The minute Missouri’s new law went into effect repealing election campaign contributions, big donations flowed into the coffers of the candidates for governor, not a pretty sight in many eyes.

Repeal advocates say big donors find ways around former limits anyway and the new law requires more disclosure. However, it does seem clear the limits had a quelling effect, and, as candidate Kenny Hulshof said during the debate, it would be better to have both limits and more disclosure.

His opponent, Jay Nixon, opposed repeal all along.

It’s not clear which candidate is helped or hurt by the new law. Initially, the largest gusher came into Hulshof’s campaign, but fat cats lurk everywhere, ready to help campaigns in both parties.

The basic question is: So what? Why should public policy forbid big donors from expressing their political preferences with money? The Supreme Court has said the ability to spend money in behalf of candidates is akin to free speech, refusing to allow spending limitations. Courts do allow limitations on donations.

The philosophy behind limits is simply to reduce the extraordinary influence particular donors might have. Our political system is healthier if candidates are beholden to large groups of citizens, none of whom is able to push to the front of the line merely by writing a check.

It’s true that under former limits big donors could split money among many supposedly separate lobbying groups, but even so, their effect was somewhat diluted.

It’s a tricky business. We like free-for-all elections, but we worry freedom is mushed out of shape when a few can exercise such extraordinary clout. Regardless of the gubernatorial outcome, the next legislature should take another look at campaign financing.

The Sapp rezoning

Landowner Karen Sapp once again was denied by the Boone County Commission in her bid to transfer three building lots of about 5 acres each to her children on her 108-acre parcel north of the airport. Her land is zoned A1, which allows only parceling into lots of 10 acres or more.

Sapp tried for A2 zoning, which allows 2½ acre lots. Then she tried to parcel off two smaller parcels for A2 zoning, but county authorities said no, agreeing with neighbors’ worries about excessive density.

Sapp had ignored suggestions that she should apply for planning development zoning of the entire tract.

In the last go-round, county Commissioner Skip Elkin went over to Sapp’s side, arguing "A2 is coming."

The underlying zoning principle here has to do with subdivision planning. The county has developed proper rules limiting subdivision zoning in rural areas where proper utility infrastructure is lacking, particularly wastewater treatment. In Sapp’s case, when and if she wants dense development, she should be in a position to petition for city annexation.

Meanwhile, she can and should abide by the 10-acre minimum intended to create lots large enough to contain on-site sewage disposal and to avoid the kind of density requiring more complicated and demanding standards for streets and gutters and the other amenities of proper subdivision development.

When A2 comes, it should be in the form of more comprehensive and better controlled subdivision development, not helter-skelter allowance for overly small lots in A1 areas.

When nobody around you seems to measure up,

it’s time to check your yardstick.

- Bill Lemley

Advertisement

Get your brain and body in shape. Food Wednesdays, Pulse Sundays and Sports daily. 13 weeks of everyday delivery for as little as 29¢ a day. Get the Tribune. Get a lot.