Who Is Janet Adams And Why Is Roy Calling Her A Liberal?

Who is Janet Adams? She must have some powerful mojo that Shane Schoeller had to raise over $169,000 to defend his seat against her.

In a letter sent this week to Schoeller supporters, Roy Blunt said, "Unfortunately Shane had to spend $10,121 more than he raised to retain his seat."

WHAT? Something doesn't make sense here or else we are not seeing the whole picture.

I went the the Missouri Ethics Commission site and pulled up Schoeller's 30 days after election report. Roy is right: Schoeller is $10,000 and sum in debt at the beginning of the period.

But he didn't incur this debt running up campaign debts while defending his seat against that liberal Janet Adams as Roy suggests. The debt originated when Shane made his first run against Jamie Schoolcraft in 2006. Instead of paying off the debt with his campaign contributions, Shane instead carried the debt and used contributions that could have paid off the debt to make donations to other candidates.

So, if you made a donation to Shane Schoeller, to help him retain his seat representing Willard and pay down his campaign debt, your donation went, most likely, in this direction:

Don Ruzika for State Rep 132nd $400
Friends of Rick Stream $400
Friends of Shelly Keeney $400
Sander for State Rep $400
Committee To Re-elect Vickie Schneider $400
Friends of Ed Robb $250
Friends of Cloria Brown $500
Friends of Eric Burlison $1,000
Denny Hosking 2008 $500
Jotte for Missouri House $500
Largent 08 $500
Citizens for Jerry Nolte $500
Citizens for Riddle $500
Friends of Ed Robb $500
Citizens for Van Kleek $500
Committee to Elect Dr. Brown for 149th $300
Friends of Charlie Denison $500
Citizerns for TR Carr $300
Citizens for Guernsey $300
Friends of Louie Seiberlich $300
Anne Zerr for State Rep $300
HRCC $5,000
HRCC $883.46
HRCC $252

In the Fall of 2008, Shane contributed $16,985.40, at least, to other candidates and caucuses (HRCC is the House Republican Campaign Caucus--the Dems have one too).

What sets this fund raising appeal apart from what other Democrats and Republicans have done, is Roy's brazen suggestion that Schoeller went into debt to retain his seat. Schoeller incurred the debt almost three years ago. And, instead of paying off the debt ---with his donors' money-- he made campaign contributions to other campaigns. To imply otherwise is dishonest.

Why is Roy inserting himself in this local race?

Remember these posts from KY3's David Catanese?

January 22, 2009: Schoeller considering run for congress.

January 31, 2009: Site set up to draft schoeller for congress.

February 27, 2009: Schoeller: I will not seak the 7th Congressional Seat.

Goodman, a shirt-tale kin of Roy Blunt, is said to have the support of the Blunt/Ashcroft machine.

Schoeller has greater name recognition in this area than Goodman. Schoeller's pedigree is deep: Matt Blunt appointed Schoeller's wife fee agent for the Nixa License Plate Office. She has received almost $800,000 in fees since her appointment. Schoeller has been a staffer for the Homebuilders Association, Students in Free Enterprise, on the staffs of John Ashcroft, Kit Bond, Roy and Matt Blunt....and don't forget, he's another shining alumnus of Southwest Baptist University..Do you remember who used to be president of that University?...and now, a campaign finance money launderer* trained by the masters.

But getting back to Janet Adams, the 'liberal' who, according to Roy, caused Shane to spent all his money and an additional $10,121.00"

I can see it now-----Roy goes to Shane and gets Shane to drop out and support Goodman for the 'good of the party'. As a token of his appreciation, Roy will help Shane with his fundraising efforts in his district and maybe even help him go for Speaker.

Term limits really presents some opportunities that used to take years to fall into place.

We will see how this plays out as we get closer to 2010.

*One of the ways to get around the campaign limits prior to their removal, was this simple scheme:

Special Interest Group A maxes out their contribution to Candidate A who is in a tough fight. So Special Interest Group A maxes out their contribution to, say, Candidate B who is scored as safe to retain his seat.

Candidate B then takes that contribution and passes it though to Candidate A. Candidate B launders the money, obscuring its origins, so much for transparency in government.

Pretty slick, ain't it! And not only that, it is legal!

But wait!, There's MORE!

Candidate B is having a good campaign. His opponent is weak and not raising much money. Candidate B is having good returns from his fund raising efforts. Lots of people are giving money to candidate B because they believe in him.

Candidate B meanwhile gives cash to candidates who are cash strapped. He takes the money people gave to his campaign and gives that money to the campaign of Candidate A.

Again, all legal.