voted the payday loan bill – which was seen by Democrats as a weak and feckless bill – out of committee. When she could have stopped it, many Democratic colleagues concluded, she didn’t; her later vote against it – given the Republican super-majority – was irrelevant.
Nasheed notes, “
She continues, “My district voted 80 percent in favor of Prop B in the last election. My vote in the House reflected that of my district. The mandate passed by voters was unfunded – I sought to enforce the puppy mill laws by securing state money to pay for it. I also voted for the ‘Missouri compromise,’ which the Humane Society of Missouri and Missouri dog breeders both support. I am confident the people of my district voted in favor of Proposition B because they want to protect dogs from being treated inhumanely. The bills we passed this year to fix Proposition B stay true to the intent of the voters without running reputable dog breeders out of business. The final compromise has been agreed to by everyone from both sides of the issue.”
The fact remains that (as stated) Nasheed voted WITH Republicans on both pieces of legislation dealing with Proposition B. The first bill, SB 113 totally overturned Proposition B and the compromise second bill, SB161, reinstated some provisions to ensure some humane treatment of animals.
Over the weekend, Dave Drebes posted the following note on his Arch City Chronicle site: "Rep. Jamilah Nasheed pulled in $5,000 from the Citizens for a Stronger St. Louis campaign according to their April filing. The committee was the vehicle to keep the city's earning tax. According to the report, Nasheed was paid for ‘strategic campaign oversight.'"
This, no doubt, will open a new chapter for Nasheed’s detractors, since many St. Louis Democrats helped on this campaign without collecting on a fee. Her getting paid for her efforts puts her next to the likes of Richard Callow. More company one keeps at one’s own peril.