Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe has spent months arguing 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, including legalizing recreational marijuana, expanding Medicaid and restoring abortion rights.

That argument is central to his support for Amendment 4, a measure on the Aug. 4 primary ballot that would make it harder for Missourians to amend their constitution through citizen-led ballot initiatives. However, a separate constitutional amendment central to Kehoe's own agenda is benefiting from financial support provided by a Delaware nonprofit that does not disclose the identities of its donors.

Kehoe has placed Amendment 5 on the August ballot alongside Amendment 4. Amendment 5 would put Missouri on a path toward eliminating the state income tax. The governor and other proponents argue this would make Missouri more economically competitive and lower the overall cost of living for residents.

A political action committee supporting Amendment 5, called 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 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, which has provided consulting for conservative campaigns. Neither Lott nor Melendez responded to requests for interviews about the group's operations.

Marc Ellinger, a lawyer who serves as treasurer of Missouri Promise PAC, said the campaign had publicly disclosed all information required under Missouri law. Ellinger's law office is also listed as the address for Secure Missouri, another nonprofit formed last year that recently contributed $1.5 million to the PAC.

What the Right Is Saying

Republican supporters of both amendments argue that out-of-state interests have exploited Missouri's ballot initiative process to advance policies that do not reflect the values of most Missourians. They point to millions of dollars spent by national advocacy groups supporting constitutional amendments on marijuana legalization, Medicaid expansion and abortion rights as evidence of outside influence.

Supporters of Amendment 5 contend that phasing out the state income tax would make Missouri more economically competitive with neighboring states and help attract businesses and residents to the state. They argue lower taxes would stimulate economic growth and benefit all Missourians through increased job opportunities and higher wages.

Republican strategists note that one campaign opposing Amendment 5 has been almost entirely funded by a $1,900,001 contribution from the Missouri Realtors PAC. While they acknowledge this amount is slightly less than what Missouri Promise Inc. contributed to the pro-Amendment 5 side, they argue it demonstrates that opposition to tax reform also relies on organized interest groups.

Defenders of Amendment 4 say reasonable waiting periods and signature requirements protect against hasty constitutional changes driven by well-funded campaigns, whether those campaigns originate in-state or out-of-state. They contend this would not prevent citizens from placing initiatives on the ballot but would ensure more deliberation.

What the Left Is Saying

Progressive groups and Democratic lawmakers argue that Kehoe's opposition to out-of-state money appears selective when examined alongside his support for Amendment 5. They note that the Delaware-based nonprofit funding the income tax elimination measure provides no public disclosure of its donors, making it impossible to determine whether those funds originate from in-state or out-of-state interests.

Democratic legislators and advocacy organizations have opposed both amendments. They argue that restrictions on citizen ballot initiatives would strip voters of a tool historically used to enact popular reforms when the legislature refused to act, particularly on issues like Medicaid expansion and abortion rights that polls showed had broad public support.

Critics of Amendment 5 say eliminating the state income tax would shift the tax burden onto working-class families by imposing new sales and use taxes on products and services not currently taxed, while also increasing Missouri's existing sales tax rate. They warn this could disproportionately harm lower-income residents who spend a larger share of their income on taxable goods.

Opponents also caution that 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. Both cities are within a few miles of Kansas and Illinois, respectively.

What the Numbers Show

Missouri Promise PAC has received $1.9 million from Missouri Promise Inc., a Delaware nonprofit that does not disclose its donors. Secure Missouri, another nonprofit that does not disclose contributors, recently contributed $1.5 million to the same PAC.

The opposing campaign against Amendment 5 received $1,900,001 from the Missouri Realtors PAC — one dollar more than Missouri Promise Inc.'s contribution to the pro-Amendment 5 campaign. Unlike the nonprofits funding Amendment 5 supporters, the Realtors' political committee reports its donors in public filings with the Missouri Ethics Commission.

Missouri's current state income tax rate ranges from 0% to 4.8% depending on income level. If Amendment 5 passes, the legislature would be required to phase out the income tax over time, though specific timelines and implementation details would need to be determined through separate legislation.

The state currently derives a significant portion of its general revenue from income taxes. Fiscal analysts have noted that replacing that revenue would require either cutting state services or raising other taxes, particularly sales taxes on goods and services not currently taxed.

The Bottom Line

Kehoe's office did not respond to requests for comment about the discrepancy between his public criticism of out-of-state money in ballot initiatives and the undisclosed funding supporting his own constitutional amendment. The situation highlights how Delaware-registered nonprofits can obscure the ultimate source of political contributions, making it difficult to verify whether funds originate from in-state or out-of-state donors.

Both Amendment 4 and Amendment 5 will appear on the Aug. 4 primary ballot. If approved by voters, Amendment 4 would impose new requirements on citizen-led constitutional amendments, while Amendment 5 would begin the process of eliminating Missouri's state income tax. The dual placement of both measures on the same ballot has drawn criticism from opponents who say it represents an attempt to consolidate conservative policy goals in a single election.

Voters should research both proposals carefully before the primary election. Information about campaign finance disclosures and the specifics of each amendment is available through the Missouri Ethics Commission and the Secretary of State's office.