FROM: Marc Powers, Director of Communications and Policy, Democratic Caucus

RE: AMENDMENT 1 – ELECTED COUNTY ASSESSORS

OVERVIEW

Amendment 1 would change the Missouri Constitution to require charter counties to have
elected, rather than appointed, county assessors. The General Assembly placed
Amendment 1 on the Nov. 2 ballot with the passage of Senate Joint Resolution 5 during
the 2009 legislative session. SJR 5, which was sponsored by state Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-
Glendale, passed by votes of 28-6 in the Senate and 87-73 in the House of
Representatives.

Just four of Missouri’s 114 counties have charter forms of government. Of those, St.
Charles and Jefferson counties already have elected assessors pursuant to their charters,
while the assessors in St. Louis and Jackson counties, pursuant to their charters, are
appointed by other county officials. State law requires the assessor in Missouri’s other
110 counties to be elected.

The intent of SJR 5 at the time the General Assembly passed it in May 2009 was to force
only St. Louis County to switch to an elected assessor, and the proposed amendment
contains language that attempts to exempt Jackson County from the requirement and
allow it to retain its appointed assessor.

However, on Aug. 3 St. Louis County voters overwhelmingly approved an amendment to

their county charter requiring the switch to an elected assessor starting in April 2011. The
charter change, Proposition 2, passed with 74.1 percent voter support. Furthermore, the
purported exemption for Jackson County might no longer be valid, depending on the
results of the 2010 U.S. Census.

As a result, the original intent of Amendment 1 – forcing St. Louis County to switch to an
elected assessor – has already been achieved through local action by St. Louis County
voters. But if ratified by Missouri voters, Amendment 1 could instead force Jackson
County to follow suit, even though lawmakers had intended to exempt the county from
the requirement.

In addition, ratification of Amendment 1 would prohibit voters in existing charter

counties that currently have an elected assessor or voters in counties that may adopt
charter forms of government in the future from choosing to switch to an appointed
assessor.

The official ballot question prepared by the Secretary of State’s Office is as follows:

“Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to require the office of county

assessor to be an elected position in all counties with a charter form of

This version has corrections Marc Powers sent on 09/23/10.

 government, except counties with a population between 600,001-699,999
residents?”

COUNTY GOVERNMENT

As political subdivisions of the state, most counties have no inherent power and instead
derive their authority from state laws passed by the General Assembly. Likewise, the
structure of most county government offices is also determined by state law.

Article VI, Section 18 of the Missouri Constitution, however, allows voters in certain
counties – those with more than 85,000 residents or those that achieve First Class status
under the law based on countywide assessed valuation – to adopt charter forms of
government. Charter government, also known as “home rule,” allows local voters to
determine the structure and powers of their county government, so long as charter
provisions don’t conflict with state law or the Missouri Constitution.

Whereas for most counties state law dictates what kinds of official positions counties can
or must have and whether those positions are elected or appointed, the constitution grants
charter counties the authority to make most of those decisions locally.

ASSESSMENT CONTROVERSY

In every odd-numbered year, county assessors are required determine the value of all real
property in their jurisdictions. Assessed values of individual properties are used as the
basis for determining real estate taxes owed by property owners.

Assessment practices in St. Louis County have been the source of some controversy for
more than a decade. Critics contend that with an appointed assessor there is no
accountability to taxpayers, which can result in assessed values being set too high, thus
producing higher property taxes. Defenders of having an appointed assessor say shielding
the position from voter wrath gives the assessor the necessary freedom to set fair and
accurate assessments without fear of losing his or her job. There has long been grumbling
throughout the state that elected assessors often intentionally undervalue property – thus
shortchanging public schools and other taxing jurisdictions of their rightful share of tax
revenue – in order to avoid angering property owners and being voted out of office.

JACKSON COUNTY EXEMPT – OR NOT

Although Jackson County also has an appointed assessor, assessment practices there
haven’t yielded the controversy that has occurred in St. Louis County. As a result,
proponents of SJR 5 agreed to allow Jackson County to retain its appointed assessor.

The exemption crafted for Jackson County says that the elected assessor requirement
won’t apply to charter counties with more than 600,000 residents but less than 700,000
residents. As of the 2000 U.S. Census, Jackson County had 654,880 residents, which
would put it in Amendment 1’s exemption range. According to U.S. Census Bureau’s

This version has corrections Marc Powers sent on 09/23/10.

2009 population estimate for the county, however, Jackson County had 705,708
residents, which would put the county just outside of the exemption range.

Because the 2009 estimate isn’t binding, the results of the 2010 U.S. Census will
determine if Jackson enjoys the intended exemption from Amendment 1, should Missouri
voters ratify it. Since, according to the estimate, the county is right on the bubble, the
actual 2010 count could go either way. Even if Jackson County remains within the
exemption range, it will likely be close. As a result, future population growth could cause
the county to lose its exemption following a subsequent Census.

Population ranges are often used in state statutes to limit the effect of a given law to
certain cities or counties or exempt certain jurisdictions from a law. RSMo. 1.100 says
that once a city or county falls within a population range set by law, it shall continue to
come under the operation of that law even if its population later changes to knock it out
of the specified range.

Since constitutional provisions trump statutory ones, however, RSMo. 1.100 likely
wouldn’t be applicable in the case of Amendment 1 and Jackson County. Applying
RSMo. 1.100 in this scenario would be to amend the Missouri Constitution by statute,
which is not constitutionally permitted. Since Amendment 1 and RSMo. 1.100 would be
in conflict, Amendment 1 would prevail.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF AMENDMENT 1

Appointed county assessors aren’t accountable to taxpayers. Such a lack of accountability

in St. Louis County resulted in assessments being set too high, resulting in higher taxes
for property owners.

Nearly every Missouri county already has an elected assessor, who can be voted out of
office for failure to do his or her job to the satisfaction of local taxpayers. Popular
elections serve as a check against overly aggressive assessment practices.

Although St. Louis County voters in August overwhelmingly endorsed switching to an

elected assessor, Amendment 1 will ensure that the switch is permanent and not reversed
in the future.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO AMENDMENT 1

The purpose of Amendment 1 – switching St. Louis County to an elected assessor – has
already been achieved locally by St. Louis County voters, rendering a change to the
Missouri Constitution unnecessary.

Amendment 1 could have the unintended consequence of forcing Jackson County to

switch to an elected assessor, even though Jackson County is supposed to be exempt from
the requirement.

This version has corrections Marc Powers sent on 09/23/10.

The whole purpose of the existing constitutional provision that allows counties to adopt
charter forms of government is so county voters can establish rules that work best for
them instead of being forced to adhere to one-size-fits-all directives from the state.

Amendment 1 will undermine local control. Voters in each charter county should decide
for themselves if they want an elected or appointed assessor and not have the choice
dictated to them.

Voters in three of four charter counties now have voluntarily opted for an appointed
assessor, but future circumstances could prompt them to rethink that choice. They
shouldn’t be constitutionally barred from making changes to their local government that
they may deem necessary.

RE: AMENDMENT 2 – DISABLED POW TAX EXEMPTION

OVERVIEW

Amendment 2, if ratified by Missouri voters on Nov. 2, would amend the Missouri

Constitution to exempt any Missouri resident who is a former prisoner of war and who
has a “total service-connected disability” from paying property taxes on his or her home.

The General Assembly placed Amendment 2 on the statewide ballot with its unanimous
passage of House Joint Resolution 15 during the 2009 legislative session. HJR 15, which
was sponsored by state Rep. Maria Chappelle-Nadal, D-University City, passed 159-0 in
the House of Representatives and 31-0 in the Senate.

The official ballot question prepared by the Secretary of State’s Office is as follows:

“Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to require that all real property
used as a homestead by Missouri citizens who are former prisoners of war and
have a total service-connected disability be exempt from property taxes?”

The number of Missourians who would qualify for the exemption is unknown but is
expected to be small, resulting in a minimal loss of tax revenue for state and local
governments should voters ratify Amendment 2.

ARGUMENTS FOR AMENDMENT 2

Disabled former prisoners of war have made tremendous sacrifices for this country.
Exempting them from paying property taxes on their homes is a small gesture Missouri
can make to thank them for their service and sacrifice.

Since this exemption is targeted to a small group, state and local governments won’t even
notice the loss of revenue. However, not having to pay property taxes could help some
financially struggling disabled POWs to be able to afford to keep their homes.

This version has corrections Marc Powers sent on 09/23/10.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST AMENDMENT 2

In recent years, a variety of tax exemptions have been added to the Missouri Constitution
and state law. If taxation is to be fair, we can’t continue to keep carving out exemptions
for certain favored groups.

If any group is worthy of special treatment, it is disabled former POWs. However, there
are many others who are equally deserving – such as disabled military veterans who
weren’t POWs or disabled police officers and firefighters injured in the line of duty – but
who won’t be helped by Amendment 2.

Amendment 2 arbitrarily would create a tax exemption for one group while similarly
situated and equally deserving groups would continue to pay taxes on their homes.

RE: AMENDMENT 3 – REAL ESTATE SALES TAXES

OVERVIEW

Amendment 3, if ratified by Missouri voters, would change the Missouri Constitution to

prohibit state or local governments from imposing a transfer tax on the sale of real estate.
Missouri does not currently have such a tax nor has there been any effort in the General
Assembly to establish one at the statewide level or to grant cities or counties the legal
authorization necessary to impose local real estate transfer taxes.

Amendment 3 was placed on the Nov. 2 ballot via an initiative petition effort funded by
the Missouri Association of Realtors and the National Association of Realtors. As of
Sept. 14, the state and national Realtors had contributed about $3.2 million to the
campaign committee they established to put Amendment 3 on the ballot and push for its
ratification – Vote Yes to Stop Double Taxation.

Secretary of State Robin Carnahan originally had rejected certifying Amendment 3 for
the ballot after finding supporters had failed to collect the minimum number of valid
initiative petition signatures needed to place it on the ballot. However, Cole County
Circuit Judge Paul Wilson overruled that decision on Aug. 31.

Although he didn’t find that Carnahan improperly rejected any signatures, Wilson said
the standards for judicial review are lower than those for administrative review, allowing
him to count signatures that Carnahan was required by law to reject, thus giving the
petition the necessary number of valid signatures. Carnahan ultimately decided not to
appeal Wilson’s ruling, thus clearing the way for Amendment 3 to go before voters.

The official ballot question prepared by the Secretary of State’s Office is as follows:

This version has corrections Marc Powers sent on 09/23/10.

 “Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to prevent the state, counties, and
other political subdivisions from imposing any new tax, including a sales tax, on
the sale or transfer of homes or any other real estate?”

Because neither the state nor any local Missouri government currently imposes a sales tax
on the transfer of property, Amendment 3 wouldn’t result in lost revenue for state or local
governments.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF AMENDMENT 3

Although Missouri doesn’t currently have a real estate sales tax, 37 states – including all
of Missouri’s neighboring states – do impose some form of the tax. With Missouri’s state
and local governments facing budget problems, a real estate sales tax could be a tempting
source for a substantial amount of new revenue.

Because property owners must pay annual property taxes, adding on a property sales tax
would amount to unfair double taxation.

Imposing a real estate sales tax would make purchasing a home or other property
substantially more expensive. With real estate markets currently in decline, such a tax
would make it even more difficult for those markets to recover.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO AMENDMENT 3

Amendment 3 is a solution in search of a problem. The Missouri General Assembly has

made no effort to impose a real estate sales tax or to give local governments the power to
do so. Given the strong anti-tax sentiment in the state legislature, it is highly doubtful it
ever will.

Missouri hasn’t increased taxes in more than a decade and, in fact, has instituted a
number of tax cuts during that period. Both Gov. Jay Nixon and strong majorities in both
the Senate and House of Representatives have ruled out any tax increases, even as the
state has struggled to balance the budget over the last several years.

Even if lawmakers were inclined impose a real estate sales tax, Missouri voters would be
required to approve it under a 1996 amendment to the Missouri Constitution. Missouri
voters haven’t approved a ballot measure to increase taxes since 1987.

We don’t need to amend the Missouri Constitution to prevent something that has
absolutely no realistic chance of occurring.

RE: PROPOSITION A – ST. LOUIS & KANSAS CITY EARNINGS TAXES

This version has corrections Marc Powers sent on 09/23/10.

OVERVIEW

Proposition A, if approved by Missouri voters on Nov. 2, would trigger local elections in

April 2011 in Kansas City and St. Louis at which voters would determine whether to
retain the local 1 percent earnings tax each city levies on those who live or work in those
cities. If local voters endorse keeping their city’s earnings tax, it would come up for
renewal every five years. If local voters reject retaining the earnings tax, either in 2011 or
at a subsequent renewal election, the tax would be phased out over 10 years and could
never be re-imposed.

The measure was placed on the statewide ballot via an initiative petition effort funded by
retired billionaire financier Rex Sinquefield of St. Louis, who is philosophically opposed
to earnings taxes. As of the July campaign finance disclosure reporting period,
Sinquefield had contributed $6.9 million to Let Voters Decide, the campaign committee
he established to put Proposition C on the ballot and push for its passage. It is anticipated
he will pump substantially more money into the effort by Election Day.

Sinquefield has become a major force in Missouri politics in recent years, donating
millions of dollars to candidates and causes he favors. He also founded the Show-Me
Institute, a St. Louis-based conservative think-tank that promotes his free-market
philosophy.

Kansas City and St. Louis officials fear repealing the earnings taxes would bankrupt their
cities as replacing the lost revenue would be difficult, if not impossible. In an attempt to
block Proposition A from the ballot, the city attorney for Kansas City filed a lawsuit
claiming that it violates the clear title/single subject requirements for ballot measures and
that it is unconstitutional on its merits because it fails to provide a mechanism for the
cities to replace the lost revenue should the earnings taxes ultimately be repealed.

Because Missouri courts typically don’t consider challenges on the merits of a ballot
measure to be ripe for litigation until and unless the measure is approved by Missouri
voters, Cole County Circuit Judge Jon Beetem split the case into two parts, with the
challenge on the merits delayed until Nov. 12 – 10 days after the election. If voters reject
Proposition A, that portion of the case will be rendered moot. Beetem ruled against the
city’s clear title/single subject arguments on Sept. 17, thus clearing Proposition A to go
before voters as scheduled.
.
The official ballot question prepared by the Secretary of State’s Office is as follows:

“Shall Missouri law be amended to:

• repeal the authority of certain cities to use earnings taxes to fund their
budgets;
• require voters in cities that currently have an earnings tax to approve
continuation of such tax at the next general municipal election and at an
election held every five years thereafter;

This version has corrections Marc Powers sent on 09/23/10.

 • require any current earnings tax that is not approved by the voters to be
phased out over a period of 10 years; and
• prohibit any city from adding a new earnings tax to fund their budget?

EARNINGS TAXES

Under existing state law, only three Missouri cities are authorized to impose earnings
taxes – Kansas City, St. Louis and St. Joseph. Although Kansas City and St. Louis each
have levied such taxes for about 50 years, St. Joseph has never had an earnings tax.
Proposition A would prohibit voters in St. Joseph – or any other Missouri city that
doesn’t have an earnings tax – from adopting one in the future.

The earnings taxes amount to a 1 percent tax on the incomes of those who either live in
Kansas City and St. Louis or who work in those cities but reside elsewhere. Critics have
long contended that the earnings taxes have contributed to the economic decline of
Kansas City and St. Louis by discouraging businesses and residents from remaining or
locating in those cities and encouraging them to move to nearby suburbs in order to avoid
paying the taxes.

According to June 14 report by University of Missouri-St. Louis economic professor

William H. Rogers, only 25 of the 150 largest municipalities in the nation have a local
earning tax.

Kansas City expects to collect $199.2 from the earnings tax in 2010 for 40 percent of its
general fund budget. St. Louis anticipates collecting $141.2 million in earnings tax
revenue this year for 32 percent of its general fund budget.

THE REPLACEMENT QUANDRY

Over the years, some Kansas City and St. Louis officials have acknowledged that the
earnings tax comes with a downside. However, they maintain there are no realistic
alternatives to replace the revenue that earnings taxes generate for city operations.

According to an Aug. 25 report by the Missouri Budget Project, a non-partisan budget

research group based in St. Louis, Kansas City would have to more than double its local
sales tax from 2.375 percent to 5.4 percent to replace the earnings tax, while St. Louis
would have to more than triple its sales tax from 1.375 percent to 5.3 percent.

Adding in the statewide sales tax of 4.225 percent and other local sales taxes, such
increases would result in a total sales tax rate of 10.75 percent in Kansas City. For St.
Louis, the total sales tax rates would 10.791 percent on retail sales and 12.291 percent for
meals at sit-down restaurants. Sales taxes that high potentially could be devastating to the
cities’ retail businesses.

This version has corrections Marc Powers sent on 09/23/10.

The other possible means of replacement revenue open to the cities would be to increase
property taxes. However, the Budget Project estimates each city would have to increase
property taxes by 400 percent to make up the gap.

Also, there is no guarantee that the cities would even be able to raise other taxes to
replace the earnings tax revenue since under the Missouri Constitution local voter
approval would be required to do so. Having voted to eliminate the earnings tax, it is
certainly possible that Kansas City and St. Louis voters might not be inclined to
immediately increase other taxes to compensate. And if replacement taxes weren’t
approved, the cities would be forced to gut most city services, including the police and
fire departments.

In a Sept. 8 editorial, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported that Sinquefield has
acknowledged that the cities would have to replace the revenue lost from eliminating
their earnings taxes and further acknowledged that he is offering no ideas for how that
would be done.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSITION A

Earnings taxes have been a key factor in the economic decline of Kansas City and St.
Louis over the last half century. They have encouraged countless businesses and residents
to relocate to the suburbs, where there are no earnings taxes. They have discouraged new
businesses and residents from locating in the state’s two largest cities.

Repealing the earnings taxes would enable Kansas City and St. Louis to better compete
with surrounding communities for jobs and residents.

Repealing the earnings taxes would make Missouri’s two largest cities stronger, which
will benefit the whole state.

The existing earnings taxes are permanent and never subject to voter review. Voters in
Kansas City and St. Louis should have the right to periodically determine whether they
want to keep their respective earnings taxes. All that Proposition A would do is give them
that right.

If Kansas City and St. Louis voters chose to eliminate their cities’ earnings taxes, the
taxes will be phased out over 10 years starting in 2012. This long phase-out period will
give city officials ample time to adjust their budgets and find replacement revenue.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSTION TO PROPOSITION A

The earnings tax may not be an ideal revenue source, but it makes up a sizable portion of
the Kansas City and St. Louis municipal budgets. There are no viable alternatives for
replacing that revenue and even repeal supporters have failed to offer any.

This version has corrections Marc Powers sent on 09/23/10.

Repealing the earnings taxes would force Kansas City and St. Louis either to increase
other taxes to excessively high – and perhaps unrealistic -- levels or to gut government
services to point where the cities would be barely able to function.

Throwing Kansas City and St. Louis into financial crisis would create problems that
would be felt throughout the metro areas and state. Missouri and the Kansas City and St.
Louis metro regions depend on the stability and prosperity of the core cities.

Proposition A is an effort by one retired billionaire to put his economic philosophies into
practice without regard to the realities of funding the municipal governments of Kansas
City and St. Louis or the consequences on their citizens, the region and the state.

RE: PROPOSITION B – DOG BREEDING REGULATIONS

OVERVIEW

Proposition B, also known as the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act, would establish
new regulations on large-scale dog breeding operations in Missouri and create criminal
penalties for violations. It would require breeders to provide dogs under their care with
adequate food, water, shelter, veterinary care, exercise and rest periods between breeding
cycles and restrict operations to no more than 50 breeding dogs.

Proposition B was placed on the Nov. 2 ballot via an initiative petition drive spearheaded
by a coalition of state and national animal welfare groups, including the Humane Society
of the United States, the Humane Society of Missouri, the Missouri Alliance for Animal
Legislation, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Best
Friends Animal Society.

As of Sept. 22, the coalition’s campaign committee – Missourians for the Protection of
Dogs – had raised at least $1.71 million for its effort to get Proposition B on the ballot
and campaign for its passage. More than 90 percent of the money came from
organizations and individuals based in other states.

Missouri’s dog breeding industry opposes Proposition B. The Missouri Federation of

Animals Owners had raised only about $61,000 for its effort to defeat Proposition B, with
90 percent of its money coming from donors within state.

The official ballot question prepared by the Secretary of State’s Office is as follows:

“Shall Missouri law be amended to:

• require large-scale dog breeding operations to provide each dog under their care
with sufficient food, clean water, housing and space; necessary veterinary care;
regular exercise and adequate rest between breeding cycles;

This version has corrections Marc Powers sent on 09/23/10.

 • prohibit any breeder from having more than 50 breeding dogs for the purpose of
selling their puppies as pets; and
• create a misdemeanor crime of “puppy mill cruelty” for any violations?”

The law wouldn’t apply to the breeding or care of any animals other than dogs. Hobby
and show dog breeders with 10 or fewer breeding females would be exempt from the law,
as would those who breed hunting dogs.

A first-offense violation of Proposition B would be a Class C misdemeanor punishable by

up to 15 days in jail and a $300 fine. Repeat offenses would be elevated to a Class A
misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine.

THE “PUPPY MILL” DEBATE

According to the Missouri Department of Agriculture, there are about 1,400 licensed dog
breeders in Missouri. Animal welfare groups, however, estimate that when counting
unlicensed operations the total number of dog breeding facilities in the state is closer to
3,000, with nearly 200,000 breeding dogs producing up to a million puppies a year to
provide about 40 percent of all puppies sold in pet stores nationwide.

Since January 2009, the state agriculture department has rescued more than 3,600 dogs
from substandard breeding facilities. Under existing law, operating a breeding facility
without a license is a Class A misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail and a
$1,000 fine.

Proposition B supporters argue that so-called “puppy mills” operate under deplorable
conditions in which dogs are kept in dirty, cramped cages; rarely get exercise or
veterinary attention; and often receive inadequate food and water. The dog-breeding
industry finds the term “puppy mills” objectionable, saying it unfairly slanders reputable
breeders by lumping them together with unlicensed facilities. Animal welfare groups say
that because Missouri’s existing regulations are so lax, many licensed facilities maintain
inhumane conditions and are deserving of the “puppy mill” tag.

Animal welfare groups have been seeking stricter regulations in Missouri for more than a
decade but have encountered stiff resistance in the General Assembly, where rural
lawmakers have successfully blocked regulatory legislation. Some rural interests believe
imposing stricter regulations on dog breeding would drive the industry out of business
and be a first step toward severely restricting all types of animal breeding, such as cattle,
swine and poultry, and devastate Missouri’s livestock industry. The legislature’s
unwillingness to consider any new regulations on dog breeding, however, is largely the
reason why supporters ultimately decided to bypass lawmakers and take the issue directly
to Missouri voters.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSITION B

This version has corrections Marc Powers sent on 09/23/10.

Missouri’s puppy mill industry is a national disgrace. Because the state’s regulations are
so lax, Missouri is a haven for breeders who house dogs under deplorable and cruel
conditions to maximize their profits.

Existing laws have been ineffective in closing puppy mills. Many facilities that have been
repeatedly cited for serious violations by the state and federal agriculture departments
continue to operate.

Puppy mill breeding dogs spend their entire lives in cramped and filthy cages and are
simply killed when they are no longer of use. Most pet owners would find such treatment
horrifying, yet many unwittingly purchase puppies that are bred under such conditions.

Some of the most vocal opponents to Proposition B are among Missouri’s worst puppy
mill operators.

Reputable and responsible breeders who treat their dogs humanely have nothing to fear
from Proposition B.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSTION TO PROPOSITION B

Proposition B is overregulation at its worst and will drive reputable and responsible dog
breeders out of business, costing Missouri thousands of jobs.

To the extent that there is a problem with subpar facilities, it isn’t because existing laws
are too weak; it’s because of a lack of adequate enforcement. The state should better
enforce existing laws to force bad breeders either into compliance or out of business.

Unlicensed breeders are already breaking the law and getting away with it. The only
thing Proposition B will do is drive law-abiding breeders out of business while
unlicensed facilities will go right on breaking the law.

The use of the term “puppy mill” in the ballot language of Proposition B is deceiving and
unfair as only a heartless person would vote against shutting down “puppy mills.” But
Proposition B would actually affect good breeders who operate humane facilities.

Proposition B is being pushed primarily by out-of-state groups and funded by out-of-state

money. We shouldn’t let animal rights activists in California and New York dictate
public policy in Missouri.

Proposition B is part of a radical animal rights agenda that ultimately seeks to eliminate
animal agriculture, including raising livestock for food.

This version has corrections Marc Powers sent on 09/23/10.