There is an interesting proposed law in Missouri where lobbyists who have sex with state lawmakers or their aides would have to disclose that activity to the state ethics commission. Rep. Bart Korman wants such sexual relations to be reported as a “gift” on a monthly basis, though he is not requiring the couples to assign a dollar value on the gift. The measure addresses a real and long-standing concern about the use of sex to influence politicians. History is rife with such scandals. However, the measure would raise serious privacy and other constitutional issues.
Legislators appear increasingly creative in addressing the corruption of their colleagues, including the recent proposal to require California legislators to wear patches identifying their chief donors.
Korman insists that he is simply trying to “add some transparency and accountability to our governmental process.” The problem is that the law would intrude into privacy areas in an unprecedented way. It is not illegal for lobbyists to have sexual relations with lobbyists and this law would require embarrassing and potential harmful speech. Putting aside the requirement of reporting such relationships as “gifts,” a more difficult question is whether a law could simply require disclosure of any such relationships as a matter of record like any other potential conflict of interest. I have long advocated either blind trusts for legislators or full disclosure of stock and other financial interests. Personal interests can have the same impact on the independence of legislators. The same can be said about nepotism in family members securing high-paid lobbyist positions, a subject upon which I have previously written.
16 thoughts on “The Show Me State: Proposed Law Would Require Missouri Lawmakers To Report Sex With Lobbyists As “Gifts””
Gives feminism and “affirmative action” a whole new connotation.
Okay, obviously, nobody is gonna go here, so, what the heck, I might as well. What’s wrong with these people? Seriously, it’s not as if these lawmakers and their aides are marooned on some deserted and desolate island, with no access to the opposite sex, which somehow accounts for this insatiable need to bag any lobbyist with whom they cross paths. Are they prisoners, locked away in a penitentiary, so deprived of human contact, that lobbyists are their only release? If you ask me, these middle-aged, overweight and rotund lawmakers have too much time on their hands. Granted, Missouri may be dull at times, but we pride ourselves on our ample and plentiful supply of whores. Go get you some, boys. And, speaking of boys, I have another thought: most of the lawmakers are men, as are their aides, and the vast majority of t
lobbyists are men, as well. No wonder they don’t want to report all of the sex.
Well despite the lobbyist on lobbyist (edit missed in the article)…lobbyist on lawmaker ought to be reportable by both the lobbyist and the lawmaker.
A dual reporting requirement will give the publics guy a chance to get out from under blackmail….and reveal lobbist tactics….resulting perhaps in censure of that lobbyist. A lobbyist reporting would reveal to the public possible jerks they elected. There are multiple more combinations of the good the bad and the ugly.
I recall one of the few times fed employees got in trouble was when the doe was screwing big oil lobbyist….the quid pro was contracts etc…so that would be the “value”.
If both the lobbyist and lawmaker were asked to disclose…and neither did….then maybe they really got a good relationship….but if one did as required to report then we get juicy stories of he said she said and rabbit holes of investigations. Both ought to have to report. Tie goes to the public offial.
The gift is if they’re not prosicuted!
Aren’t lawmakers and government employees limited in the value of gifts they can accept?
Does that mean they can only accept certain sex acts as gifts but not others? Or does that mean they can only accept sex acts from certain low status individuals?
And how do we determine the marked value of a sex act anyway?
It would not be a gift if the law maker paid for it!
Sex with some people is a liability, not an asset of value.
And if you clean rooms in a cathouse in East Saint Louis, Illinois, then wear rubber gloves. And other rubbers when taking it out in trade. Be safe out there.
We had a gal in the cathouse which I worked in East Saint Louis back in 1964 named Sally Fourfinger. I cleaned the rooms. The hookers offered to pay in “in trade”. I only got paid a dollar fifty an hour to clean the rooms. It was a late night job. So the first time I did not understand the words “pay ya in trade” and after the quick bout I asked for my nights wages of four hours times a buck fifty and she said that she had “just paid me in trade.” “Well”, it was only ten minutes so you owe me for that ten minutes too.” She thought I owed her and I thought she owed me. Never take it out in trade. Its too iffy.
Herpes is the gift that keeps on giving.
At last, a convergence of the American and British definitions of Sleaze.
Back when I was a human in a prior life I porked some of those hookers in Jefferson City (in Missoura we just say “Jeff City”) and I can say that few were of value money wise. The notion that two humans pork and one has a monetary entitlement is a bit lame, even for two legged creatures. It is more like turnabout is fair play. I asked HumpinDog about his opinion on this topic and he says that to hump is one thing and to penetrate is another. He did not get any deeper into the topic. But I have to ask you humans this question. Why is there a supposition that if a woman has sex with a male that she is entitled to something other than her own gratification from the sex act? Is there a supposition that women do not themselves enjoy sex and therefore are just putting out for another reason? i.e. money.
Lets have some female commenters chime in on this issue. And here is another side to the issue. What if the legislator is a female but is old and gray? Would she wish to pay for some dude who is not rude for a roll in the hay? (Rolll in the hay is a common phrase in Missoura)
“In Missouri, it is a crime to buy or sell sex for money.
For more information on prostitution laws generally, see Prostitution.
People commit the crime of prostitution in Missouri by engaging in, offering, or agreeing to engage in sexual conduct in exchange for money or something else of value.
(Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 567.010, 567.020.)”
“…or something else of value.” So if a lobbyist or politician is exchanging (receiving?) something of value, then it’s a crime. Therefore to report would be self-incriminating which is covered by the 5th is it not? So, it’s not a matter of bedroom privacy but self-incrimination. Or else, one could claim that the sex had no value which infers they aren’t worth a – – –. That is ultimately the bottom line isn’t it? Who wants to be known as such..whether male or female?
Well, they don’t call it the Show-Me-State for nothing! 🙂
Sorry, I don’t know why this story reminds me of the following. Possibly some connection between politicians and whores…(Is not the root of the word “polician” a word that means “liar?”)…Last week I heard interviewed some hellish imbecilic woman producer of a movie glorifying Janis Joplin. The producer mentioned that Janis wanted intimacy and felt a love for her audience. To Janis, singing and performing to her audience was like “making love” to them.
Apparently this numb wit producer never noticed (or approved?) of a glaring problem with the analogy (singing = making love): the audience paid for their “love making” with Janis (seeing her perform), making Janis possibly the world’s most frequently used whore in all history. Bravo, whore Janis!
The producer further proclaimed with pride that her idol/whore Joplin was too smart to kill herself on purpose. When one dies of a self-inflicted OD of illegal drugs, I’m sorry, but there’s no practical difference between the end result (dirt nap) between two persons, one intending suicide and a really smart person for whom getting stoned was their hobby/pass time.
Please continue with your normal programming…
I think the lawmaker should set a dollar value. That could start all sorts of problems with the lobbyist. Did you overvalue or undervalue the sex? Were they really that good? If lobbyists are having sex with multiple lawmakers, who values them the highest, lowest? Same with the lawmaker?
Comments are closed.