Contact Us

.

« Boo birds batter Blunt | Main | Sebelius, Morrison come up big on cash front »

October 30, 2006

Comments

I see that Freedom got at least $5,000.

Engawyer

AGAIN, I HAVEN'T SEEN THIS VAST DISCREPANCY MATERIALIZE IN ADVERTISING.

WHAT GIVES?

There is not much out there pro-Amendment 2. Who got the money and what did they do with it?

cominghome

Check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyLqKYTZ__4

mod dem

Maybe the anti-stem cell folks should have to report the free advertising they get from the church folks...

Brian

mod dem is exactly right. The incalculable value of having the bishop require every priest in every parish to lobby members on this issue doesn't cost much but has quite the impact, I'm sure.

MOBlogger

Much of the $30 million has gone out as campaign contributions to Republicans to keep their rhetoric down.

Same here ...I don't see 28+ million worth of advertising etc. in support - not even close.

southerngirl

eng--we are going to agree on this one, and I believe you have raised a good question worth thinking about, I have seen billboards for the amnedment, but a lot of the commercials were funded by the groups that did them, or along party lines..that is a lot of money -- now my ignorant question, do the rports show where the spending goes like with candidates? and are they available from sos? thanks for the food for thought.

Engawyer

YES, SOUTHERGIRL, IT WOULD BE EXTREMELY INTERESTING TO SEE WHO GAVE THE 4.25 MILLION IN SUPPORT OF THIS AMENDMENT OUTSIDE OF STOWERS.

MIGHT OFFER INSIGHT AS TO WHICH CORPORATIONS MAY BE PLAYING A BIGGER ROLE IN OUR FUTURE (IF IT PASSES). ALSO GOOD INFORMATION FOR INVESTMENT PURPOSES GIVEN THAT IT IS LIKELY TO PASS AT THIS POINT (BARELY -56%).

Have the Stowers been bilked?

I could have swore you liberals are screaming to win this election so you can have "government checks and balances" yet you show your hypocritical side when it comes to this amendment.

Fact: This research is currently being done.
This amendment takes away the rights of government officials to have ANY checks and balances and state government has no way to regulate this once passed.

So which is it do you want checks and balances or not?

Fact: 2 and only 2 senators are trying to ban this research yet the majority has overridin them and this goes on.

People like the Stower's are demanding by this amendment that those 2 not be allowed to voice their opinion. Even though the majority are for this research they want to make it possible for government to never allow their research to be questioned. Research sure never be full reign with no limits and this amendment allows this without any government control.

Have you all seen the ORIGINAL version of the response ad to Michael J. Fox? Pretty interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onciTQVKV9M&eurl=

Bill D.

I found this article (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=413551&in_page_id=1770&ico=Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=NEWS&ct=5) posted today announcing a true breakthrough in stem cell research. British scientists used adult stem cells from umbilical cord blood to grow a liver. Do you think perhaps if the Stowers Institute had used the time, energy, and money that it has spent trying to pass Amendment 2 on this research instead that this breakthrough would have occurred in Kansas City rather than Newcastle, England?

Bill D.: This is summed up simply. The stowers have a vested interest in changing 45 sections of the Missouri Constitution in order to protect them from 2 US senators who are not in favor of their research. However the majority of senators are in favor of the current research, the stowers want to assure with this amendment that any "questionable" research will be allowed without any interruption from government oversight.

The comments to this entry are closed.