JEFFERSON CITY - The Missouri Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday in a case that could determine whether political donors can make unlimited contributions to candidates.

Earlier this year, Cole County Circuit Judge Richard Callahan rejected an attempt from a failed state representative candidate - James Trout of Webster Groves - to throw out a provision in state law allowing unlimited contributions.

The Missouri General Assembly passed a wide-ranging bill in 2006 that, among other things, counteracted an earlier initiative petition that imposed limits on campaign contributions. An amendment placed into the bill by Sen. Tim Green, D-St. Louis County, got the ball rolling in stripping out the limits.

Trout was successful at getting a ban on fundraising during the legislative session removed on constitutional grounds - something that Attorney General Jay Nixon’s office said he will not appeal. But Trout’s attorney was not successful at overturning the entire law. As a result, legislative candidates can now take unlimited contributions during the legislative session.

The plaintiffs in the case have made the argument that the bill’s title - in this case related to "ethics" - is overly broad and therefore unconstitutional.

"Here’s what happened: The legislature repealed contribution limits in this state, and I don’t know if anybody knew that happened," said Chuck Hatfield, an attorney for Trout, after the hearing. "They did it in a bill that was amended on the floor of the Senate with a Senate substitute that says, ‘Hey, we’re going to do some stuff about ethics.’ And I should say, I’m not sure that the general public, unfortunately, associates the word ‘ethics’ with politicians."

Alana Barragan-Scott, senior chief counsel for special litigation for Nixon, argued in court yesterday that there have been examples before when bills relating to "health services," "environmental control" and "transportation" were upheld. She argued that the bill in question - which contains provisions that deal with campaign finance and lobby regulations - fits that same mold.

"The bill there covered emergency response systems, underground storage tanks and asbestos," Barragan-Scott said during the hearing, referring to a piece of "environmental control" legislation that was upheld. "That title was not overbroad. Relating to environmental control was a fair title. That title put the public and the legislature on notice."

Ultimately, the case will determine whether a relatively new system of campaign finance law will stand or if the old system can go back into effect.

Proponents of the new law argue that the earlier system with limits still allowed donors to use Byzantine maneuvering to provide unlimited funds through campaign committees. These funds could potentially make their way piecemeal to a certain candidate or candidates.

But opponents have decried the current system for allowing one donor to give large amounts of money to a candidate. For example, one donor to Sen. Chris Koster’s probable campaign for attorney general gave the Harrisonville Republican $125,000.

Hatfield said that while Trout sees the new system as bad policy, the issue at hand is about a larger issue of poorly constructed legislation.

"Let’s deal with one subject at a time and let that subject rise and fall at the same time," Hatfield said.

The Supreme Court will deliberate on the case before rendering a decision.

Advertisement