Rep. Chad Perkins on Missouri's 137–0 Vote to Restore State Authority

In this episode of For Our Freedom, Jeff Clements is joined by Missouri Speaker Pro Tem Chad Perkins to discuss the Missouri House's unanimous 137–0 vote calling for a constitutional amendment to restore states' authority over campaign finance.

Perkins explains how outside spending has increasingly shaped Missouri's ballot initiative process, why lawmakers across the political spectrum united behind the resolution, and how restoring state authority would allow each state to set rules that reflect its own values and priorities.

Together, they explore the principles of federalism, the role of states in protecting self-government, and why returning these decisions to voters and their elected representatives is central to preserving America's constitutional system.

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:05

Hello, everybody. I'm Jeff Clements, co-founder and CEO of American Promise, and this is the For Our Freedom podcast, coming back to you with another terrific leader in America. We have Missouri State Representative Chad Perkins with us. He's a Republican, first elected back in 2020, 2021 time frame. He is now the Speaker pro tem of the Missouri House, and he is sponsoring the resolution in Missouri that is urging Congress to uphold the principles of federalism, put a constitutional amendment in place so Missouri and other states can ratify it and enable lawmakers and the people to once again have the power to decide what to do about money in our political system. Representative Perkins' measure unanimously passed the Missouri House, 137 to nothing. As elsewhere in America, this has great support. But it takes leaders and it takes leaders who can put people together across divides. So not everyone gets 137 to nothing, Representative Smith. And that's uh colleagues of yours from across the political spectrum. It did go to the Senate afterwards. Uh it was well received there. It went uh through a Senate committee, but did not uh have sufficient time before the Senate adjourned. So I have no doubt, Representative Smith, you'll be back uh to get that uh across the finish line and help Missouri become the 26th state in the country to call for this constitutional amendment. We're gonna come back to that, but let's hear about you first. Uh tell us a little bit about yourself. You're a conservative, I know. I said you're first elected uh to the state house about six years ago, but what brought you to that uh decision to run and serve?

SPEAKER_01 1:56

First, thank you for uh that great introduction. I think only maybe you and my mom uh give such good introduction.

SPEAKER_00 2:04

She called me, representative.

SPEAKER_01 2:06

Yeah, might need to take you on the road with me. I uh no, I uh I had I had worked in politics previously, right, on a more localized level where I'd been this mayor in a small town for a number of years, worked in radio for a very long time, and uh just kind of felt like A, there was an opening, right? And B that I could win. And uh my very first race, it was a five-way primary. Uh in a five-way primary, I got 51%. So we were pretty pleased with that. We were very pleased with that. And uh it's been it's been good ever since, really.

SPEAKER_00 2:39

So outstanding. Um well, good, and and I'm sure you've had a lot on your plate. State lawmakers uh um have a huge range of issues to deal with, but you have taken on one of the biggest problems, according to Pew Research and repeated polls and votes we see, Americans identify and the question and the issue of money and politics is one of the number one threats to the country. And you're taking it on in the only way we can now, with an amendment to the United States Constitution. Um, what led you to that? Uh, you know, we've talked to a lot of state lawmakers on on this podcast before, and we're seeing sort of a consistent theme about what's changed around money and politics in America, but everyone has their own story, every state is a little different. What was your experience?

SPEAKER_01 3:31

Well, I think in general, right, these principles of of federalism, right, are ones that uh need to be reaffirmed. And uh this certainly does that. It is um one of one of we all I like all these amendments to the constitution, right? My favorite might be the ninth, right? I just love the ninth amendment, and it really leans heavily into that, doesn't it? And um uh that certainly is is a part of it, right?

SPEAKER_00 3:57

Because you see I'm just gonna interject here for our listeners. The Ninth Amendment uh and and the 10th Amendment are both reminders uh that the uh rights of the American people pre-exist, the the government. And the Ninth Amendment says, you know, that the rights of the people are still there, uh, no matter what uh the the words um may say, and then the 10th Amendment reminds us that the states have uh the uh authority and and the rights of the states and that the federal government has limited powers. So um back to you, representative a little civic sidebar for our listeners.

SPEAKER_01 4:36

When I'm talking to fifth grade classes uh all the time, right? I say, what does the constitution say that you can't do, right? I don't know. And and I and I break it down to them and say, well, really, what the constitution tells us is what the government can't do to you. You know, it really is a safeguard on the powers of the government. And I think that's a thing that needs to be reminded to kids all over the country, right? But um you know, in the state of Missouri, we've had some uh initiative petitions over the last 20 years. That being, for those who don't know, you know, someone standing outside of a can out of a out of a grocery store and they ask you to sign their piece of paper, and you get enough names on a piece of paper and it goes on the ballot, right? And we get so many bad amendments in the state of Missouri because or uh because uh initiative petitions in the state of Missouri because of the huge influx of of money that comes elsewhere, right? It's not certainly not coming inside the state, it is it's largely funded by far left-wing uh uh groups funding these things uh from outside the state. Now, with that being said, it's kind of interesting, right? Because you don't get 137 to nothing if it's only the left that does it, you know. I suppose it's probably also equally bad when the right does it. But um but I think both both sides of the aisle saw the advantage in curtailing that outside money influence.

SPEAKER_00 6:00

Yeah, yeah. Well, you let's let's let's unpack that a little bit, representative. It's so interesting you give the ballot initiative or the referendum the uh and the money that comes in to fund those uh as an example, because we've heard not every state has a ballot initiative. That's what you're talking about, right? That's correct, yeah. And in Missouri, in Missouri in particular, it's actually fairly simple, right?

SPEAKER_01 6:22

You get a certain percentage of names, and then the Secretary of State confirms those names are uh are Missouri residents who are registered voters, and then it goes to the ballot. And in the state of Missouri, it only takes 50% plus one to make something constitutional, which I don't necessarily love, right? Because I think that uh the constitution shouldn't be something that is 50% plus one. It certain certainly shouldn't be something that uh that can be influenced by whatever the political wind at the moment it is, right? I think the constitution, uh the federal constitution certainly is is very sacred. Uh the state constitution, the state of Missouri gets uh gets amended constantly. For example, things like the right to play bingo is uh is in the Missouri State Constitution, which is a little ridiculous, right? Because it's that natural right.

SPEAKER_00 7:10

I think it's in John Locke somewhere.

SPEAKER_01 7:12

The right to play bingo. Yeah, the constitution shouldn't be delineating all the specific rights of everyone, right? What it should be doing is is setting forth a framework for the way in which government should operate.

SPEAKER_00 7:26

Yeah. And you know, the original uh idea behind the citizen ballot initiative was to combat corruption and concentrated power by putting power in the hands of the citizenry. And now you have the problem of unlimited money from outside the state, which is overwhelming sometimes the states. I want to give another example. You mentioned the left and the right. Sometimes it's just business. Uh, the state of Maine, we were talking to legislators there, they had $100 million come into ballot initiatives around energy policy from foreign government-owned corporations, not just global corporations. 100% foreign government-owned Hydro Quebec in Canada spent millions of dollars and other other big energy companies owned by government entities uh abroad spending money and to do these ballot initiatives and change the state's policies. So it's a problem uh that we have heard across the across the states as well, um, and which is interesting. The original idea of free speech and money and politics hasn't really worked out that way because it's kind of concentrated that power in those who have money to bring it into a state and actually damage the principles of federalism that originally uh the constitution um uh entails. Uh have have is is that what you found there as well?

SPEAKER_01 8:53

Absolutely, we find that to be the case. I don't find it um, for example, very often in uh uh uh in in the election of an official, right? Of a of a of an elected official, but rather on these referendums. It's on the referendum you find it much more common. And uh, you know, you get millions and tens of millions of dollars to pour into the state of Missouri from outside the state to to influence the outcome of something.

SPEAKER_00 9:22

Yeah, yeah. And you know, we uh as I said, every state is different. And we learned a long time ago at American Promise that we're not telling anybody what to think about money in politics because everyone has their own experience. And Missouri, you folks are dealing with your ballot process being overwhelmed. Idaho just passed this constitutional amendment unanimously because they started to see this outside money even in their candidate elections. And so, you know, the beauty of federalism is that different states have different experiences and issues. And this amendment puts that you've proposed, uh Representative Smith, gets power back where it should be to be able to address what's actually happening in Missouri, letting people in Maine address what's happening in Maine and so on.

SPEAKER_01 10:08

Uh everyone says, Oh, I've got this simple little piece of legislation, and then they'll they'll they'll take 20 minutes explaining to you their simple little piece of legislation. This actually is a very simple little piece of legislation, right? It simply let's hear it. Give us give us the explanation. And the explanation is simple, right? Because it can take it can take 15 seconds to explain it, right? It simply calls on Congress to reaffirm that the states determine time, place, uh things of that nature when it comes to elections, um as well as the the campaign finance behind that. And that's just really how simple that is.

SPEAKER_00 10:48

That's it.

SPEAKER_01 10:48

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 10:49

You know, I'm gonna hold up. We won't always have me on the video because this is about you, but I have a visual aid. The actual amendment, it was this version like this, was introduced in Congress, perhaps answering the call of the states by Congressman Tom Barrett, a Republican from Michigan, and it's called the Forward Freedom Amendment. It fits on a napkin. That's how simple it is. So uh, like all great American ideas, if you can't put it on a napkin, it's uh it may, it may, you may be overthinking it. And so thank you.

SPEAKER_01 11:20

I can't tell you how many times. I can't tell you how many times over the years I've heard someone say, I've got a really simple little bill. And it's not, it's very convoluted and there's a lot to it. This is a very simple piece of legislation.

SPEAKER_00 11:32

Yeah, outstanding. Um, well, let's go, let's, let's keep uh uh talking a little bit about you know, why do we need an amendment to fix it? Um, I know the people in Maine, they passed a law to say, hey, no foreign government-owned corporations should be spending money in our elections. The law actually got blocked by the federal courts um under these theories that go back to the 1970s, that there's a somehow an unlimited free speech right to spend money in politics. And and that's uh sort of the the background for our listeners on on how we got here. Um and and the uh had had you had discussions in your body in the house there in uh uh Missouri about uh statutory approaches you might take to the problem that the courts uh aren't letting you do?

SPEAKER_01 12:23

No, we actually haven't explored a statutory fix, right? This has been, I think, to my knowledge, our very first approach at this, and we chose to go with the constitutional amendment way of doing it.

SPEAKER_00 12:34

Um I think you may have saved a lot of lawyer fees because a couple of other states tried to say, hey, we're gonna have a different rule for this outside money coming in than the people who live here. The federal court struck that down too. So it the the problem that the amendment is fixing is actually not the policy, it's whether the states have the authority or not to decide this.

SPEAKER_01 12:59

And and and I think there it's pretty simple. The states obviously do, right? I don't think that there's any question of that. And I'm actually, as long as we're talking about the courts, I'm actually fairly pleased with the current Supreme Court. It might be the best one of my lifetime, certainly the best one there's existed in many, many years. Uh, don't always agree with them, but I'm pretty pleased with this particular Supreme Court.

SPEAKER_00 13:22

Yeah, and we can um, you know, we just filed a brief in a case uh in the Supreme Court to explain the napkin, essentially, this simple idea, because the the current court is dealing with 50 years of precedent. This idea of money being free speech actually was kind of invented in 1976. It was the most activist phase of the Supreme Court in history. And and this current Supreme Court has been re-examining some of those 1970s decisions. Like, you know, maybe we shouldn't be sort of making up rights that aren't there. And um, so you know, we were hoping we're not actually expecting our one brief to to uh to have the court correct this problem, which is the beauty of the amendment, uh, is that it doesn't um have it have the fight be about the court. We just fix it, you know, let's just get it fixed. But um, yeah, this this current court, we we uh the beauty of it is we don't have to debate about nobody has to debate about the Supreme Court trying to wrestle with 1970s precedents right now. If we're all agreed on a good simple fix, let's do it. So that's right. We kind of embraced you, mentioned how the constitution should be um more than just 50 plus one because it really binds people for a long time. And we sort of it certainly binds your legislature, you know. Yeah, yeah. So we embrace the amendment process. I'm gonna just say it for the listeners. Two-thirds of Congress needs to vote on it, ratification in 38 states. So you'll never hear us complain about having um this uh good hard work of how uh lifting up leaders like you in Missouri and other state lawmakers around the country who are just executing the Article V amendment process, like we're supposed to, to get the consensus most Americans feel right now that we need to be able to put power in the hands of the states to deal with this problem. So a little bit of background for our listeners. Um, representative, um, in the committee process you go through, of course, another important process. People like might want it to things to go faster, but these processes are important. You hear questions, concerns, uh, debate. Can you give us any inside flavor for what this issue was like in that process?

SPEAKER_01 15:36

I'll be frank, it was actually fairly smooth sailing, one of the easier ones that I've ever presented. There were obviously some questions because while I was presenting it, the the president was making some comments about um things that that one might interpret as being federalizing in the elections process. I don't necessarily, right? I didn't think that the the two things were were uh mutually exclusive, right? But um there were some questions about that, right? Uh and trying to draw that into it. And you know, I I just simply didn't give it any time because frankly, I I don't think the two things are related. Um but uh there are those who who don't like the president who wanted to to bring his comments to bear regarding some uh federalizing of certain uh political uh election related things. Um and that was about the only comments you'd hear.

SPEAKER_00 16:28

So yeah, well, 137 to nothing. I uh I suspect then that there is certainly broad consensus of the kind you'd want. I think we'd all want to see if we're going to amend the constitution, let's make sure we're doing it with something that is going to be uh well regarded by the country for a long time to come. Um, this wouldn't uh um set policy, uh, this amendment, as as you described it so effectively in 15 seconds, and I took a little longer with a napkin and uh but not much.

SPEAKER_01 16:59

Um, I think I think there's something to be said for brevity, certainly when presenting things like this.

SPEAKER_00 17:04

Yes, absolutely. No, I completely agree. And and so the reason I say that is I wanted to ask you, you know, the power is back in the hands of the state, say the amendment is done, you've succeeded, project forward a few years. Share your vision of um what election integrity might look like, what Missouri might look like, what self-government in America might look like as we head to 250 years of freedom and self-government. I'd love to I always say the last question for everybody, and I always turn it over to you. Share your vision and uh what you'd like to see when we have constitutional authority to put the right rules in place.

SPEAKER_01 17:41

Well, the fact is you might very well see 50 different uh um uh um forms of it across the country, right? And and I think that really the great strength of America is the decentralized power that exists, right? You you see some countries uh where all the power is centralized in one particular uh uh city. Not the case in the United States, right? Uh I think that's the real strength of the United States is that you have all these different states uh doing to some degree their own thing. And um so what what it looks like in Missouri and what it looks like in Maine and what it looks like in Kentucky and what it looks like in Oregon are all going to be a little different. Um but the fact is the state is who gets to determine what that outcome ends up being.

SPEAKER_00 18:28

Well, outstanding. And with that, we will go to happy 4th of July to you coming up and to 250 years of America. Thank you for your leadership, sir, and we'll look forward to seeing you in Missouri and being as helpful as we can as you take this forward uh in the future.

SPEAKER_01 18:45

Yes, thank you, Jeff. Take care.

SPEAKER_00 18:47

Great, thank you.