Mr. Smith the Movie, A Must See!

Can Mr. Smith Get To Washington Anymore? offers so much for the moviegoer: interesting characters, great story, humor, and emotion. The creative team behind this documentary have managed to highlight the workings of a congressional campaign without focusing on the political issues. This documentary is about people.

The story involves two different families. One is the Carnahan family with a long political history in Missouri with Russ Carnahan seeking to fill the congressional seat held by Dick Gephardt for 28 years. The other family is that of Jeff Smith, a young guy seeking to challenge the political establishment and the Carnahan family name.

Director Frank Popper followed Jeff Smith during the latter part of his bid to become a U.S. Congressman in 2004. With this we get to see the colorful side of a campaign, usually hidden to all but the insiders. More importantly we get to see real people working hard to make a real difference.

As a former candidate, albeit in a exponentially smaller race, I could completely relate to the issues faced by Smith and his team: honing message, persuading voters, making calls, going door-to-door, raising money, coordinating volunteers, and seeking endorsements. Working closely on my March 2005 aldermanic campaign was the film’s co-producer Mike Kime and another of Jeff Smith’s opponents, Corey Mohn. During my race I was having talks with Jeff Smith while he was teaching at Dartmouth, late at night we’d be instant messaging back and forth and he’d be pushing me on how many calls I made or how many doors I knocked on.

One of the hardest things I had to accept in my race was coming from nowhere, making a good challenge and yet not winning. It is very emotional. In the film we see this emotion from the candidate, staff and volunteers. This is the human side to this multi-layered story that is so compelling. During the film you are taken along for the emotional ride — you feel anger, excitement and disappointment along with the characters.

The pace of the 82-minute film is excellent with never a dull moment. Those who aren’t into politics, or even documentaries, should give this film serious consideration. And while I happen to know many of the people in the film it will be compelling to those that have never even set foot in Missouri.

Can Mr. Smith Get To Washington Anymore? is showing now through Thursday August 3, 2006 at the Tivoli on Delmar in University City. Click here to buy tickets online.

For those in other states you can see too:

• Los Angeles; August 18-24; Nuart Theatre
• Washington D.C.;September 22-28; E Street Cinema
• Boston; November 3-9; Kendall Square Cinema

For a few photos from the premier click here.

– Steve

A Detailed Look at Aldermanic Campaign Finance Reports

Last week I started looking at the latest round of campaign finance reports from the city’s 28 aldermen. Today I got around to finishing up my review of their contents and what it all means. Before I get into each I want to explain some background info.

Quarterly reports are due to the Missouri Ethics commission on the 15th of the month following the quarter. For example, the current quarter from July 1 – September 30 (aka 3rd Quarter) is due on October 15th. Since October 15, 2006 falls on a Sunday the report can be received up until 5pm on Monday the 16th. However, the report is supposed to be postmarked “before” the deadline. Thus, a report mailed on October 16, 2006 is technically late. However, a report postmarked on October 14, 2006 is timely.

On July 15, 2006 reports from the 2nd quarter (April 1, 2006 – June 30, 2006) were due by all elected officials, anyone out campaigning to become an elected official, “continuing committees” such as ward committees and political action committees. You might think I’m talking down to everyone by explaining the dates for the 2nd quarter but when you see the mistakes being made by these aldermanic committees then you’ll understand why I’m being as detailed as possible, even on some very common sense things.

The aldermen also seem to be very confused when it comes to reporting for elections. The theory behind “campaign finance” reporting is that if you are receiving and spending money you are campaigning not for the prior election but for the upcoming election. This is a very basic concept that seems to stump many. Also, even if you are not taking in or sending out any campaign funds you are still campaigning for the next election simply by virtue of having a campaign committee.

I called the Election Commission to get some clarification around reporting and what is allowed and what is not allowed. For all you aldermen out there, treasurers and future candidates consider this a basic course in reporting.

First, as indicated above, the report is always for an upcoming election. The exception is the “30 Days Following a General Election” report which covers the 12 days prior to the general election as well as the 25 days after the general election (it is due 30 days after the general, hence the name). Let me run through some examples to explain how these should work.

Here is a list of all 28 aldermen, in numerical order by ward, and notes on their reports:

1 – Charles Quincy Troupe

Quarterly report due 7/17/2006, not filed as of 7/26/2006

2 – Dionne Flowers

Quarterly report due 7/17/2006, not filed as of 7/26/2006. Also, quarterly report due April 15 not yet filed. Flowers is up for re-election in March 2007.

3 – Freeman M. Bosley, Sr.

Quarterly report due 7/17/2006, not received until 7/20/2006; Report was not signed by candidate. Indicates “N/A” next to election date but that should be 3/2009 for this cycle. Shows zero activity which is hard to believe due to the recall effort but maybe he didn’t find it necessary to raise money or spend money campaigning.

4 – O.L. Shelton

Only current alderman with no active campaign committee! No reports to file at all, perhaps O.L. is the smartest of the bunch? Shelton is up for re-election in March 2007.

5 – April Ford-Griffin

Quarterly report received on Monday 7/17/2006. Submitted “limited activity” report which indicates no more than $500 was received or spent during quarterly reporting period. A limited activity report is common for many committees.

6 – Lewis E. Reed

Quarterly report due 7/17/2006, not filed as of 7/26/2006. Reed is up for re-election in March 2007.

7 – Phyllis Young

Quarterly report due 7/17/2006 received on 7/18/2006, postmark date unknown. Shows $600 raised this election (since April 2005); over $26K spent this election cycle; just under $25K on hand.

8 – Stephen Conway

Quarterly report received early on Friday 7/14/06. Shows no receipts for this election, spent $475 this election, under $4K on hand. Properly shows election date for this campaign as March 2007. Conway is an accountant by trade so naturally I’d expect his reports to be accurate. Conway is up for re-election in March 2007.

9 – Kenneth Ortmann

Quarterly report due 7/17/2006 received on 7/18/2006, postmark date unknown. For this election cycle (4/2005 – 3/2009) shows -$15K+ raised, $17K+ spent; still has over $45k on-hand. That is some serious cash!

10 – Joseph Vollmer

Quarterly report due 7/17/2006 received on 7/19/2006, postmark date unknown. Report shows committee paid $30 late fee to state, presumably for the prior quarter report that was filed late. Report shows committee received $441.23 in in-kind contributions from A-B Products during the quarter (date of contribution is not reported). This appears to be a violation as campaign limits for aldermen are $325 per election. Shows under just $14K raised, spent $2,400; on hand $13K . Vollmer is up for re-election in March 2007.

11 – Matt Villa

Quarterly report received on Monday 7/17 but shows the period as 4/12/06 through 7/11/06, rather than the accepted 2nd quarter of 4/1/06 through 6/30/2006. $7,169 on hand.

12 – Fred Heitert

A limited activity report was received early on 7/3/2006. In fact, all of his reports are “limited activity” going back to 2001! This means through the 2003 election he really had no activity in his campaign. I went through all the reports available online and all are limited activity so I haven’t a clue how much, if anything, he has is his campaign warchest. I’m guessing not much. Heitert has been on the Board of Aldermen since the late 1970s, being first elected in April 1979. As the lone [admitted] Republican he has the least seniority. Heitert is up for re-election in March (primary) and likely hasn’t run a campaign in decades, perhaps someone in the 12th should start getting their ducks in a row to challenge him.

13 – Alfred Wessels, Jr.

Report received early on 7/13/2006. However, date of election missing (should be 3/2009 in this case); show $14K on hand, little activity otherwise.

14 – Stephen Gregali

Quarterly report due 7/17/2006 received on 7/18/2006, postmark date unknown. Submitted “limited activity” report which indicates no more than $500 was received or spent during quarterly reporting period. A limited activity report is common for many committees. As of 2nd quarter ’03 reported in July 2003 had $12,500 on hand; limited reporting since. Gregali is up for re-election in March 2007.

15 – Jennifer Florida

First, I need to apologize to Ald. Florida for an error on my part from last week. I had mistakenly indicated she did not report a $25 contribution from Ald. Kirner. However, in re-reading Kirner’s report I see they were using a single line to indicate contributions they made to two different campaigns. The $25 contribution in this quarter was made to another committee, not Florida’s.

Ok, on with the look at the current report: The quarterly report due 7/17/2006 was received on 7/18/2006, postmark date unknown. The report shows the correct upcoming election and has it correctly marked as a primary.

I had previously reported a discrepancy in Florida’s reports from 2004. I just reviewed all reports from 2004 forward to do a basic audit to confirm my earlier report. All are OK except for two, as previously indicated. In the July 2004 report for the 2nd quarter it indicates receipts of $9,670 of which $9,370 was monetary and $300 was in-kind. Here is what I wrote then and it remains unchanged:

I calculated $5,680 in itemized contributions for the three month period. Yet, on page 3 of the above report, it says $6,355 were received (Contributions and Loans Received, Line #8). This difference is $675.

The prior page, a “report summary”, shows total receipts for the period of $9,670. Again, the itemized detail only totals $5,680 by my calculations.

Their own report from the period indicates on one page that $6,355 was received while on the summary page $9,670 was received, both including $300 of in-kind contribution. The total difference between the detail provided and the highest number reported is $3,990. So does it exist? If so, who was it from? If not received, we need to see the “cash on hand” balance drop by this amount (less $300 in-kind) because cash was adjusted based on the highest number.

The next quarter, reported in October 2004, was as if that $9,670 never existed — the beginning balance for receipts was the same as the prior quarter. From this report through the 2005 election this actually make her total receipts look lower than they actually were. On the positive side the reports correctly switched to zero for receipts and contributions following the 2005 general election.

16 – Donna Baringer

Quarterly report received on 7/17/2006. Submitted “limited activity” report which indicates no more than $500 was received or spent during quarterly reporting period. A limited activity report is common for many committees. One of the few reports to get everything right including the next election date marked as a primary. As of 12/31/05: 18K+ raised; $4,800 spent; $14K on-hand. Baringer is up for re-election in March 2007.

17 – Joseph D. Roddy

Report received on 7/14/2006. The report correct lists next election as 2009 but incorrectly marks it as a general election rather than primary. Roddy was just re-elected in April 2005 yet his reports do not reflect the change from the previous election cycle (2001 – 2005) to the current election cycle (2005 – 2009). As a result his reports erroneously indicate just $36K raised and $65K spent on this election. I reviewed a few reports from the last year and confirmed he has not raised or spent this kind of money since the general election in April last year. The $11K on-hand is presumably correct.

18 – Terry Kennedy

Quarterly report due 7/17/2006, not filed as of 7/26/2006. The 1st Quarter report due April 15 was not received by the Missouri Ethics Commission until May 22, 2006 — over a month late! No report is shown for the 3rd quarter of 2004 which was due October 15, 2004. I had to go back to the 30 days after General Election report from 2003 to find something other than missing reports or limited activity reports. At that time the report show $500 was raised and $1,266 was spent (I assume for the 2003 race) with only $385 on-hand. Kennedy is up for re-election in March 2007.

19 – Michael McMillan

N/A, now running for License Collector. I will cover McMillan when I look at other city-wide offices.

20 – Craig Schmid

Quarterly report due 7/17/2006 received on 7/18/2006, postmark date unknown. Submitted “limited activity” report which indicates no more than $500 was received or spent during quarterly reporting period. A limited activity report is common for many committees. Incorrectly lists election as the prior election in 4/2003, not the upcoming election in 3/2007. I had to go back to March 2003 to see that Schmid’s committee had $4,700 on hand. Schmid is up for re-election in March 2007.

21 – Bennice Jones King

Quarterly report received on 7/17/2006. Submitted “limited activity” report which indicates no more than $500 was received or spent during quarterly reporting period. A limited activity report is common for many committees. In looking through prior reports to find how much cash the committee had on hand I found some interesting stuff. This is by far the most suspect of all the committees.

The 2nd quarter report submitted in July 2005 indicates a negative $722.94 cash on hand and $6,237.14. First, the way the reports are set up you cannot possibly have negative cash on hand — at worst you can have zero. Unless of course you wrote checks and your account is overdrawn. I’m not clear in this case. For sake of argument lets just say they are in debt to the tune of $6,960.08. Ouch. But, things look up throughout the next few reports! The next quarterly report in October 2005 is a “limited activity” report, as is the following in January 2006. But, magically in the 1st quarter report from April 2006 they have received donations totaling $650 which is what they show as their cash on hand. Debt? Zero! Can someone with Ms. Jones-King please explain to me how you get from nearly $7,000 in debt to having $650 in the positive with “limited activity” in between time? I need to know the secret because I’ve got this pesky mortgage debt I’d like to get rid of…

22 – Jeffrey Boyd

The only alderman to file reports electronically rather than manually, bonus points! However, they didn’t file the report until the morning of 7/19 — two days late. All is in order including the correct next election date. Report shows $27,920 raised this election cycle with only $599 spent so far. Cash on hand is $28,146.27. Boyd is up for re-election in March 2007.

23 – Kathleen Hanrahan

Report received on time on 7/17/2006. Report mistakenly lists date of election as April 5, 2005 rather than upcoming election. Report shows $3,915 raised (all in this quarter), $2,584 spent with $5,859 cash on-hand; and debt of $9,366. Maybe Hanrahan should have a conversation with Jones-King about how to erase that debt?

24 – William Waterhouse

Report received well in advance of the 7/17/2006 due date by arriving on 7/10/2006. However the report is missing some key information including next election date and the candidate’s signature. Shows $2,566 on-hand; zero raised. Looks like they used the editable PDF forms which allow you to type in them, much neater than most of the handwritten forms. Waterhouse is up for re-election in March 2007.

25 – Dorothy Kirner

The report was received early on 7/14/2006 and includes the correct next election date. However, the cash on hand section is left blank! The report also lists activity from July even though the quarter is April-June.

26 – Frank Williamson

Quarterly report due 7/17/2006 received on 7/19/2006, postmark date unknown. It appears no report was filed at all for the first quarter. Report indicates the election date as “N/A”, the wrong answer. One contribution is listed in the amount of $650 but I can’t make out the name. The legal limit is $325. This may have been two people giving the maximum allowed but they should have written two checks, not combined onto one. Shows $7,300 received this quarter; $2,205 in expenses and ending cash on hand of $13,294. However, they also had $150 in contributions to other campaigns which they did not subtract from their cash on hand. Reporting period is random dates and not the exact quarter. Williamson is up for re-election in March 2007.

27 – Gregory Carter

Quarterly report due 7/17/2006 received on 7/18/2006, postmark date unknown. Report is missing election date. Raised zero since last election (April 2005), spent $540 leaving $1,184 on hand.

28 – Lyda Krewson

Quarterly report received early on 7/14/2006. Shows correct upcoming primary election and unlike most, is neatly typed. To my surprise Krewson has raised a mere $250 this election cycle! In the same nearly four years spent nearly $12K plus another $6500 in contributions to other campaigns. Despite the lack of fundraising, Krewson’s committee still has $18,675 on-hand. Krewson is up for re-election in March 2007.

I looked at many reports and don’t know that I caught all the errors. A common mistake that I didn’t cite often enough was the reporting period. Rather than indicate say April 1, 2006 – June 30, 2006 you’ll see things like April 9, 2006 – July 12, 2006. The fact some cannot grasp the dates for the quarter is scary considering they are running the city’s business.

The campaign reports are all public record but I didn’t link to each and every report simply due to lack of time. You are free to look up the same reports on your own time, click here for the Missouri Ethics search page.

– Steve

Vespa Petitioning to Convert Some Auto Parking to Two-Wheel Parking

Vespa is the most well known of scooter makers and you’ll see plenty of the Italian jobs on the streets of St. Louis. But they are also pretty determined to create an even bigger market for themselves and their competition. They realize parking is an issue keeping more people from using a small and efficient scooter over the family SUV. Enter the Vespa Petition, or Vespatition:

Parking for All! Sign the Vespatition to convert some automobile spaces to two-wheel spaces!

By signing the Vespatition, you are promoting the conversion of some automobile parking spaces to two-wheel spaces. The results will be publicized and sent to your local mayor.

Just as parking spaces for compact cars and handicapped parking stalls have increased efficiency and convenience in urban and suburban communities, officially designated two-wheel parking facilities can do the same.

Government agencies should consider removing the two-wheeler from the four-wheeler parking space and placing it in its own, scaled down zone. This is a simple concept that can be embraced by city councils, urban planners, local merchants, contractors, shopping center management and private businesses whenever parking for motor vehicles is provided.

Here are some suggestions for motorcycle/scooter parking that we are proposing:

Street-legal parking – convert a number of existing parking spaces every couple of streets to motorcycle/scooter parking

•Spaces can be metered or un-metered
•The smaller size of two-wheel vehicles allows them to fit into unoccupied areas on streets and sidewalks, creating efficiencies in urban planning and increasing city revenues (if metered).
•Six motorcycles, scooters or limited-access motorcycles carrying from six to twelve people can be parked in the area normally taken up by one automobile. If, however, no motorcycle parking facility is provided in the area, one would possibly find those six motorcycles occupying up to six separate automobile spaces.

Convert unused space – cement curbs of a certain size can be converted to two-wheel parking. A specialized parking area for motorcycles and scooters not only leaves more space for the automobiles, but also caters to the riders’ needs by providing a well-lit, convenient and secure location in which they may confidently leave their vehicle. Such facilities can be small in area and can usually be located near a building entrance or at the end of a parking island.

Parking garages – designate parking spaces in municipal garages for two-wheel vehicles. Create a more equitable rate structure for two-wheel vehicle parking in private garages.

Sidewalk parking – permit scooters and motorcycles to be parked in designated areas on sidewalks and locked to structures which currently accommodate bicycles.

Designating scooter/motorcycle parking is one of the most urban things we could do in the St. Louis region. This ranks up there with actually having designated bicycle racks! This petition from Vespa is part of their Vespanomics website — a platform on oil dependence and how two-wheel transportation can help with the issue. It only has a few links to their main website — it is not a thinly veiled attempt at the environment just to sell you a scooter. In fact, Vespa has done a good job overall about being inclusive of other competing brands.

Local and national government leaders are charged with establishing transportation policies that address both short-term and long-term problems, are environmentally responsible and truly benefit the American consumer. With the support of federal, state and local governments, new options like scootering can bring immediate and substantial economic and environmental benefits to Americans and the communities in which they live.

To facilitate the adoption of scootering, U.S. Mayors and other elected officials should consider providing dedicated parking for scooters and motorcycles.

Now is the time to broaden the dialogue about America’s addiction to oil and its dependency on foreign imports in a way that includes technological as well as behavioral solutions.

I ask that everyone of you reading this take a minute and click on the above link to sign the petition. Doesn’t matter if you have a scooter or not or where you live. Just fill out the form to help support a more friendly policy toward parking for two-wheeled vehicles.

Of course if Vespa sends this to Mayor Slay they are kinda wasting their time as the Mayor’s office has little control over parking in the city. Our planning agency has little say either! No, parking in St. Louis is the responsibility of the Treasurer! Yes, Treasurer. Presumably accounting types know best when it comes to parking. The logic being parking is a revenue source so that belongs to the Treasurer. Not sure when this became part of the city’s charter but it is F’d up if you ask me. Larry Williams has been Treasurer of St. Louis since 1981. As you might expect, he ran unchallenged in the last election in 2004.

While we are on parking, we need to switch from individual meters and marked spaces to the more free-flowing parking model of progressive cities and institute a “pay-n-display” system for paying. The reason is short cars like mine do not need anywhere near as much as a Chevy Suburban or a Hummer. With more and more shorter cars around we can likely squeeze in another space per block. With four sides to a block and a good 40 blocks in the CBD we could easily get another 160 cars right in front of local businesses. Of course, using some of this newfound space for scooter/motorcycle parking would be wise.

Related Prior Posts:
•St. Louis Region Needs to Address Parking for Scooters & Motorcycles, April 2006
•Parking on Washington Avenue — Finally!, February 2006

Again, please sign the Vespatition!

– Steve

Democrats Ignoring Best Way to Create Energy Independence

Earlier this week I received the following from Claire McCaskill, a candidate for U.S. Senate from Missouri:

ST. LOUIS — U.S. Senate Candidate Claire McCaskill will visit Fenton, Cape Girardeau, and New Madrid on Wednesday, July 19th, Macon, Columbia, Osage Beach, and Rolla on Thursday, July 20th, and Marshall, Kansas City, and Nevada on Friday, July 21st. Meeting with local farmers, consumers, and community members, she will discuss her plan to bring down the price of gas at the pump and end our dependence on Middle Eastern oil.

At a time when Missouri families are suffering from record gas prices, Claire believes we need to strive for energy independence. Our addiction to oil poses a threat not only to our pocketbooks, but to America’s national security as we rely on unstable regimes for our oil. A responsible energy plan will protect consumers, encourage alternative fuels, and reduce our reliance on oil through developing renewable sources of energy and improving end-use efficiency. It will also help revitalize Missouri’s rural economies.

“Now more than ever, it is necessary for the United States to get serious about energy independence,” said McCaskill. “Alternative and renewable energy sources offer the greatest hope for our energy security. Investment in these technologies will not only reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil, but also stimulate the Missouri economy since our state is a national leader in ethanol production.”

McCaskill’s plan for energy independence will feature detailed measures to protect consumers from price gouging, promote ethanol, alternative fuels, and renewable energy, increase fuel economy, and improve energy efficiency. When Claire goes to Washington, she will be a Senator on the side of Missouri farmers and consumers, not big oil.

“Bring down the price of gas at the pump?” Is she kidding? The “solutions” are what people want to hear — we’ll grow ethanol so farmers will be happy and everyone can keep driving their Hummer. Vote for us and everything will be just fine. BS! Re-read the above — not a single word about actually reducing the use of energy through increased mass transit or discouraging suburban sprawl. All the “solutions” are simply replacements for oil and perhaps modest improvements to the fuel efficiency of future new cars.

I’m going to vote for McCaskill simply because I believe Jim Talent represents an evil wing of the Republican party. But, I am not voting for her nor for the Democrats. The Democrats don’t want to tell the public the truth anymore than the Republicans do: we use too damn much energy as a society and we cannot afford to continue doing so!

– Steve

Time To Review Campaign Finance Reports

With a major primary election to be held August 8th many political eyes are focused on races such as the close contest for State Senate in the 4th District. I’m reading the news accounts on these races but that is not my focus when I visit the Missouri Ethics Commission website. Nope, I’m checking out local reports for all 28 aldermen, city-wide officials such the Comptroller and the various ward committees.

Others reporting on campaign reports simply look at the summary page and repeat how much was raised, how much as spent and how much is left. The predictable conclusion is supposed to be the candidate with the most money wins. Yawn.

Instead I’m digging through the many local reports to see who is giving to which candidate, do the reports jive from one candidate to another and are there any glaring conflict of interest issues. Right out of the gate I found one minor issue.

The July quarterly report (covering April, May & June) from the Dorothy Kirner campaign shows a $25 contribution to Jennifer Florida’s campaign in June and a $15 contribution in July. Well, the July contribution is a quarterly report too soon Ms. Kirner. But, the $25 contribution from June is valid. However, Jennifer Florida’s report for this quarter doesn’t show any receipts at all — not even the $25 from office-mate Dorothy Kirner.

[UPDATE 7/26/06 – In reading Kirner’s report closer I see the $25 was to FX Daly, not Florida. Only one contribution was reported by Kirner to Florida and that is in the current period we are in now which will be reported on October 15, 2006. My apologies to Ms. Florida for the error on my part. – SLP]

Reports were due at the Missouri Ethics Commission by July 15th. However, it looks like Freeman Bosley Sr. from the 3rd Ward has been distracted by the recent recall effort and has failed to submit a report. As of today the Missouri Ethics Commission does not show a report was received on behalf of Bosley or the 3rd Ward Democrats. Same is true for Terry Kennedy, Lewis Reed, Charles Quincy Troupe, and Dionne Flowers. A number of other reports were received after the July 15th deadline, including several today. Two aldermen, Flowers and Williamson, do not show any report submitted for the 1st Quarter due April 15th.

I’ll have a thorough report for you hopefully next week after I’ve had a chance to examine all the reports.

– Steve