(Radio Iowa) - Iowa Congressman Randy Feenstra says the prospects for passage of a five-year Farm Bill are positive -- after the election. 

If no action is taken before the end of the year, the federal farm policies in place decades ago will go into effect -- meaning farmers will not get federal crop insurance subsidies, for example. Feenstra, a Republican from Hull, says key lawmakers have been meeting over the last few months and he has great hope congress will pass the Farm Bill in November or December. 

Ryan Melton of Webster City, the Democrat who's running against Feenstra, says he agrees the government needs to provide subsidies to farmers, but he says the Farm Bill needs to address water quality. Melton says with the significant increase in large-scale livestock operations in Iowa, it's time to consider federal regulations on how much manure and other farm chemicals can be applied to cropland.

(Radio Iowa) - Iowa Congressman Randy Feenstra says the prospects for passage of a five-year Farm Bill are positive -- after the election. If no action is taken before the end of the year, the federal farm policies in place decades ago will go into effect -- meaning farmers will not get federal crop insurance subsidies, for example. Feenstra, a Republican from Hull, says key lawmakers have been meeting over the last few months and he has great hope congress will pass the Farm Bill in November or December. Ryan Melton of Webster City, the Democrat who's running against Feenstra, says he agrees the government needs to provide subsidies to farmers, but he says the Farm Bill needs to address water quality. Melton says with the significant increase in large-scale livestock operations in Iowa, it's time to consider federal regulations on how much manure and other farm chemicals can be applied to cropland.

Congressman Feenstra has 'great hope' Farm Bill will be passed by year's end

With the Gulf Coast being ravaged by Hurricane's Helene and Milton, and the potential of Tropical Storm Nadine looming, the Buchanan County Sheriff's Office is warning of an increase in scam calls. 

Sheriff Bill Puett says this community is full of kind people with big hearts who want to help, but warns that if you do, know where your money is going

"Know where your effort is being put because there are people, and we've talked about a variety of different scams through the year, but any time we see a natural disaster we see an increase in scams and people calling and saying they're with this associaton or that associaton," Puett tells guest host Travis Dodge on the KFEQ Hotline.

Puett says researching and providing that assistance in the best ways is the best advice he can give, and someone asking for money over the phone is usually the biggest red flag.

Puett says this is a very giving community, but Puett says if you want to help make sure you know what you are doing

"That you know that process, that you have checked it and verified it, and of course we also know that there is Christmas and Thanksgiving coming up and there is a time and a season for giving, and we have a great community that gives and gives and gives all the time," Puett explains. 

When omes to scams in general, Puett says do not give out your personal information or click on any sorts of links in emails or on your phone. 

"You initiate and you know where things are going," Puett says. "When somebody calls up and says hey I need to verify your account information, well if you have my account then you should have the information in front of you, I shouldn't have to give you all the numbers and all those things, but people are intimidated because they're threatened."

Puett says to just make sure you protect yourself and research and verify before you donate to hurricane relief, or any sort of donation, to avoid being stolen from.

You can follow Matt on X @KfeqMatt and St. Joseph Post @StJosephPost.

By MATT PIKESt. Joseph PostWith the Gulf Coast being ravaged by Hurricane's Helene and Milton, and the potential of Tropical Storm Nadine looming, the Buchanan County Sheriff's Office is warning of an increase in scam calls. Sheriff Bill Puett says this community is full of kind people with big hearts who want to help, but warns that if you do, know where your money is going"Know where your effort is being put because there are people, and we've talked about a variety of different scams through the year, but any time we see a natural disaster we see an increase in scams and people calling and saying they're with this associaton or that associaton," Puett tells guest host Travis Dodge on the KFEQ Hotline.Puett says researching and providing that assistance in the best ways is the best advice he can give, and someone asking for money over the phone is usually the biggest red flag.Puett says this is a very giving community, but Puett says if you want to help make sure you know what you are doing"That you know that process, that you have checked it and verified it, and of course we also know that there is Christmas and Thanksgiving coming up and there is a time and a season for giving, and we have a great community that gives and gives and gives all the time," Puett explains. When omes to scams in general, Puett says do not give out your personal information or click on any sorts of links in emails or on your phone. "You initiate and you know where things are going," Puett says. "When somebody calls up and says hey I need to verify your account information, well if you have my account then you should have the information in front of you, I shouldn't have to give you all the numbers and all those things, but people are intimidated because they're threatened."Puett says to just make sure you protect yourself and research and verify before you donate to hurricane relief, or any sort of donation, to avoid being stolen from.You can follow Matt on X @KfeqMatt and St. Joseph Post @StJosephPost.

Sherriff Puett warns of scams in wake of hurricanes

Forty-seven Democratic members of Congress have asked Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Michael Regan to ban the use of the herbicide paraquat. The lawmakers, led by Texas Congressman Greg Casar, told Regan the chemical is particularly dangerous for farmworkers. The EPA says it has yet to find a scientific link between the use of the herbicide and Parkinson's disease. At the end of January 2024, EPA released a report on the ongoing review of paraquat. 

Due to the significant human health and environmental concerns associated with paraquat, roughly 70 countries have banned or discontinued the use of the chemical, including China, Brazil, the European Union, and Canada. Findings from researchers at UCLA found that paraquat sprayed within 500 meters of where people live and work can more than double a person's odds of developing Parkinson's disease.

Forty-seven Democratic members of Congress have asked Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Michael Regan to ban the use of the herbicide paraquat. The lawmakers, led by Texas Congressman Greg Casar, told Regan the chemical is particularly dangerous for farmworkers. The EPA says it has yet to find a scientific link between the use of the herbicide and Parkinson's disease. At the end of January 2024, EPA released a report on the ongoing review of paraquat. Due to the significant human health and environmental concerns associated with paraquat, roughly 70 countries have banned or discontinued the use of the chemical, including China, Brazil, the European Union, and Canada. Findings from researchers at UCLA found that paraquat sprayed within 500 meters of where people live and work can more than double a person's odds of developing Parkinson's disease.

Lawmakers ask EPA to ban paraquat

Some progressives are publicly calling for voters to oust two Supreme Court judges up for a retention vote next month over their dissent in a lawsuit placing abortion on the November ballot

BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/joshmerchant/">JOSH MERCHANT</a>

If three Missouri Supreme Court judges had their way, voters would not have a say on whether to legalize abortion statewide on this year’s general election ballot.

This November, those voters will have the option to use a power they’ve never used before — to boot two of those judges off the state’s high court.

Abortion rights groups turned in 380,000 signatures this summer for a state constitutional amendment that would establish a right to reproductive health care.

But then a Cole County circuit court judge ruled that their proposed amendment was too vague. That sent the case to the Missouri Supreme Court, which ultimately ruled that it met legal requirements in a 4-3 decision.

Now, the abortion amendment will appear on the ballot — alongside retention votes for two of those judges who dissented in the ruling that ultimately put the issue to a statewide vote.

To abortion-rights advocates like Jess Piper, it’s “instant karma.”

She is the executive director of Blue Missouri and ran unsuccessfully in 2022 to represent a district north of St. Joseph in the Missouri House of Representatives.

“You vote against us, and we can vote to not retain you,” she said. Piper will be voting not to retain Missouri Supreme Court judges Kelly Broniec and Ginger Gooch, who dissented last month in the decision to keep abortion on the ballot.

But some political and legal experts say advocates like Piper should brace for times when judges&nbsp;they like&nbsp;might get tossed off the court for their rulings.

It’d be a gamble. Kicking two judges off the Supreme Court is unprecedented in Missouri and would leave two open seats for the next governor to fill. Mounting a political campaign to remove two judges from the court, if successful, could shake the foundation of an institution that has been insulated from politics for 80 years.

“Be careful what you wish for,” said former state Supreme Court Chief Justice Michael Wolff. “You don’t know what you’re going to get on the other side.”

What judges Broniec and Gooch argued on the abortion petition case

The Supreme Court’s Sept. 10 decision put abortion back on the ballot.

Judges on both sides of the opinion contend the legal decision had nothing to do with abortion.

Rather, they say the case turned on a 1997 law that&nbsp;<a href="https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=116.050#:~:text=Each%20page%20of%20a%20referendum,which%20the%20referendum%20is%20sought." target="_blank">requires initiative petitions specify</a>&nbsp;what parts of Missouri statute or the state constitution would be repealed by a petition.

Anti-abortion groups said that Amendment 3 was not specific about what Missouri laws would be repealed by establishing a right to reproductive health care.

Abortion-rights groups, on the other hand, said that wasn’t required because the abortion amendment doesn’t actually repeal any laws — it simply adds a guarantee in the Missouri Constitution of access to abortion. If the amendment passes, Missouri’s abortion ban passed by the General Assembly will remain in effect until it’s challenged in court.

Ultimately, the courts could overturn some abortion restrictions — not the amendment itself.

The state&nbsp;<a href="https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=211775" target="_blank">Supreme Court ruled that the abortion amendment met the necessary legal requirements</a>&nbsp;to be on the ballot. Judge Paul Wilson also wrote in the majority opinion that requiring a petition to specify a list of laws to be repealed would be overly burdensome, making it functionally impossible to amend the constitution in the future.

In her dissenting opinion, Broniec wrote that the 1997 law requiring petitions to specify what laws would be repealed also includes laws that would be invalidated.

The abortion amendment clearly contradicts a handful of existing Missouri laws, she said, including the abortion ban that went into effect in June 2022, a law requiring a parent’s consent for minors to receive an abortion and a law requiring a 72-hour waiting period.

She said that this amendment — and any future amendment — wouldn’t have to list out every possible law that could be repealed. But, she argued, it should have listed the ones that were most obvious.

Gooch agreed with Broniec, as did Judge Zel Fischer, who is due to retire in 2033.

Both Gooch and Broniec declined to comment for this story. They are prohibited from publicly commenting on court issues under the state’s judicial code of conduct.

The 1940 ‘Missouri Plan’ to keep politics out of the Supreme Court

Unlike many other states, Missouri does not directly elect members of its Supreme Court. And to some experts, that’s a good thing.

The system of judge retention elections — rather than contested elections between two candidates —&nbsp;was created by an initiative petition in 1940 in response to an increasingly politicized court.

“There was a very ugly Missouri Supreme Court race between a Boss (Tom) Pendergast candidate and somebody else,” said Wolff, who is also former dean of St. Louis University School of Law.

Pendergast was a&nbsp;<a href="https://pendergastkc.org/articles/thomas-joseph-pendergast" target="_blank">political boss in the early 20th century</a>&nbsp;who controlled Kansas City Hall, the police department and even some statewide elections.

“If you wanted to be a judge in Jackson County or even on the Supreme Court of Missouri,” Wolff said, “a person you needed to go see was Boss Tom. That didn’t necessarily mean that you were going to be the best judge.”

But legal scholars at the time argued for a way to hold judges accountable when they misbehave or perform incompetently.

That created the “Missouri Plan” that nine other states copied and that 10 more followed roughly.

A judicial nominating commission —&nbsp;the chief justice, three members of the Missouri Bar Association and three nonlawyers picked by the governor —&nbsp;creates a list of potential nominees.

The governor then picks a nominee from that list to serve on the Supreme Court for one year before facing a retention election.

Judges who are retained face a retention election every 12 years until they retire at age 70.

No campaign to kick out a Supreme Court judge in Missouri has ever been successful.

Peverill Squire, a political science professor at the University of Missouri, said that although the governor has some say in who gets nominated, the nominating commission has successfully protected the court from partisan politics for the most part.

Gov. Mike Parson “has not been particularly aggressive in that regard,” he said. “They do have to go through the judicial nominating commission that might take some of the edge off of the heavy partisanship.”

Retention races can be a flashpoint for more partisan politics

Piper posted a video to TikTok shortly after the initiative petition Supreme Court decision, calling on voters to not retain Gooch and Broniec. The video has garnered more than 13,000 likes and 1,600 shares. Since then, she said she has met with voters who told her they wrote down the judges’ names so they’d remember in November.

“They’re really angry,” she said. “We didn’t just do the job, we killed it — 380,000 signatures when we only needed 180,000. It angers people across the political spectrum because you don’t have any right to take away my voice.”

Even if voters toss out the judges, Parson’s probable successor, Republican governor candidate Mike Kehoe, likely would replace them with two conservatives.

“He would appoint people in much the same manner that Parson did,” Piper said.

A&nbsp;<a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Ballotpedia_Courts:_State_Partisanship" target="_blank">Ballotpedia study in 2020</a>&nbsp;found that only three judges had lost retention out of 155 elections across the country since 2008. The other 98% percent won their races.

In nearby Iowa, voters&nbsp;<a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2010/11/03/131032419/iowa-judges-ousted" target="_blank">removed two judges from the Supreme Court when they were up for retention in 2010</a>&nbsp;after the court unanimously overturned the state’s ban on same-sex marriage in 2009.

A conservative Missouri group attempted to remove Supreme Court Judge Richard Teitelman in 2004. The campaign argued that Teitelman was opposed to the death penalty and in favor of abortion, and that he opposed the right to firearms.

Missouri Supreme Court judges are prohibited under the code of judicial conduct from making any public statements on how they would rule on any given issue. If they do, they must recuse themselves from any case involving those issues.

That backs judges into a corner in those targeted campaigns where they can’t effectively defend themselves against claims that they support or don’t support an issue.

“It was a campaign generated by the (prospective) speaker of the House,” Wolff said of the 2004 retention campaign. “He was targeting some districts where they were trying to gin up the conservative voters. I don’t think they knew or cared who Judge Teitelman was, but they could get people to the polls.”

About the Supreme Court judges on your ballot

Broniec was appointed to her position in 2023 by Missouri Gov. Mike Parson to replace retiring Judge George Draper III. She is facing her first retention election as Supreme Court judge to serve for a 12-year term.

Originally from Montgomery County, Broniec worked for a decade as a prosecuting attorney, then served for 17 years as a judge between the Montgomery County Circuit Court and the Eastern District Court of Appeals.

The Missouri Judicial Performance Review Committee said that Broniec&nbsp;<a href="https://yourmissourijudges.org/judges/kelly-broniec-2024/" target="_blank">meets performance standards</a>.

Gooch was appointed to the state Supreme Court judge in 2023 by Missouri Gov. Mike Parson to replace retiring Judge Patricia Breckenridge. She is facing her first retention election as Supreme Court judge to serve for a 12-year term.

Gooch served for one year as a judge on the Southern District Court of Appeals before her appointment to the Supreme Court. She was raised in Springfield and worked for 21 years as an attorney at Husch Blackwell LLP as general counsel for schools, hospitals and businesses. She has successfully&nbsp;<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20201028005108mp_/https://www.huschblackwell.com/professionals/ginger-gooch#overview" target="_blank">defended employers against discrimination claims</a>.

She has also worked as a Sunday school teacher and was involved with the parent-teacher association at her son’s schools.

The Missouri Judicial Performance Review Committee said that Gooch&nbsp;<a href="https://yourmissourijudges.org/judges/ginger-gooch-2024/" target="_blank">meets performance standards</a>.

This&nbsp;<a href="https://thebeaconnews.org/stories/2024/10/10/missouri-supreme-court-retention-amendment-2/" target="_blank">article</a>&nbsp;first appeared on&nbsp;<a href="https://thebeaconnews.org/" target="_blank">Beacon: Missouri</a>&nbsp;and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/10/1728928168669.png" alt=" The Missouri Supreme Court takes the bench on Sept. 10, 2024, in Jefferson City to hear a case questioning whether an amendment to overturn the state’s abortion ban will remain on the state’s November ballot. From left are Judges Kelly C. Broniec, Robin Ransom, W. Brent Powell, Chief Justice Mary R. Russell, Zel. M. Fischer, Paul C. Wilson and Ginger K. Gooch (Pool photo by Robert Cohen/St. Louis Post-Dispatch)." />
 <figcaption> The Missouri Supreme Court takes the bench on Sept. 10, 2024, in Jefferson City to hear a case questioning whether an amendment to overturn the state’s abortion ban will remain on the state’s November ballot. From left are Judges Kelly C. Broniec, Robin Ransom, W. Brent Powell, Chief Justice Mary R. Russell, Zel. M. Fischer, Paul C. Wilson and Ginger K. Gooch (Pool photo by Robert Cohen/St. Louis Post-Dispatch).</figcaption>
 </figure><h2>Some progressives are publicly calling for voters to oust two Supreme Court judges up for a retention vote next month over their dissent in a lawsuit placing abortion on the November ballot</h2>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/joshmerchant/">JOSH MERCHANT</a>If three Missouri Supreme Court judges had their way, voters would not have a say on whether to legalize abortion statewide on this year’s general election ballot.This November, those voters will have the option to use a power they’ve never used before — to boot two of those judges off the state’s high court.Abortion rights groups turned in 380,000 signatures this summer for a state constitutional amendment that would establish a right to reproductive health care.But then a Cole County circuit court judge ruled that their proposed amendment was too vague. That sent the case to the Missouri Supreme Court, which ultimately ruled that it met legal requirements in a 4-3 decision.Now, the abortion amendment will appear on the ballot — alongside retention votes for two of those judges who dissented in the ruling that ultimately put the issue to a statewide vote.To abortion-rights advocates like Jess Piper, it’s “instant karma.”She is the executive director of Blue Missouri and ran unsuccessfully in 2022 to represent a district north of St. Joseph in the Missouri House of Representatives.“You vote against us, and we can vote to not retain you,” she said. Piper will be voting not to retain Missouri Supreme Court judges Kelly Broniec and Ginger Gooch, who dissented last month in the decision to keep abortion on the ballot.But some political and legal experts say advocates like Piper should brace for times when judges&nbsp;they like&nbsp;might get tossed off the court for their rulings.It’d be a gamble. Kicking two judges off the Supreme Court is unprecedented in Missouri and would leave two open seats for the next governor to fill. Mounting a political campaign to remove two judges from the court, if successful, could shake the foundation of an institution that has been insulated from politics for 80 years.“Be careful what you wish for,” said former state Supreme Court Chief Justice Michael Wolff. “You don’t know what you’re going to get on the other side.”<h2>What judges Broniec and Gooch argued on the abortion petition case</h2>The Supreme Court’s Sept. 10 decision put abortion back on the ballot.Judges on both sides of the opinion contend the legal decision had nothing to do with abortion.Rather, they say the case turned on a 1997 law that&nbsp;<a href="https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=116.050#:~:text=Each%20page%20of%20a%20referendum,which%20the%20referendum%20is%20sought." target="_blank">requires initiative petitions specify</a>&nbsp;what parts of Missouri statute or the state constitution would be repealed by a petition.Anti-abortion groups said that Amendment 3 was not specific about what Missouri laws would be repealed by establishing a right to reproductive health care.Abortion-rights groups, on the other hand, said that wasn’t required because the abortion amendment doesn’t actually repeal any laws — it simply adds a guarantee in the Missouri Constitution of access to abortion. If the amendment passes, Missouri’s abortion ban passed by the General Assembly will remain in effect until it’s challenged in court.Ultimately, the courts could overturn some abortion restrictions — not the amendment itself.The state&nbsp;<a href="https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=211775" target="_blank">Supreme Court ruled that the abortion amendment met the necessary legal requirements</a>&nbsp;to be on the ballot. Judge Paul Wilson also wrote in the majority opinion that requiring a petition to specify a list of laws to be repealed would be overly burdensome, making it functionally impossible to amend the constitution in the future.In her dissenting opinion, Broniec wrote that the 1997 law requiring petitions to specify what laws would be repealed also includes laws that would be invalidated.The abortion amendment clearly contradicts a handful of existing Missouri laws, she said, including the abortion ban that went into effect in June 2022, a law requiring a parent’s consent for minors to receive an abortion and a law requiring a 72-hour waiting period.She said that this amendment — and any future amendment — wouldn’t have to list out every possible law that could be repealed. But, she argued, it should have listed the ones that were most obvious.Gooch agreed with Broniec, as did Judge Zel Fischer, who is due to retire in 2033.Both Gooch and Broniec declined to comment for this story. They are prohibited from publicly commenting on court issues under the state’s judicial code of conduct.<h2>The 1940 ‘Missouri Plan’ to keep politics out of the Supreme Court</h2>Unlike many other states, Missouri does not directly elect members of its Supreme Court. And to some experts, that’s a good thing.The system of judge retention elections — rather than contested elections between two candidates —&nbsp;was created by an initiative petition in 1940 in response to an increasingly politicized court.“There was a very ugly Missouri Supreme Court race between a Boss (Tom) Pendergast candidate and somebody else,” said Wolff, who is also former dean of St. Louis University School of Law.Pendergast was a&nbsp;<a href="https://pendergastkc.org/articles/thomas-joseph-pendergast" target="_blank">political boss in the early 20th century</a>&nbsp;who controlled Kansas City Hall, the police department and even some statewide elections.“If you wanted to be a judge in Jackson County or even on the Supreme Court of Missouri,” Wolff said, “a person you needed to go see was Boss Tom. That didn’t necessarily mean that you were going to be the best judge.”But legal scholars at the time argued for a way to hold judges accountable when they misbehave or perform incompetently.That created the “Missouri Plan” that nine other states copied and that 10 more followed roughly.A judicial nominating commission —&nbsp;the chief justice, three members of the Missouri Bar Association and three nonlawyers picked by the governor —&nbsp;creates a list of potential nominees.The governor then picks a nominee from that list to serve on the Supreme Court for one year before facing a retention election.Judges who are retained face a retention election every 12 years until they retire at age 70.No campaign to kick out a Supreme Court judge in Missouri has ever been successful.Peverill Squire, a political science professor at the University of Missouri, said that although the governor has some say in who gets nominated, the nominating commission has successfully protected the court from partisan politics for the most part.Gov. Mike Parson “has not been particularly aggressive in that regard,” he said. “They do have to go through the judicial nominating commission that might take some of the edge off of the heavy partisanship.”<h2>Retention races can be a flashpoint for more partisan politics</h2>Piper posted a video to TikTok shortly after the initiative petition Supreme Court decision, calling on voters to not retain Gooch and Broniec. The video has garnered more than 13,000 likes and 1,600 shares. Since then, she said she has met with voters who told her they wrote down the judges’ names so they’d remember in November.“They’re really angry,” she said. “We didn’t just do the job, we killed it — 380,000 signatures when we only needed 180,000. It angers people across the political spectrum because you don’t have any right to take away my voice.”Even if voters toss out the judges, Parson’s probable successor, Republican governor candidate Mike Kehoe, likely would replace them with two conservatives.“He would appoint people in much the same manner that Parson did,” Piper said.A&nbsp;<a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Ballotpedia_Courts:_State_Partisanship" target="_blank">Ballotpedia study in 2020</a>&nbsp;found that only three judges had lost retention out of 155 elections across the country since 2008. The other 98% percent won their races.In nearby Iowa, voters&nbsp;<a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2010/11/03/131032419/iowa-judges-ousted" target="_blank">removed two judges from the Supreme Court when they were up for retention in 2010</a>&nbsp;after the court unanimously overturned the state’s ban on same-sex marriage in 2009.A conservative Missouri group attempted to remove Supreme Court Judge Richard Teitelman in 2004. The campaign argued that Teitelman was opposed to the death penalty and in favor of abortion, and that he opposed the right to firearms.Missouri Supreme Court judges are prohibited under the code of judicial conduct from making any public statements on how they would rule on any given issue. If they do, they must recuse themselves from any case involving those issues.That backs judges into a corner in those targeted campaigns where they can’t effectively defend themselves against claims that they support or don’t support an issue.“It was a campaign generated by the (prospective) speaker of the House,” Wolff said of the 2004 retention campaign. “He was targeting some districts where they were trying to gin up the conservative voters. I don’t think they knew or cared who Judge Teitelman was, but they could get people to the polls.”<h2>About the Supreme Court judges on your ballot</h2><h2>Kelly Broniec</h2>Broniec was appointed to her position in 2023 by Missouri Gov. Mike Parson to replace retiring Judge George Draper III. She is facing her first retention election as Supreme Court judge to serve for a 12-year term.Originally from Montgomery County, Broniec worked for a decade as a prosecuting attorney, then served for 17 years as a judge between the Montgomery County Circuit Court and the Eastern District Court of Appeals.The Missouri Judicial Performance Review Committee said that Broniec&nbsp;<a href="https://yourmissourijudges.org/judges/kelly-broniec-2024/" target="_blank">meets performance standards</a>.<h2>Ginger Gooch</h2>Gooch was appointed to the state Supreme Court judge in 2023 by Missouri Gov. Mike Parson to replace retiring Judge Patricia Breckenridge. She is facing her first retention election as Supreme Court judge to serve for a 12-year term.Gooch served for one year as a judge on the Southern District Court of Appeals before her appointment to the Supreme Court. She was raised in Springfield and worked for 21 years as an attorney at Husch Blackwell LLP as general counsel for schools, hospitals and businesses. She has successfully&nbsp;<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20201028005108mp_/https://www.huschblackwell.com/professionals/ginger-gooch#overview" target="_blank">defended employers against discrimination claims</a>.She has also worked as a Sunday school teacher and was involved with the parent-teacher association at her son’s schools.The Missouri Judicial Performance Review Committee said that Gooch&nbsp;<a href="https://yourmissourijudges.org/judges/ginger-gooch-2024/" target="_blank">meets performance standards</a>.This&nbsp;<a href="https://thebeaconnews.org/stories/2024/10/10/missouri-supreme-court-retention-amendment-2/" target="_blank">article</a>&nbsp;first appeared on&nbsp;<a href="https://thebeaconnews.org/" target="_blank">Beacon: Missouri</a>&nbsp;and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

Abortion decision weighs heavily on Missouri Supreme Court judge retention races

(Radio Iowa) - Thirty Iowa cities have entered a state contest to win a large-scale public mural for their community. 

The design and painting will be done by Iowa Thomas Agran who has been commissioned by non-profits, cities and corporations to do over 50 murals in the past decade. 

Each city competing for a mural submitted a one-minute video to showcase the attributes of their town. Online voting to determine the three finalists ends tomorrow (Tuesday) at 5 p.m.

(Radio Iowa) - Thirty Iowa cities have entered a state contest to win a large-scale public mural for their community. The design and painting will be done by Iowa Thomas Agran who has been commissioned by non-profits, cities and corporations to do over 50 murals in the past decade. Each city competing for a mural submitted a one-minute video to showcase the attributes of their town. Online voting to determine the three finalists ends tomorrow (Tuesday) at 5 p.m.

30 Iowa cities vie for a large-scale mural installation

(Radio Iowa) - The South Korean author who won the 2024 Nobel Prize for Literature spent time in Iowa in 1998. 

Han Kang was a writer in residence at the International Writing Program at the University of Iowa. Christopher Merrill (MAIR-ull), program's director, says Kang started out as a poet and her novels show she has a musical understanding of what a sentence can do for a story. 

Six of Kang's novels have been translated into English. Kang is the third alum of the University of Iowa's International Writing Program to win the Nobel Prize in Literature.

(Radio Iowa) - The South Korean author who won the 2024 Nobel Prize for Literature spent time in Iowa in 1998. Han Kang was a writer in residence at the International Writing Program at the University of Iowa. Christopher Merrill (MAIR-ull), program's director, says Kang started out as a poet and her novels show she has a musical understanding of what a sentence can do for a story. Six of Kang's novels have been translated into English. Kang is the third alum of the University of Iowa's International Writing Program to win the Nobel Prize in Literature.

Alum of University of Iowa program wins Nobel Prize

Lawyer questions company’s claim of a bird flu outbreak

BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/clarkkauffman/">CLARK KAUFFMAN</a>&nbsp;

A group of Midwest egg suppliers are embroiled in litigation over egg prices, with an Iowa company arguing it shouldn’t be forced to disclose its pricing information.

A central element of the case is whether a fabricated claim of a bird flu outbreak is to blame for one supplier raising its egg prices and canceling orders.

Grand Prairie Foods of South Dakota, which supplies hotels and convenience stores with breakfast sandwiches, is suing Echo Lake Foods, a Wisconsin company that manufactures precooked egg entrees, for breach of contract and unjust enrichment.

At the same time, a third company, Oskaloosa Food Products in Iowa, is attempting to quash a subpoena for company records related to its pricing.

Court records indicate Grand Prairie has purchased egg patties and other products from Echo Lake since at least 2005. In early 2022, Echo Lake’s supplier of raw eggs experienced an outbreak of avian influenza, commonly known as the bird flu, resulting in the destruction of more than 6 million laying hens.

Echo Lake then notified its customers, including Grand Prairie, that existing purchase orders for egg patties and other egg products would have to be revised to reflect increased pricing.

According to Grand Prairie’s lawsuit, Echo Lake Foods then doubled the price of its egg patties, and while the nationwide market price of eggs eventually decreased, Echo Lake allegedly refused to reduce the price of its egg patties.

Court exhibits show that on July 12, 2022, Grand Prairie’s president, Kurt Loudenback, e-mailed Echo Lake’s director of national sales, Justin Milbradt, writing, “Justin – I don’t understand why we continue to see these high prices,” noting that Grand Prairie could purchase eggs from other suppliers at a significantly lower price. “I’m sure you buy WAY more eggs than we do,” Loudenback added.

The next day, Loudenback emailed Echo Lake again, proposing that his company sell tankers of whole eggs to Echo Lake for $1.28 per pound — significantly less than the $3.60 per pound Echo Lake was charging Grand Prairie for its finished egg products.

“Just trying to get your eggs at (a) lower price to lower my cost,” Loudenback explained in his email. “$3.60 seems pretty high for a $1.28 input cost.”

The two companies eventually agreed on an arrangement whereby Grand Prairie would sell two truckloads of raw eggs each week to Echo Lake. Court records show Echo Lake agreed to pay a “premium price,” $1.70 per pound, for the raw eggs from Grand Prairie. In return, the records show, Echo Lake would sell the finished, processed eggs back to Grand Prairie for $3.60 per pound — the same price Grand Prairie had previously objected to as being out of line with market prices.

Within a few months, however, Grand Prairie told Echo Lake that an avian flu outbreak had affected its egg supplier, Oskaloosa Food Products, and so Grand Prairie would have to raise its prices. A few weeks later, Grand Prairie said it was unable to find a new supplier and wouldn’t be able to fulfill Echo Lake’s orders.

Echo Lake then began acquiring eggs elsewhere — but at a higher price. In court documents, Echo Lake says Grand Prairie’s failure to deliver eggs at the promised price cost Echo Lake more than $1.1 million.

Court exhibits show that in an effort to offset the added expense, Echo Lake withheld payments to Grand Prairie totaling $567,460. Grand Prairie then sued Echo Lake to recover the $567,460 it was owed, alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment.

Echo Lake countersued, claiming Grand Prairie had breached the contract.

Recently filed court records show that attorneys for Echo Lake are questioning Grand Prairie’s stated rationale for its price hike and the eventual cancellation of orders — an avian flu outbreak that affected the Oskaloosa plant.

In July, an Echo Lake attorney wrote to a lawyer for Oskaloosa Food Products, stating that while “Grand Prairie claims it had no choice other than to cancel the remaining purchase orders because of an outbreak of avian influenza among its suppliers, including Oskaloosa,” an independent investigation had concluded Oskaloosa reported no such outbreak at that time, despite legal requirements for such reporting.

In addition, the lawyer wrote, the chief operating officer of the Oskaloosa plant had confirmed for Echo Lake that “Oskaloosa did not experience the Al outbreak described by Grand Prairie.”

In late May, Echo Lake subpoenaed Oskaloosa Food Products to obtain access to the contract between Grand Prairie and the Oskaloosa company.

Oskaloosa has since filed a motion to quash that subpoena, arguing the agreement includes trade secrets. Echo Lake has responded in court by arguing that the price of eggs is not a trade secret.

That issue is now before a judge in the U.S. District Court for Southern Iowa, while the underlying lawsuit between Grand Prairie and Echo Lake continues to move forward in South Dakota federal court.

Iowa Capital Dispatch, a States Newsroom affiliate,&nbsp;<a href="https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/2024/10/11/egg-suppliers-battle-over-pricing-claims-of-bird-flu-outbreak/" target="_blank">produced this story</a>.

<h2>Lawyer questions company’s claim of a bird flu outbreak</h2>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/clarkkauffman/">CLARK KAUFFMAN</a>&nbsp;A group of Midwest egg suppliers are embroiled in litigation over egg prices, with an Iowa company arguing it shouldn’t be forced to disclose its pricing information.A central element of the case is whether a fabricated claim of a bird flu outbreak is to blame for one supplier raising its egg prices and canceling orders.Grand Prairie Foods of South Dakota, which supplies hotels and convenience stores with breakfast sandwiches, is suing Echo Lake Foods, a Wisconsin company that manufactures precooked egg entrees, for breach of contract and unjust enrichment.At the same time, a third company, Oskaloosa Food Products in Iowa, is attempting to quash a subpoena for company records related to its pricing.Court records indicate Grand Prairie has purchased egg patties and other products from Echo Lake since at least 2005. In early 2022, Echo Lake’s supplier of raw eggs experienced an outbreak of avian influenza, commonly known as the bird flu, resulting in the destruction of more than 6 million laying hens.Echo Lake then notified its customers, including Grand Prairie, that existing purchase orders for egg patties and other egg products would have to be revised to reflect increased pricing.According to Grand Prairie’s lawsuit, Echo Lake Foods then doubled the price of its egg patties, and while the nationwide market price of eggs eventually decreased, Echo Lake allegedly refused to reduce the price of its egg patties.Court exhibits show that on July 12, 2022, Grand Prairie’s president, Kurt Loudenback, e-mailed Echo Lake’s director of national sales, Justin Milbradt, writing, “Justin – I don’t understand why we continue to see these high prices,” noting that Grand Prairie could purchase eggs from other suppliers at a significantly lower price. “I’m sure you buy WAY more eggs than we do,” Loudenback added.The next day, Loudenback emailed Echo Lake again, proposing that his company sell tankers of whole eggs to Echo Lake for $1.28 per pound — significantly less than the $3.60 per pound Echo Lake was charging Grand Prairie for its finished egg products.“Just trying to get your eggs at (a) lower price to lower my cost,” Loudenback explained in his email. “$3.60 seems pretty high for a $1.28 input cost.”The two companies eventually agreed on an arrangement whereby Grand Prairie would sell two truckloads of raw eggs each week to Echo Lake. Court records show Echo Lake agreed to pay a “premium price,” $1.70 per pound, for the raw eggs from Grand Prairie. In return, the records show, Echo Lake would sell the finished, processed eggs back to Grand Prairie for $3.60 per pound — the same price Grand Prairie had previously objected to as being out of line with market prices.Within a few months, however, Grand Prairie told Echo Lake that an avian flu outbreak had affected its egg supplier, Oskaloosa Food Products, and so Grand Prairie would have to raise its prices. A few weeks later, Grand Prairie said it was unable to find a new supplier and wouldn’t be able to fulfill Echo Lake’s orders.Echo Lake then began acquiring eggs elsewhere — but at a higher price. In court documents, Echo Lake says Grand Prairie’s failure to deliver eggs at the promised price cost Echo Lake more than $1.1 million.Court exhibits show that in an effort to offset the added expense, Echo Lake withheld payments to Grand Prairie totaling $567,460. Grand Prairie then sued Echo Lake to recover the $567,460 it was owed, alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment.Echo Lake countersued, claiming Grand Prairie had breached the contract.<h2>Was company’s bird-flu claim false?</h2>Recently filed court records show that attorneys for Echo Lake are questioning Grand Prairie’s stated rationale for its price hike and the eventual cancellation of orders — an avian flu outbreak that affected the Oskaloosa plant.In July, an Echo Lake attorney wrote to a lawyer for Oskaloosa Food Products, stating that while “Grand Prairie claims it had no choice other than to cancel the remaining purchase orders because of an outbreak of avian influenza among its suppliers, including Oskaloosa,” an independent investigation had concluded Oskaloosa reported no such outbreak at that time, despite legal requirements for such reporting.In addition, the lawyer wrote, the chief operating officer of the Oskaloosa plant had confirmed for Echo Lake that “Oskaloosa did not experience the Al outbreak described by Grand Prairie.”In late May, Echo Lake subpoenaed Oskaloosa Food Products to obtain access to the contract between Grand Prairie and the Oskaloosa company.Oskaloosa has since filed a motion to quash that subpoena, arguing the agreement includes trade secrets. Echo Lake has responded in court by arguing that the price of eggs is not a trade secret.That issue is now before a judge in the U.S. District Court for Southern Iowa, while the underlying lawsuit between Grand Prairie and Echo Lake continues to move forward in South Dakota federal court.Iowa Capital Dispatch, a States Newsroom affiliate,&nbsp;<a href="https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/2024/10/11/egg-suppliers-battle-over-pricing-claims-of-bird-flu-outbreak/" target="_blank">produced this story</a>.

 Egg suppliers battle over pricing, claims of bird flu outbreak

Backers of legalized sports wagering say the money will boost public education. Its detractors argue there is no evidence Missouri schools will see much benefit at all

BY:&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/rudi-keller/">RUDI KELLER</a> <a href="https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/missouri-senate-committee-advances-bill-to-ban-texting-while-driving/">Missouri Independent</a>

It’s time to bet the over-under on how much will be spent this year on gambling ballot measures in Missouri.

A good mark might be $60 million. Online bookies poured $32 million so far into the Amendment 2 campaign to&nbsp;<a href="https://www.sos.mo.gov/CMSImages/Elections/Petitions/2024-160.pdf" target="_blank">legalize sports betting</a>, and a casino company grumpy about the deal countered with $14 million to defeat it.

The campaign for Amendment 5, to authorize a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.sos.mo.gov/CMSImages/Elections/Petitions/2024-165.pdf" target="_blank">new casino at the Lake of the Ozarks</a>, adds $9.4 million — bringing the total to more than $55 million.&nbsp;

Winning for Missouri Education, the Amendment 2 campaign funded by DraftKings and FanDuel, has already set a record for the most money donated to a ballot measure campaign. The previous record was $31 million raised by supporters of a 2006 proposal to protect stem cell research.&nbsp;

The initiative campaign began with&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/01/12/st-louis-cardinals-lead-missouris-major-teams-to-launch-initiative-on-sports-betting/">vocal support from major professional sports teams</a>&nbsp;but none have contributed any cash for the effort.

“It is a large state, with a lot of TV markets, so it certainly takes resources to get your message out,” said Jack Cardetti, spokesman for the campaign. “But the most important thing is that you have a good message and a good initiative for voters.”

Caesars Entertainment is the casino company that dislikes the proposal enough to spend big against it. Caesars employs 2,000 people in Missouri and has a branded online sports betting platform that competes with FanDuel and DraftKings.&nbsp;

The proposal will mainly benefit the online platforms that have no significant presence in the state, said Brooke Foster, spokeswoman for Missourians Against the Deceptive Online Gambling Amendment.

“Obviously they’re not opposed to sports betting,” she said of Caesars’ opposition to Amendment 2. “If it were written in a way that would actually benefit Missouri and Missourians in a more substantial way, it would be different.”

The Amendment 5 campaign cost is being split between Bally’s Corp., which hopes to get the new license, and developer RIS Inc., which holds the land to build it.

“For us, without any organized opposition that we’re aware of, it’s simply a matter of educating the voters about what our amendment does,” said Ed Rhode, a consultant working with the YesOn5 committee. “And what we’re seeing is the more educated they become about this issue, the more likely they are to support it.”

Whether the broadcast spending on the gambling measure exceeds spending by statewide candidates would be an interesting side bet. So far, candidates for statewide office have spent $13.1 million on broadcast time, as tracked by The Independent, while the gambling campaigns have spent $13.7 million.

All three major efforts focus their messages on one issue – education funding.&nbsp;

Winning for Missouri Education promises that sports wagering will net more than $100 million for education programs over the first five years.&nbsp;

“Legalizing sports betting will generate tens of millions of dollars every year for our classrooms, helping increase teacher pay,”&nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1qEJMgz6_M" target="_blank">one ad states</a>.

The Caesars-funded opposition challenges the sincerity of that promise, arguing write-offs and other carve-outs mean the result will be insignificant.&nbsp;

It is “Lottery 2.0,”&nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_rRSzOpx-E" target="_blank">one ad states</a>.

“Teachers were told the lottery would raise a lot of money for schools, but that didn’t happen,” the ad begins.

The casino at the Lake of the Ozarks is also selling educational benefits and does so by including language directing all the tax money to early childhood literacy programs in public schools.

The $14.3 million estimate for revenue is “53% more funding for childhood literacy across Missouri, without raising taxes,” the&nbsp;<a href="https://vimeo.com/1017621286" target="_blank">campaign’s ad states</a>.

As the election nears, Winning for Missouri Education is adding a new message — sports betting is already occurring and Missouri isn’t getting any benefit. Hundreds of thousands of Missourians&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2023/02/08/lawmakers-renew-push-to-legalize-sports-wagering-in-missouri/">already have accounts</a>&nbsp;with online platforms. All it takes to place a legal bet is cross into a state where it is legal — a list that&nbsp;<a href="https://www.actionnetwork.com/news/legal-sports-betting-united-states-projections" target="_blank">includes every state bordering Missouri</a>&nbsp;except Oklahoma.&nbsp;

“Let’s fund education is the more effective argument,” said Terry Smith, a political science professor at Columbia College.“The argument that is less explicitly made, but I’ve heard from a lot of people, is that people are going to gamble on sports, and right now Kansas and states that we border are making all the money. Why shouldn’t we get our share?”

If voters legalize sports betting, the Missouri Gaming Commission could issue up to 14 licenses for online wagers. Six would go to the major sports teams, six would go to the casino operators and two would be reserved for online bookmakers.

Each of the 13 casinos and each of the sports teams could also operate an in-person, retail sports betting operation on their properties.

The push to legalize sports wagering in Missouri began after the U.S. Supreme Court&nbsp;<a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2018/05/opinion-analysis-justices-strike-down-federal-sports-gambling-law/" target="_blank">struck down the federal law</a>&nbsp;against wagering on sporting events in 2018. More than 35 states have legalized some form of the gambling since the court decision.

In the bill that was the closest lawmakers ever got to a<a href="https://documents.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills231/hlrbillspdf/1472H.03P.pdf" target="_blank">&nbsp;resolution of the issue</a>, there were no licenses for independent online bookmakers like DraftKings or FanDuel. Instead, the online platforms would have had to provide products branded to a sports team or casino.

The online platforms generate the cash. An&nbsp;<a href="https://yeson2mo.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/EK-WME-MOForecastingReport-Aug24-V1.4.pdf" target="_blank">economic study</a>&nbsp;produced for Winning for Missouri Education estimates that $21.8 billion will be wagered during the first five years after legalization and more than 98% of the bets will be placed online.

That same study pegs the net to the state over that period at $134 million. Revenue in the fifth year is estimated at $38.7 million, about $10 million more than the maximum annual revenue projected by the fiscal note for the ballot measure.

Questioning the quality of those revenue estimates is a major thrust of the opposition campaign. The proposal before voters sets the tax at 10% of the net revenue — the money lost on wagers that don’t pay out.

But before the tax is applied, the operators would be able to deduct promotional giveaways — the inducements such as free bets to join a platform — as well as applicable federal taxes. Before any money gets to education programs, the initiative sets aside $5 million annually to support help for problem gamblers.

The figures presented in the economic study result in an effective tax rate of 1.4% of actual losses in the first year and 6.9% in the fifth year. As Missouri nets $134 million, those figures show the gambling operators would keep $86 million in tax savings due to write-offs.

“We want the state to be getting lots of revenue off this,” Cardetti said. “But to get people over from the illicit sports betting market or from going over to other states, those promotional credits in the early days are important, but they end up netting the state more revenue in the long run.”

Kansas, which legalized sports betting in September 2022, has received $19.4 million in tax revenue on $4.4 billion wagered, according to&nbsp;<a href="https://www.kslottery.com/publications/sports-monthly-detail/" target="_blank">data from the Kansas Lottery</a>.

The promotional credits would be capped at 25% of the amount wagered, Cardetti noted, a limit that is not in place in Kansas.

The ads that emphasize Missouri could receive no net revenue from sports wagering is based on the fiscal note estimate, Foster said. The range listed there is zero to $28.9 million annually.

“It’s basically taxpayers subsidizing their marketing,” she said. “Because that’s a marketing tool for them to give you $1,000 to match what’s in your account. But then they are, on paper, in the red.”

Caesars opposes the amendment in part because it does not allow the company to offer online platforms branded to its Missouri properties — Harrah’s Kansas City, Isle of Capri in Boonville and Horseshoe St. Louis at Lumiere Place.

“If we’re going to expand, it needs to be a little more equitable, as far as what the companies actually get,” she said. “But also, they have a concern that’s secondary, which is that there may be some fall off on the business that they’re able to do.”

The opposition campaign is just one company whining they don’t get a big enough slice, Cardetti said.

“The opponents of Amendment 2 are flawed, hugely flawed messengers,” Cardetti said. “Most Missourians can see right through a ‘No’ campaign when they realize that it’s almost entirely funded by one of the largest casino companies in the world.”

If Amendment 5 passes, it would authorize the MIssouri Gaming Commission to issue one new casino license at a location on the Osage River between Bagnell Dam and its confluence with the Missouri River.

The original law authorizing casino gambling, passed in 1992, limited it to locations on the Mississippi and Missouri rivers. An initiative backed by casino operators passed in 2008 to cap the number of licenses at 13, equal to the casinos then existing or licensed for construction.

There’s no guarantee that Bally’s would receive the license or that the location owned by RIS will be awarded the license. But with local backing and everything ready for an application once the measure passes, it has a big head start.

The investment won’t just be a casino, Rhode said. It will be a destination facility at a normally seasonal tourism location, bringing people at otherwise slack times.

“Having a multifaceted tourism attraction at the lake, which includes a casino, a spa, hotel, convention center and other benefits, is going to be a year round economic boon to that region,” he said. “We’re talking $400 million in investment and 500 permanent jobs.”

One casino is almost certain to be built near the lake. The Osage Nation&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2021/10/29/osage-nation-plans-casino-hotel-for-missouris-lake-of-the-ozarks/">launched a project in 2021</a>&nbsp;to have a property in Miller County taken into trust as ancestral lands where it could operate a casino and convention center.

Despite the direct challenge from Amendment 5, the tribal government has not tried to stop it.

The fiscal note for Amendment 5 estimates that it would add about $14.3 million to the state treasury each year. Each casino’s net winnings are taxed at 21% and there are no deductions for promotions such as free bets.

The Mark Twain casino in Hannibal has the smallest annual revenue and paid $7 million in fiscal 2024. The Ameristar casino in St. Charles had the largest revenue and paid $58 million.

“This is not us making up a number,” Rhode said. “This is the state auditor assigning this number so that number is what it is. We feel confident in sharing that number.”

Forty years ago, Missouri also had two gambling proposals on the November ballot.

One established a state lottery, the other authorized parimutuel wagering on horse races. The lottery was passed by lawmakers to follow a move by 10 other states in the early 1980s to authorize lotteries.

The need for new money in education programs was a major selling point for the lottery, Smith said. The nation was coming out of a major recession that had sapped revenues and there was little appetite for raising taxes.

But the bill creating the lottery didn’t earmark the money. Instead, it went into the general revenue fund, where it was only a small portion of the whole. The general revenue fund pays for public schools, higher education, state prisons, Medicaid and a host of other programs.

“If all of a sudden there was an increase in the amount of revenue that was dumped into the K-12 budget and there was no change in the rest of the budget, that’s one thing,” Smith said. “But that history tells us that’s not how it’s going to work.”

The foundation formula is the name of the main state aid program for local schools. When the lottery sold its first ticket, in fiscal 1986, the foundation formula appropriation was $823 million. The following fiscal year, when the lottery contributed $80 million to general revenue, the general revenue transfer to the school fund increased by $73 million.

Throughout the late 1980s, as national figures showed Missouri near the bottom in per-pupil spending and teacher pay, complaints grew that the lottery had not produced the promised results for education.

That led to a 1992 ballot measure earmarking all lottery revenue for education programs. In the first fiscal year that was in effect, the earmarked funds were used for programs supporting minimum teacher salaries and the Career Ladder stipends.

The following year, in fiscal 1995, the foundation formula received its first appropriation of earmarked lottery funds, $33 million. That was about 25% of all lottery revenue that year. The foundation formula appropriation total was $1.4 billion.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Today all net revenue from bingo, the lottery and casinos is earmarked for education. In the current year’s budget, the lottery is providing $329 million and casino taxes are tapped for $457 million for the $4 billion foundation formula.

Any revenue from Amendment 2 will be an insignificant addition and have no impact on teacher pay, Foster said.

“If you want sports gambling, say that, but don’t put out television ads that have teachers saying teachers are going to get raises,” she said. “We did the math, and even if it was that top $28.9 million, there’s around 900,000 public school kids in Missouri, so that’s 30 bucks a kid.”

Under existing provisions of the constitution, any new revenue from either gambling measure must be used for education programs. The sports wagering amendment does not define which programs the money will support while the Osage River casino proposal adds the earmarking to literacy programs.

The new revenue from sports wagering will make a difference, Cardetti said.

“Not a penny of benefit is going to Missouri, despite the fact that we know thousands of Missourians are already making bets,” he said. “This is the way that we can bring these revenues back to the state of Missouri and regulate something that Missourians are already doing today.”

The good news from history for the promoters of Amendment 2 and Amendment 5 is that Missourians have rarely met a gambling proposal they didn’t like.&nbsp;

Since 1980, 10 gambling questions have appeared on the ballot and only two — to allow betting on simulcast horse races and authorize a casino at Rockaway Beach on Lake Taneycomo — have been defeated.

In the August&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/08/29/poll-shows-missouri-voters-back-trump-hawley-abortion-rights-and-minimum-wage-hike/">St. Louis University/YouGov pol</a>l, 50% of voters surveyed said they supported sports wagering after reading the Amendment 2 ballot language while 30% were opposed. The poll did not ask about Amendment 5.

None of the past gambling campaigns had the kind of well-funded opposition that Amendment 2 has drawn. The ads from both sides are filling broadcast airwaves, streaming services and platforms such as YouTube and Facebook.

“We’re using very similar messages that we do on TV and on radio, but now people’s viewing habits are so different and diverse that you’ve got to go meet people where they are,” Cardetti said.

The anti campaign is having an impact, Foster said.&nbsp;

“It’s definitely tightened,” she said. “It’s margin of error type close, so we’re really pleased to see that.”

The opposition ads clearly state the target is Amendment 2 but the message of skepticism about gambling revenue going to education is having a spillover effect on Amendment 5.

“I bet that they don’t like us or our messaging,” she said.

The opposition to Amendment 2 is making backers of Amendment 5 work harder, Rhode said.

“We’re definitely seeing a little bit of confusion among the voters,” he said. “But the more that we are out there educating voters, you know, sort of what this amendment does, we find the support coming our way.”

The message that the six major professional sports teams back Amendment 2, and that it will keep revenue at home, is just being rolled out to supplement the education message.&nbsp;

“It makes absolutely zero sense that we have a public policy in the state of Missouri that actively pushes people to go spend money in other states,” Cardetti said.

The opposition campaign would have a tougher sell if that was the message to promote sports wagering from the beginning, Foster said.

“That would be much stronger,” she said. “But the argument ‘let’s make gambling more accessible” is going to hit a lot more roadblocks than ‘let’s give this free money to kids.’”

Kbct