LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: ADVERTISEMENT MISLEADS CITIZENS ABOUT HANCOCK II

Dear Editor,

Recently there have appeared some advertisements in Missouri newspapers that ask people if they care about our schools, and if they think violent criminals should be in prison, and if they want better roads and bridges (Southeast Missourian, June 29, 1994). The advertisement then reads, "Do you wish you hadn't signed the Hancock II petition?" The citizens are then told what they can do to remove their name from the petition.

If there has ever been an example of people being misled, this is it. The Hancock II Amendment has nothing to do with the claims stated in the advertisement. The Hancock II Amendment merely enables all Missourians to have a vote on new state and local taxes. It will stop mandates that don't provide state funding and it will prohibit the state from mandating local taxes as a condition of state funding. The amendment will clearly define words such as "tax" to give them their plain meaning. And most importantly, the Hancock II Amendment will reaffirm article I, section 1 of the Missouri Constitution: "That all political power is vested in and derived from the people; that all government of right originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and instituted solely for the good of the whole."

The Hancock II Amendment does not single out any spending program or tax of the state as the advertisements suggest.

If people still question the intent of Mel Hancock's Amendment, perhaps a closer scrutiny of his organization would be in order. The organization is non-partisan, not-for-profit, and grassroots. Does that sound like an organization that is against Missouri's future?

Who put out the misleading advertisements against the Hancock II Amendment? The organization that paid for them is called "Committee to Protect Missouri's Future." They are based in Jefferson City. The Missouri Ethics Commission by law requires full financial disclosure of their organization. This organization had the following contributors:

Missouri State Teachers Association: $15,000

Missouri Council of School Administrators: $10,000

Missouri State School Board Association: $2,000 in kind

Persons not on the Committee: $5

The question we should then ask is this: "Why are all these organizations trying to deny us our right to vote on tax increases?" Our constitution does not read "of the people, by the bureaucrats, for the bureaucrats."

The Hancock II Amendment is good for Missouri citizens because it gives us more powers, and a say in how our tax money is spent. Those people who were against this amendment should take another look and decide for yourselves just who the amendment will benefit. I believe Missouri citizens will like having more rights.

KATHY McCLELLAN

Sikeston