Campaign Finance Reform Lawsuit

By Bob Sullentrup

Search for more articles by or about this columnist

“Politics makes strange bedfellows”, a phrase first uttered by Charles Dudley Warner, a Connecticut newspaperman and neighbor of Mark Twain. It remains true in Missouri today.

Bevis Schock, the lawyer for the Republican Party in Missouri who runs the “Shrink Missouri Government” political action committee, proposed the MOLP enter into a lawsuit challenging campaign finance laws at the September 8 MO Libertarian Party Executive Committee meeting in Jefferson City.

Campaign finance laws restrict donations from individuals, political parties, PACs, businesses and other groups. Accordingly, the lawsuits may take one of many tacks, including filing on behalf of one or more of the plaintiffs named above.

The Republican Party has challenged the laws in federal court, but lost at the Supreme Court.

Moreover, according to Mr. Schock, “preclusion” prohibits the same plaintiff, the Republicans, from re-filing suit after they have lost, even if they have come up with new arguments.

Such is the case here according to Mr. Schock. Article 1, Section 8 of the Missouri Constitution states:

Article I

BILL OF RIGHTS

Freedom of speech--evidence of truth in defamation actions--province of jury.

Section 8. That no law shall be passed impairing the freedom of speech, no matter by what means communicated: that every person shall be free to say, write or publish, or otherwise communicate whatever he will on any subject, being responsible for all abuses of that liberty; and that in all suits and prosecutions for libel or slander the truth thereof may be given in evidence; and in suits and prosecutions for libel the jury, under the direction of the court, shall determine the law and the facts.

This is verbiage is stronger and clearer than the First Amendment in the US Constitution. It is an argument Mr. Schock did not make in the Republican’s suit. Article I, Section 8 provides a clear constitutional basis for filing suit, one overlooked earlier.

“I’m not here to deny that we screwed up when we overlooked this argument in our first set of lawsuits”, Mr. Schock explained, “but we screwed up when we overlooked this argument”.

Were the MO Libertarian Party to take on this case, it would be obligated to no more than $300 for filing fees, with any residual going to Mr. Schock to retain his services on our behalf.

The MO LP has no responsibility for additional legal fees to Mr. Schock in this matter. “The law is clear”, he said. “First, I do not have to get paid by the client to perform legal work, and second, the beneficiary does not have to be the one paying the bill”. Moreover, Mr. Schock has sources of income from other legal work that dwarfs his fees in this domain.

In addition, Mr. Schock has found contributors for $500 to Libertarian campaigns, and expects $1,000.

The Executive Committee was therefore faced with a decision whether to let Mr. Schock represent the LP in this case on those terms.

The Executive Committee questioned Mr. Schock at length, with the main concern being the possible public backlash of being perceived to be too close to the Republican Party and of the “stain” as some members perhaps indelicately though accurately put it. A media “investigative report” identifying a lawyer for the Republicans representing the Libertarians might cause harm as well.

The members wished to protect its position as a party unsoiled by the complications of contemporary politics, and stand as an agent to restore freedom, opportunity and honest, constitutional and limited government when the opportunity emerges.

The contradiction of the Republicans, at once collaborating with Democrats in producing these obnoxious campaign laws while subsequently having its own lawyers unsuccessfully litigating them, was not lost on the group.

The group hit on an at-arm’s-length solution by having Mr. Schock challenge the law on the basis of its constitutionality only, rather than rehashing the first set of arguments that had been defeated earlier.

Moreover, Chip Taylor, an Executive Committee member from Poplar Bluff who reads news reports daily and publishes an Internet compendium, expressed his view that such action by the Libertarians would not induce great harm. “It would likely pass under the radar screen anyway given its newsworthiness relative to the other events of the day and also given the low number of people who pay attention to such matters”, he explained.

Mr. Schock formerly had met with Greg Tlapek and Jim Higgins on this issue. Mr. Schock said he was a personal friend of Ken Bush.

In order to carry out this measure, the group needed to:

1. Retain Mr. Schock as its legal representative in this case
2. Fund a campaign to the maximum legal limit
3. Desire to fund an additional amount to that campaign, but be enjoined by law from doing so.

These conditions would establish the legal basis of a claim to challenge the law.

Accordingly:

Steve Schaper moved to pay $300 for a filing fee, with any residual being paid as a legal fee to Bevis Schock, for him to represent the MO LP in a suit to challenge the party contribution limits, thereby communicating to our candidates our desire to reaffirm our rights to support them, on the basis of Article 1 Section 8 of the MO Constitution.

The motion carried with George Mussmann voting no. (Mike Bellman who left early and would have transferred his vote to a proxy, would also have voted no).

Next,

George Mussmann moved to allocate the maximum contribution to Chip Taylor’s campaign for state rep. Wally Werner seconded. The motion carried.

The maximum amount is approximately $2,945. However, with Mr. Schock identifying Party donors for $1,000, the net amount would be reduced accordingly.

Finally,

Eric Harris moved to have the MO LP contribute an additional $100 to Chip Taylor’s campaign, were that possible under the law. Jerry Geier and George Mussmann seconded. Motion carried.

Chip Taylor, the beneficiary of these contributions, abstained from the last two votes.

Yes, "politics makes strange bedfellows," but the phrase is much older. The earliest reference seems to come from Shakespeare. Trinculo, a jester, says in the The Tempest, "Misery acquaints a man with strange bedfellows." (Act 2, Scene 2). As it goes with misery, so it goes in Missouri.