51黑料

The council voted Tuesday to spend taxpayer money to get more taxpayer money.

By a 5-2 vote, the council approved spending $300,000聽鈥� doubling the $150,000 that County Executive Sam Page asked for just last week 鈥� to hire a firm to mount an 鈥渁n educational campaign to inform voters of the marijuana measure which will appear on the April 4 ballot.鈥�

The measure, a 3% sales tax imposed on the retail sale of recreational marijuana in unincorporated 51黑料 County, is projected to raise about $3 million a year. A number of municipalities in the county also plan to ask voters to approve a similar 3% measure.

Councilman Dennis Hancock, R-3rd District, opposed the spending, saying the measure is 鈥渏ust not the right thing to do.鈥�

鈥淚t starts as (a request for) $150,000 and then it gets doubled to $300,000,鈥� he said. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 a lot of taxpayer money to be throwing into the wind.鈥�

Hancock said a more appropriate move for those supporting the sales-tax increase would be for them to form a committee and raise money to support their aims.

鈥淚鈥檓 no expert on the marijuana industry,鈥� he said, 鈥渂ut it just seems to be a bad use of taxpayers鈥� money.鈥�

颁辞耻苍肠颈濒飞辞尘补苍听Rita Heard Days, D-1st District, also opposed the spending.

But then on Tuesday, bill sponsor and council chair Shalonda Webb, D-4th District, amended it to $300,000.

Councilwoman Lisa Clancy, D-3rd District, who once worked for a law firm that orchestrated marijuana licensing efforts in the county, voted in favor of the spending. Others council members in support were Kelli Dunaway, D-2nd District; Ernie Trakas, R-6th District; and Mark Harder, R-7th District.

Such educational campaigns by local governments seeking tax increases have been called into question before.

In February 2022, the Missouri Supreme Court affirmed a state law that bans the use of public funds for campaigning. That ruling stemmed from a move in 2019 by several municipalities to have the law overturned.

The high court ruled against the cities鈥� argument that the prohibition limited public officials鈥� free speech, ruling that the law did not 鈥渄oes not limit or prohibit officials鈥� speech; it merely prohibits them from using public funds to facilitate or augment that speech.鈥�

Then in August,聽some University City residents filed suit in connection to an educational campaign for a sales-tax increase in 2022.

The residents accused the city of advocating for a quarter-percent sales tax for the fire department, arguing that literature the city produced on the ballot issue broke state law by clearly leaning in favor of the measure.聽

51黑料 County Circuit Judge Krista Peyton dismissed the lawsuit without explanation.

One of the plaintiffs in the University City lawsuit, which is being appealed, is longtime local government watchdog聽Tom Sullivan.

Sullivan also criticized the County Council鈥檚 action on Tuesday.

鈥淭he law is clear: no public funds can be spent on a campaign,鈥� he said. 鈥淭here is no exception for any phony 鈥榠nformational鈥� campaign.鈥欌��