Columbia Daily Trib Campaign Finance op-ed misses the mark

After reading through the article “Wealthy get their money’s worth from Missouri politicians” in the Columbia Post, it is striking to once again notice that critics of Rex Sinquefield’s spending methods fail to report the good reasons behind this spending, skipping instead to point out that Missouri should not be given over to only the opinions of the wealthy. This article in particular has a very negative connotation when reviewing Sinquefield’s ‘sincere’ motivations for donating money to politicians—alluding to that idea that his personal opinions are shaping laws at the drop of a hat. For one thing, politicians must be given some credit here, as each individual has his/her own ideals as well, and one would hope that we would elect people that would not be swayed by the views of constituents throwing money in their face, and not go against their personal views. Also, the article fails to review some of the areas that Sinquefield promotes through contributions, and to point out the outstanding results, especially in our failing education system, that can come about. By attaching negative words, the readers are led to believe that Sinquefield is not only shaping the state government singlehandedly, but also shaping it in a scandalous way. Shouldn’t well-informed, educated people who have lived in Missouri and who have seen the effects of its internal problems be the very people helping to make decisions? Sinquefield is not throwing money out at random, trying to get politicians to pass legislation making him benefit—one of his major goals is to reshape the struggling school system, that needs a budge in the right direction(like implementing school choice), and this is a selfless goal. The idea of fixing the school system, which will in turn fix other areas—crime and poverty—is not a new concept, as cities like Milwaukee have implanted things like school choice. If indeed, there is a direct correlation between the wealth’s donations and passing of legislation, then we must examine what exactly the interests of those donors are. And, it is usually not too difficult what these interests are. For Sinquefield, much of the interest he takes is in helping the poor and helpless in St. Louis get that funding or opportunity they need to succeed in life. If people are going to criticize the way in which donors “affect” passing legislation, they need to also to into account where exactly this money is going.