Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe has spent months telling voters that the state constitution is under threat from “out-of-state special interests” using ballot initiatives to bypass the Republican-controlled legislature and enact major policy changes. The measures have included legalizing recreational marijuana, expanding Medicaid and restoring abortion rights.
That argument is at the center of Kehoe’s support for Amendment 4, a measure in the Aug. 4 primary that would make it harder for Missourians to amend their constitution through citizen-led ballot initiatives.
“Our constitution shouldn’t be the victim of out-of-state special interests who spend millions to deceive voters and pass out-of-touch policies,” Kehoe said in a video posted to the social media site X.
But when it comes to a different constitutional amendment central to his own agenda, Kehoe is benefiting from financial support provided by a Delaware nonprofit that does not disclose the identities of its donors.
Kehoe has slated Amendment 5, which would put Missouri on a path toward eliminating the state income tax, on the ballot for the August election, along with Amendment 4.
While the governor and other proponents argue that phasing out the income tax would make Missouri more economically competitive and lower the overall cost of living, opponents say it would shift the tax burden onto working-class families by imposing new sales, use taxes on products and services not currently taxed, and increase Missouri’s existing sales tax rate.
Critics also warn that the higher taxes could put Missouri retailers at a disadvantage, particularly in the Kansas City and St. Louis areas, where consumers can easily cross state lines to make major purchases. The cities are within a few miles of Kansas and Illinois, respectively.
A political action committee supporting Amendment 5, Missouri Promise PAC, has received $1.9 million from a nonprofit with almost the same name — Missouri Promise Inc. — that was incorporated late last year in Delaware. Neither the nonprofit nor the PAC discloses the identities or locations of the donors financing the campaign.
Missouri Promise PAC has placed ads online and on TV. A 30-second ad follows the governor through a city neighborhood and a manufacturing plant before ending with him on horseback in cowboy attire.
“He made a promise,” the narrator says. “Now he’s going to deliver.”
Kehoe’s office did not respond to requests for comment.
Missouri Promise Inc. is led by Garrett Lott, a longtime Missouri Republican operative and political fundraiser, and Alex Melendez, a political consultant affiliated with Ohio-based Clark Fork Group, a firm that has provided consulting for conservative campaigns.
Neither Lott nor Melendez responded to requests for interviews or to questions about the group’s operations.
Marc Ellinger, a lawyer who serves as the treasurer of Missouri Promise PAC, said that the campaign had publicly disclosed all information required under Missouri law. Ellinger’s law office is also listed as the address for Secure Missouri, a Missouri nonprofit formed last year that recently contributed $1.5 million to the PAC.
Asked about the identities of donors to Missouri Promise Inc. and Secure Missouri, Ellinger said he could not address what disclosures the nonprofits themselves may eventually make about donors in their tax filings to the Internal Revenue Service. And he questioned whether any story would also examine financing behind opponents of Amendment 5. One campaign opposing Amendment 5 has been almost entirely funded by a $1,900,001 contribution from the Missouri Realtors PAC — a dollar more than Missouri Promise Inc.’s donation to the pro-Amendment 5 campaign.
Ellinger suggested that the contribution was not necessarily more transparent than the funding behind Amendment 5, questioning whether the public knew the ultimate source of the Realtors’ money. But unlike Missouri Promise Inc. and Secure Missouri, which do not disclose their contributors, the Realtors’ political committee reports its donors in public filings with the Missouri Ethics Commission. Those filings allow the public to see who gave money to the committee and in what amounts.
Ellinger has been involved in Missouri tax-policy campaigns for years. In 2010, he served as spokesperson for a ballot initiative backed by St. Louis financier Rex Sinquefield that sought to require periodic votes on the 1% tax on wages paid by residents and workers in St. Louis and Kansas City. Missouri voters approved the measure, forcing both cities to submit the tax to voters every five years.
Sinquefield has spent millions of dollars over the past two decades supporting efforts to reshape Missouri’s tax system, including campaigns to eliminate the state income tax and curb local earnings taxes. Sinquefield did not respond to a request for comment.
Critics of both amendments said that Kehoe’s position is difficult to reconcile.
“The fact that the governor is benefiting directly from his face and image being plastered across Missouri TV screens by a dark money group from Delaware — or somewhere, not here — shouldn’t be lost on anyone,” said Mark Jones, a political strategist and spokesperson for the Missouri National Education Association, which opposes both amendments.
Ken Warren, a professor emeritus of political science at Saint Louis University and co-director for the SLU/YouGov Poll, said Kehoe’s complaints about out-of-state money shaping Missouri politics were somewhat surprising. Money from outside a state’s borders routinely flows into ballot measure campaigns and other political fights across the country.
“It’s not good for democracy for dark money to be used,” Warren said. “Voters should be privy to where the money is coming from, whether it’s in state or out of state, because voters, when they make a choice, should know. So I agree in principle but note that he’s being hypocritical. Many Republican measures have been funded by out-of-state money and candidates. I don’t hold it against them because that’s the way campaigns are run.”
Taken together, the two amendments raise the stakes of what is typically a low-turnout August election.
By placing them on the primary ballot rather than the November general election ballot, Kehoe ensured they would be decided by an electorate likely to be smaller and more Republican-leaning. The decision also separates the measures from a November ballot that will feature a high-profile fight over abortion rights, an issue that has proved capable of mobilizing large numbers of Missouri voters.
The claim that outside interests have been driving constitutional change has become a familiar refrain among conservatives in Missouri and other Republican-led states, where voters have used ballot initiatives to enact policies that diverge from the priorities of GOP lawmakers.
Republican lawmakers in Missouri and in other Republican-led states have responded by reversing voter-passed measures and making it more difficult for voters to amend state constitutions.
Under Missouri’s current system, supporters of a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment must first collect signatures from voters across the state to qualify for the ballot. Once there, the proposal passes if it wins a simple majority of votes statewide. Under Amendment 4, citizen-led constitutional amendments would have to carry each of Missouri’s eight congressional districts in addition to winning statewide. As a result, a proposal that won statewide but fell short in a single district would fail, no matter how big the statewide margin.
Critics say that requiring a measure to win in every district would require a level of political consensus that is increasingly rare in a state marked by sharp geographic and ideological divides.
Supporters counter that such a requirement would ensure constitutional amendments reflect broad statewide agreement rather than support concentrated in a handful of population centers.
“There would have to be an even greater consensus to change the state’s primary document,” said state Rep. Brian Seitz, a Republican from Branson who supports Amendment 4. “It would give a consensus.”
The new requirement would apply only to constitutional amendments proposed by citizens through the initiative process. Amendments placed on the ballot by the Missouri General Assembly — like Amendments 4 and 5 — would still pass with a simple statewide majority.
That distinction lies at the center of the debate over Amendment 4. Critics argue the proposal would create two different sets of rules for amending the same constitution. If a statewide majority is no longer sufficient for citizens to amend the constitution, they ask, why should it remain sufficient when lawmakers propose an amendment?
Supporters argue that citizen-led initiatives are especially susceptible to influence from wealthy donors and national interest groups, and therefore should be required to demonstrate support across Missouri’s diverse regions. Seitz said he is comfortable with the possibility that the higher standard could someday make it harder for Republicans to pass constitutional amendments if Democrats gain control of state government because, in his view, the goal is to make constitutional changes more difficult regardless of which party is in power.
Seitz said the legislature itself serves as a safeguard against one region of the state dominating another. Because lawmakers are elected from districts across Missouri, he argues that any proposal referred to voters has already been vetted by representatives from urban and rural areas alike.
“We’re not a democracy,” he said. “We are a representative republic.”
