The final push toward getting voter approval of a new KCI terminal is on, and the big money is flowing freely.
With a week to go before the Nov. 7 election on Kansas City Question 1, the campaign committee working for passage has raised nearly $1.5 million and has spent all but about $80,000 of that.
(The official name of the campaign committee is KC Transportation, Transit and Tourism, but it is operating under the slogan “A Better KCI.”)
The campaign’s biggest expenses include nearly $250,000 for mailings and postage (I’m sure you’ve seen some of the mailers, if you live in the city) and more than $200,000 for polling, strategy and voter research.
A recent mailer
And if you watch a lot of TV but haven’t seen any TV ads, you soon will: The campaign has bought $630,000 worth of “media.”
Some of the biggest contributors so far include the Heavy Constructors Association, $135,000; Cerner Corp. and its political action committee, $125,000; Southwest Airlines, HNTB Corp., KCP&L Co., Pipe Fitters Local No. 533 and Western Missouri and Kansas Laborers District Council, $50,000 each; and Lockton Companies, $40,000.
A flock of companies and organizations have given $25,000 each. That group includes JE Dunn Construction, Black & Veatch, Operating Engineers Local 101, American Century Investments, Kansas City Southern, the Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce, the Civic Council of Greater Kansas City, DST Systems Inc., Sprint and Hallmark Cards.
The two biggest individual contributors that I saw in campaign finance reports filed with the Missouri Ethics Commission were Paul DeBruce, former chairman and C.E.O. of DeBruce Grain, $15,000, and William Gautreaux, a former energy industry executive, $10,000.
Ten-thousand-dollar contributions of note came from Taxpayers Unlimited, the political arm of the International Association of Fire Fighters Local No. 42; the Kansas City Chiefs; Hunt Midwest; and Clarkson Construction, which would partner with Edgemoor, a Maryland firm, on construction of the terminal.
Edgemoor has contributed more than $70,000, including a $60,000 monetary contribution and more than $10,000 in “in-kind” services. In addition, The Star reported today that even Burns & McDonnell, which attempted early on to get a no-bid contract to build the terminal, gave $20,000 within the last few days.
…What to make of all this?
Well, as I said in a recent post, the sausage, once made, looks a lot better than it did in the making.
The process of getting the measure to a public vote bordered on being a certifiable disaster, with twists, turns and pivots that a serpent couldn’t manage. But somehow the City Council set an election date and weeks later designated a contractor, Edgemoor. And even without a decent design that shows what the new terminal would look like, it appears Question 1 has an excellent chance of gaining voter approval.
Why? Because what we’re seeing now is the unleashing of a tremendous amount of pent-up energy and cash from people and companies that have long wanted a new airport and have recognized, with eyes lasered on the future, that we desperately need one.
Some of those people and companies stand to make out handsomely from construction of a new airport, and some people — campaign consultants and strategists, in particular — are making a lot of money from the campaign itself.
But that’s OK. That’s the way it is in a lot of issue and candidate elections. People and companies put money into campaigns for a multitude of reasons, and sometimes the end result is good for everyone — even the public.
This is such a case!
From my perspective, there’s no reason to be cynical about the money cascading into the campaign…or the people who are making money directly off this campaign…or those who will make money if the new terminal proceeds. This is how the system works; this is what it takes to get a new airport. This is the winding, bumpy road that leads to real progress.
As I’ve said fairly consistently — with a couple of hiccups when it looked like the sausage was completely mangled — I’m all in.
I’ve said it many times: This is a first-class city that needs and deserves a first-class airport. What we’ve got now is a dump.
I say…screw the “convenience” of walking from curb to gate. Once you’re in the gate area, you might as well be in what Jackson County officials used to call the holding areas in the old jail on top of the courthouse: “tanks.”
I’m tired of being in those KCI tanks, and I’m tired of that dreary airport. I’m tired of looking at a crumbling Terminal A, and I’m tired of walking in an endless half-circle looking for someplace to buy an honest-to-God sandwich. (Can’t be had.)
I’m ready for some sunlight splashing down through curving glass ceilings onto the two concourses and the connecting walkway. I’m ready for nice selection of retail stores and restaurants and plenty of stations to charge mobile devices. And, yes, I’m ready for the MOVING WALKWAYS.
Now we’re talking convenience, goddamit!
JimmyCsays: At the juncture of journalism and daily life in KC 
Good post.
Amazingly, as Kansas City Platte County resident, I have not received one flyer, call or knock on the door about the airport proposal. As I said before in an earlier set of posts on the subject, everyone must assume that the KC part of Platte County will be a yes.
I doubt that — the assumption. What could be going on is an under-the-radar approach in the Northland to minimize turnout. It’s going to pass by large margins south of the river, especially in the all-important corridor. I’ve been somewhat amazed at the enthusiastic response I’ve seen in my area. Lots of yard signs and virtually no naysayers. The corridor should carry the day. Freedom Inc. has endorsed it, too, although I expect turnout to be low on the East Side.
Ugh. So, it’s time to put decent governance principles aside in favor of so-called convenience and join the bandwagon?
The only thing passage of a billion-dollar blank check will make Kansas City is “world class” dopes.
One suspects that their eyes are far more laser-focused on their bank accounts. You can’t steal from it if you don’t build it. Particularly tasty were the postcards sent to the eastern part of KCMO promising thousands of jobs if they just vote for the new airport. I wonder if those are the same jobs the inner city of KCK was supposed to get when they built the NASCAR track that never materialized.
Fitz, this is the same crew of usual suspects that has been paying homage to Dunn Construction and fleecing the taxpayers ever since I can remember. Much of the reason I always referred to Art as the lawn jockey at the River Club was his subservience to their goals and agenda. I remember vividly seeing the Civic Council’s goals for Kansas City posted on page one of The Star when he was the publisher without explaining who the Civic Council was, or why anyone would give a rat’s ass what they wanted.
Can’t vote on it–not a resident, and I generally think the case for a new airport is reasonable, but the TV advertising that has inundated the airwaves strikes me as condescending and excessive. It also plays annoyingly on Kc’s inferiority complex–‘If we don’t have a new airport, the important people in New York and Los Angeles won’t think we’re also important…and we are! Really, we are!” But what do I know, maybe that kind of pitch works to bring people out to vote.
I don’t watch much TV and didn’t know the ads were underway.
I think a new airport is a good idea.
It will be interesting how the folks north of the river vote. What is Rep. Graves’ position now, is he still against it? Is he quiet so if it passes he’s able to jump on the bandwagon then?
I’ve wondered about Graves, too, Dan, and need to call his office. Same with Teresa Loar, whose vote next Tuesday I’m not sure of, even though she voted for Edgemoor.