The Independent View: Court Challenges for Photo ID and Campaign Contribution Amendments Approved by Missouri Voters

Missouri voters overwhelmingly approved a change to the State Constitution that will reinstate Campaign Contribution limits.

Missouri known for having some of the most lax Campaign Finance laws in the Country, donors can spend millions to elect their chosen candidates, which some argue leads to those officials being beholden to their financial backers over their constituencies.

But that's about to change.

Supporters of the Amendment hailed their win Tuesday, saying it will help keep Elections from being influenced only by the wealthy. And in Missouri Elections without limits, candidates do raise significantly more money, but from fewer donors, indicating their contributors have deep pockets, and raise more money out of state.

But those against the cap argue that it prohibits free speech through political expression, that donors should be able to spend what they like on candidates so long as they disclose their contributions to the Missouri Ethics Commission.

They also contend that limits will actually lead to less transparency, as donors will merely shuffle money through Political Action Committees (PAC) that will eventually make its way to their chosen campaigns, behind closed doors and without oversight.

Amendment 2, which was approved by 70% of Missouri voters on Tuesday, sought to avoid some of those loopholes by not just limiting how much money donors can spend, but by barring money moving between Candidate Committees and prohibiting donations from out-of-state PACs, donations intended to conceal the source of the money, and direct contributions from corporations or labor unions.

Committees unaffiliated with a party or candidate can still spend freely for or against ballot issues and candidates, as well as received unlimited donations.

While advocates say the amendment’s victory will allow average voters to “take back their government,” some experts question how far the amendment will really go to stem the flow of big money into Missouri races.

“Money is like water in politics – it will find its way,” said Richard Reuben, an Expert in Campaign Finance law at the University of Missouri, who said limits often prevent the appearance of corruption without stopping corruption itself. “There are other vehicles that will enable you to get around them,” Reuben said.

More than 63% of voters on Tuesday also signed off on a proposal to change the State’s Constitution and mandate voters present Photo Identification before casting a ballot, making Missouri the 18th State to implement the controversial requirement.

According to the State Constitution, Ballot Initiatives that change the Constitution take effect 30 days after the Election. In the case of Photo IDs for voting, the referendum was tied to a law muscled through in the most recent Legislative session by Republican Legislators who argue the proposal will prevent Voter Fraud.

Now that voters have approved the change, the law passed by the Legislature will take effect in 2017. That Legislation lays out guidelines for the requirement, including a provision that will allow those without Photo Identification to sign a sworn statement affirming their identity before voting.

Democrats insist rampant Voter Fraud is a nonexistent problem, and that the requirement disenfranchises certain voters, including senior citizens, the poor and people of color.

Opponents sounded off after its approval Tuesday, saying Republicans pushed for a Constitutional change because it would be harder to challenge in Court. In September, Senate President Pro Tem Ron Richard, R-Joplin, admitted they “went the extra mile” by putting the policy before voters in November.

“Legislators pushed forward the effort to pass a confusing amendment in order to implement a restrictive photo ID law they knew was unconstitutional,” said Missouri State Conference of the NAACP President Nimrod Chapel.

Voting Rights Advocates, including the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, said they are examining how the law can be challenged. Courts in North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Texas have tossed similar laws on the grounds that they unfairly target voters of color.

The cap on contribution limits is also likely to be challenged in Court, though the Missouri Supreme Court ruled in September that voters deserved the chance to consider the proposal.