
Supporters of Amendment 4 argue that the higher standard would ensure that constitutional amendments reflect broad statewide agreement rather than support concentrated in a handful of population centers. State Rep. Brian Seitz, a Republican from Branson, supports the amendment, stating that There would have to be an even greater consensus to change the state’s primary document.
However, critics contend that requiring a measure to win in every district would necessitate a level of political consensus that is increasingly rare in a state marked by sharp geographic and ideological divides. They question why a statewide majority is no longer sufficient for citizens to amend the constitution when it remains the standard for amendments proposed by the legislature.
The Paradox of Amendment 5: Income Tax Elimination and Dark Money
While Kehoe advocates for making it harder for citizens to amend the constitution, he is also pushing for Amendment 5 which would put Missouri on a path toward eliminating the state income tax. Proponents argue that phasing out the income tax would make Missouri more economically competitive and lower the However, opponents warn that the measure could shift the tax burden onto working-class families and put Missouri retailers at a disadvantage, particularly in the Kansas City and St. Louis areas.
The financial backing for Amendment 5 has raised eyebrows. A political action committee supporting the measure, Missouri Promise PAC, has received $1.9 million from a Delaware nonprofit with almost the same name—Missouri Promise Inc.—that was incorporated late last year. Neither the nonprofit nor the PAC discloses the identities or locations of the donors financing the campaign.
Critics have pointed out the irony of Kehoe’s position, given his concerns about out-of-state money influencing Missouri politics. Mark Jones, a political strategist and spokesperson for the Missouri National Education Association, which opposes both amendments, stated, The fact that the governor is benefiting directly from his face and image being plastered across Missouri TV screens by a dark money group from Delaware—or somewhere, not here—shouldn’t be lost on anyone.
The Role of Dark Money in Missouri Politics
The debate over Amendment 5 has shed light on the broader issue of dark money in Missouri politics. Ken Warren, a professor emeritus of political science at Saint Louis University, noted that while dark money is not good for democracy, it is a common feature of political campaigns. He stated, It’s not good for democracy for dark money to be used. Voters should be privy to where the money is coming from, whether it’s in state or out of state, because voters, when they make a choice, should know.
Marc Ellinger, a lawyer who serves as the treasurer of Missouri Promise PAC, defended the campaign’s transparency, stating that it had publicly disclosed all information required under Missouri law. However, he questioned whether any story would also examine financing behind opponents of Amendment 5, noting that one campaign opposing the measure has been almost entirely funded by a $1,900,001 contribution from the Missouri Realtors PAC.
Ellinger suggested that the Realtors’ contribution was not necessarily more transparent than the funding behind Amendment 5, questioning whether the public knew the ultimate source of the Realtors’ money. However, unlike Missouri Promise Inc. and Secure Missouri, the Realtors’ political committee reports its donors in public filings with the Missouri Ethics Commission.
The upcoming August election in Missouri is set to be a significant one, with the fate of these two constitutional amendments hanging in the balance. The debate over their potential impact and the role of out-of-state money in the campaigns is sure to continue as voters prepare to cast their ballots.
