Matt Mitgang

U.S. Reps. Russ Carnahan (D-St. Louis) at left and Jo Ann Emerson (R-Cape Girardeau), the two co-chairs of the Center Aisle Caucus, joined Rep. Wm. Lacy Clay (D-St. Louis) on campus Thursday in a conversation about how to make political discourse more civil.

U.S. Reps. Jo Ann Emerson (R-Cape Girardeau), Russ Carnahan (D-St. Louis) and William Lacy Clay (D-St. Louis) told a public forum in the Knight Center that the way politicians interact with one another holds major implications across political culture—from environmental policy to congressional potlucks.

And they said part of an increased lack of civility in politics stems from an increasingly polarized and sensationalistic news media.

“The media gives too much attention to negativity and fighting and not enough to conversations like this one,” Carnahan told the audience at the discussion, which was sponsored by the Danforth Center on Religion & Politics.

Civility in politics—or a lack thereof—has entered the national spotlight since U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) was shot and wounded severely during a public appearance in January.

In opening the panel, moderator Wayne Fields, the center’s founding director and a professor of English at Washington University, pointed to the recent shooting as a catalyst for the representatives’ conversation. But he also cited something more deeply ingrained in American culture—“a widely expressed longing for a more civil society, one in which our behavior is consistent with our most fundamental religious and civic values.”

Carnahan and Emerson are the co-chairs of the Center Aisle Caucus, a forum founded in 2005 to build relationships between members of both parties. They said the shooting had delivered a major wake-up call, one that made the caucus’s mission more important than ever.

Emerson emphasized the importance of a culture of civility within Congress, citing her close personal friendship with U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) and the weekly potlucks she hosts on Sundays for a group of five couples that include members of Congress from both sides of the aisle.

“I’ve learned how not to judge people based on how they vote,” Emerson said. “We have conversations about family and faith….Quite frankly, I love not talking politics.”

Emerson recounted a time when she and Wasserman Schultz appeared on the MSNBC show “Hardball” with Chris Matthews. Emerson said she and her friend managed to remain civil on the show, despite what she perceived as Matthews’ effort to incite a heated debate between the two. “I think it should be our responsibility to promote [civility] on those shows,” she said.

When Fields asked about the fast and often contentious pace of today’s media and the role of social media in democratic politics, the representatives responded that new media has become a powerful tool—but added that it has its limitations.

“People in new media, they tend to be self-selecting information that they don’t agree with, and a lot of times they’re not seeing the broader part of the debate,” Carnahan said. “Still, we’re seeing [new media] topple dictators and military forces across North Africa….We need to be involved in that. In democracy, it’s a tremendous tool.”

When Fields asked about the current protests in Madison over public-union rights legislation and about how to tackle hard issues with civility, all three representatives cited conversations they’d had in Congress about health care.

Emerson said open forums in Congress started by House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) have helped encourage civil dialogue on the issue.

But all three added that the civil parts of the debate over health-care reform in the previous Congress were overridden by contention, especially as the process was portrayed by the media.

“The process itself really got demonized throughout,” Carnahan said.

Senior Toby Shepard said that attending the event broadened her perspective on the way politicians interact.

“I thought it was interesting,” Shepard said. “I didn’t feel that any of them said anything particularly concrete or groundbreaking, and they didn’t necessarily do much in the way of coming up with solutions, but they definitely brought up important issues.”

Sophomore Anna Appelbaum agreed.

“As someone who considers herself to be very liberal, [I thought] it was especially interesting to listen to Jo Ann Emerson speak,” Applebaum said. “It drove home for me the point that civil discourse is incredibly important. Seeing her say things that I could agree with really spoke to what this entire event was trying to accomplish.”

Matt Mitgang | Student Life

Congressman Russ Carnahan (D-Mo.) concludes his victory speech on Nov. 2 after being reelected as the representative from Missouri’s third congressional district. Carnahan won by over 4,000 votes, but Republican Ed Martin has not yet conceded the race.

As of Tuesday’s final count, Martin trailed by 4,400 of approximately 200,000 district votes. But the election was too close to call until around midnight, and the Martin campaign has pointed to a late-night influx of heavy Carnahan votes from seven city precincts as reason for investigation.

Martin also points to the fact that Congressman Carnahan’s sister, Robin Carnahan, reported having irregularities and computer glitches early on Election Day last Tuesday.

These irregularities, according to Robin Carnahan’s staff, arose when voters arrived and found that their names were not on the poll books. Local election officials were unable to verify their voting status because servers were overrun.

Washington University is located in the 3rd Congressional district. On Tuesday, several students complained of confusion at the polls, including being turned away after requesting provisional ballots.

“Because the Secretary of State’s database was not working from about 7 a.m. until close to 3 p.m., we have heard reports about problems with provisional voting throughout the district, including precincts in and around Wash. U.,” Martin wrote in an email to Student Life. “This is a fundamental duty of the Secretary of State and a real problem. We are still exploring if people were disenfranchised and how it impacted the election.”

The Martin campaign has suggested that an independent investigator be hired because of the family ties between Robin and Russ Carnahan. Normally, the voting inquiry would be the responsibility of the Missouri secretary of state.

Martin is not sure what options are available, but is working hard to figure out what to do next. Though his loss margin is well beyond the 1 percent margin at which a recount can be requested, Martin can legally challenge the election until Carnahan is sworn into office again on Nov. 16.

Matt Mitgang | Student Life

Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan addresses supporters at the World’s Fair Pavilion in Forest Park on Oct. 31. Carnahan, a Democrat, is vying for the United States Senate seat against Congressman Roy Blunt.

Robin Carnahan is currently the underdog in a tough fight against Republican Roy Blunt for Missouri’s open U.S. Senate seat.

Robin Carnahan has been trailing by anywhere from nine to 13 percentage points in some polls. She led Blunt in the campaign at the end of 2009, but the two were dead even at the beginning of the year, and Blunt has been in the lead since.

“A lot of these guys want to write the story of this election before anybody has even voted yet,” Robin Carnahan said Sunday. “At this point, we all know that it’s about who shows up to vote. If folks show up, we win. If folks show up, our voices win. If us folks show up, we’re going to be represented in Washington.”

The rally was held at the World’s Fair Pavilion in Forest Park. More than 300 people were in attendance.

During the rally, the campaign focused attention on negative campaign ads targeting Robin Carnahan from American Crossroads, a conservative political group whose leadership includes Karl Rove. Contributions from billionaires make up the large majority of American Crossroads’ funds.

“We have Karl Rove with secret ads, negative ads, untrue ads, paid for by Texas millionaires trying to tell Missouri how to vote. When it comes to dirty and low-down campaigning in America, Karl Rove crawls on his belly like a reptile,” Durbin said.

Robin Carnahan struck a similar tone.

“In Missouri, they’re not going to be fooled by a bunch of big money from undisclosed sources that want to control the government,” Robin Carnahan said.

After the rally, Robin Carnahan emphasized the role that college students and young people play in the election.

“In the 2008 election, young people made a huge difference in the election because they voted … To set the course for a country, you’ve got to be vigilant about it,” Robin Carnahan said.

Her brother, Russ Carnahan, noted that initiatives that affected students, such as health care reform and the student loan program, would depend on this election.

“Wash. U. students and students everywhere should be especially focused on this election because it has a lot to do with the direction of our country,” Russ Carnahan said. “And frankly, there are a lot of folks, our opponents in these elections, mine in particular, that want to take this country backward.”

Washington University sophomores Abby Pribble and Luke Schiel attended the rally. Schiel has been working for the Carnahan campaign as a finance intern but emphasized the need for all Washington University students to vote.

“A Senate election is important for anyone because senators determine policies for the entire country, not just the state of Missouri. We need Democrats to have a majority in the Senate if we want progressive policies passed,” Schiel said. “Wash. U. students can do that, and it will affect everyone no matter where they’re from.”

“Wash. U. students are here for four years, so they might as well take an interest,” Pribble said.

Personally, one thing I love about this school is the diversity of opinions, political and otherwise, which are represented here. While I am all for class and school unity, this is ultimately a university made up of individuals, each of whom carries with him or her a unique set of experiences, beliefs, values and political opinions. Therefore, it is a huge mistake to assume that Wash. U. students as a whole can simply be viewed as a group of people with a cohesive or universal political opinion, or that individual political preferences can ever be narrowed down to a checklist of “issues of importance to Wash. U. students.” An issue that is of importance to me, for example, may mean very little to others, and vice-versa.

In addition to making this mistaken assumption, the article also unfortunately leaves out some important information that seems relevant to the overall discussion. I’d like to take the opportunity to clarify some of the points made and provide some of this additional information.

First, there is the quick dismissal of Martin’s criticism of Carnahan’s use of the franking privilege. Contrary to what the author implies, Martin has not criticized Carnahan for simply using his franking privilege, but for abusing it—spending $127,000 of taxpayer money on such mailings in 2009 (more than all but one Missouri congressman) and for drastically increasing the use of such mailings as the election has drawn closer, a move that blurs the line between legal use of the franking privilege (to communicate with constituents) and illegal use (to use as a campaign tool). Put in proper context, then, Martin’s criticism seems more than justified.

Further, there is a problem with Congressman Carnahan’s characterization as someone who is transparent and not corrupt. In point of fact, there is substantial evidence to the contrary. A December 2009 New York Times report cites Carnahan as Congress’ third-worst offender when it comes to taking trips and vacations that have been privately financed by the corporate clients of Washington lobbyists. Congressman Carnahan ran up a tab of over $80,000 on these trips, often staying in $2,000-per-night hotels. Even more alarming is a fact that has recently come to light—that Carnahan used his position of power to help funnel $107 million of stimulus money to his own brother, Tom Carnahan, to finance a wind farm that is nowhere near the 3rd District. This project took away valuable funding that could have otherwise gone to projects within Carnahan’s district.

I bring up these issues not to tell anyone who they should vote for. While I have already made up my mind about who I am voting for (hint: he’s not named Russ Carnahan), I feel strongly that the author is correct when he says that the choice is yours to make. I take this to mean that the choice belongs to each and every one of us, individually, to answer the question “Who do you want representing you?” We should never allow this question to be answered for us. It is hardly my place (or anyone else’s) to tell you how we as a student body—or you as an individual—should vote. Rather, we should challenge ourselves to take seriously the responsibility that comes with voting, and accordingly, to do the research and take the time to make a personal and informed decision, taking into consideration all of the facts and issues.

Matt Hoffman is a Senior in Arts and Sciences.
Write to Matt at

One major issue in the election is jobs. Representative Carnahan voted for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says created and saved between 1.4 million and 3.3 million jobs through tax cuts and investment in projects, ranging from infrastructure to renewable energy. These projects create green jobs. Ed Martin, a Tea Party activist, argues for cutting taxes and reducing regulation on business, hoping that voters forget why regulations were made in the first place, even after financial crises caused by Republican deregulation cost America millions of jobs. He strongly opposed the Recovery Act and its $288 billion of tax cuts.

The differences between Congressman Carnahan and Ed Martin continue with environmental and energy policy. Representative Carnahan has pushed to create renewable energy and combat climate change, taking tax breaks from oil companies and giving them to alternative energy sources in order to create green jobs for Missouri and the rest of America. He voted for the American Clean Energy and Security Act, which aims to limit emissions that cause climate change.

Martin denies the science behind climate change and refuses to do anything to move America toward renewable energy besides repealing energy subsidies, which fund a great deal of investment in clean technologies like solar and wind energy and opposes regulations on oil companies, even after the oil spill this summer cost America tens of thousands of jobs.

As different from Wash. U. as Martin is on energy, he gets farther away when it comes to social issues. Representative Carnahan supports life-saving stem cell research, while Martin does not. Martin recently said President Obama was “taking away Americans’ right to ‘find the Lord,’” while Representative Carnahan does not say insane comments to divide Americans in hopes of winning votes.

Their differences really shine through on “don’t ask, don’t tell.” The two candidates were asked if they support the policy in a recent debate. Congressman Carnahan has stated his opposition to “don’t ask, don’t tell” because that is what military leaders want, and we need talented people defending our country regardless of sexual orientation. Martin followed up the Congressman’s answer about defending our country by calling the effort to rid our country of “don’t ask, don’t tell” “social engineering by Nancy Pelosi and the far left,” a statement just as crazy as “don’t ask, don’t tell” is discriminatory.

When Wash. U. looks at candidates, the character of the people should matter just as much as their policy positions. Each candidate criticizes the other’s character in his political past. Martin has criticized Representative Carnahan, but his criticisms show more about himself than his opponent. Martin criticized Congressman Carnahan’s use of franking, a privilege Congress has that allows members to send mail to their constituents. Franking allows members of Congress to keep their constituency informed on what Congress has done and greatly contributes to increased transparency.

While Martin criticizes Carnahan for expensive transparency, Representative Carnahan has criticized Martin for expensive lack of transparency. His tenure as former Governor Blunt’s chief of staff was full of controversy, but he was finally fired for covering up some of the illegal political use of his office. Martin deleted e-mails and then fired the lawyer investigating his wrongdoings. Martin’s transgressions are so great that Representative Carnahan is not the only one criticizing Martin for his character flaws: The non-partisan Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington named Martin one of their top 10 most corrupt candidates of 2010.

We have a choice. We can vote for a rational, thoughtful congressman who works to make our lives better by creating jobs, protecting the environment and representing our social views, or a corrupt, disgraced former chief of staff who would enjoy dividing Americans for his own benefit and preventing progress on energy. The choice is ours.

The “Fighting 3rd” is in the eastern part of the state. It includes much of the City of St. Louis, southern St. Louis County and all of Jefferson County and Ste. Genevieve County. The district is home to much of Washington University’s campus, including the South 40.

A Democrat has held the congressional seat for more than sixty years. Former Rep. Dick Gephardt, who served as both majority leader and minority leader, held the seat from 1977 until his retirement in 2005.

Democrat Russ Carnahan currently holds the seat and is running for re-election. His opponent is Republican Ed Martin, who served as chief of staff to former Gov. Matt Blunt and as the chair of the St. Louis Board of Election Commissioners.

Ed Martin

Besides serving as chief of staff to former Governor Matt Blunt and as the chair of the St. Louis Board of Election Commissioners, Republican Ed Martin is a member of the Missouri State Park Advisory Board. He is originally from New Jersey, but entered law school at Saint Louis University and remained in St. Louis after graduate school. He headed the leadership team that designed and implemented the Missouri Accountability Portal, which is an Internet search engine that tracks state spending in order to boost transparency. He is also the founder of SaveAB.com, a group dedicated to stopping the sale of Anheuser-Busch to InBev.

ENERGY

Martin is strongly opposed to the Obama administration’s cap-and-trade legislation, which according to his website, is meant to redistribute wealth. He believes the initiative will artificially increase energy costs, destroy jobs, increase the costs of utilities and groceries, have a hard effect on agriculture, penalize the Missouri coal industry and enrich interest groups. He supports an “all of the above” approach to energy to reduce the country’s dependency on foreign sources of energy.

While working for the Governor, Martin helped push legislation requiring gasoline sold in Missouri to contain 10 percent ethanol. He is in favor of biomass, biofuels, wind power and solar energy.

JOBS

Jobs are a main focus of Martin’s campaign. He is also in favor of reducing excessive regulation on Missouri businesses that hinders job growth. Finally, he wants to cut taxes.

During his time working in state government, Martin assisted Blunt in bringing about tax cuts, tort reform and workers’ compensation reform. He also helped spearhead the Quality Jobs Program, which continues to run. Under Blunt, Missouri saw a net increase of 70,000 jobs.

HEALTH CARE

Martin is opposed to Obama’s health care plan. He seeks to replace it with a series of controversial reforms. He believes that the plan was passed haphazardly and added too many people to Medicaid. He also says that the plan will drop insurance plans in favor of paying the relatively lower cost penalties.

While working for Blunt, Martin pushed forward a MO HealthNet plan to replace the old system. The new plan empowered patients by increasing access to health care, gave access to primary care for all participants and reduced the number of uninsured Missourians.

EDUCATION

Martin is in favor of annual increases for construction of K-12 schools. He is also in favor of college construction and expanded college scholarships. While working with Blunt, he was in favor of selling Missouri’s student loan agency in an effort to pay for endowments and new school construction. He also believes that schools should be spending a majority of their money on education.

Russ Carnahan

Russ Carnahan was born in Columbia, Mo., and raised in Rolla, Mo. He was elected to the U.S. House in 2004, after winning a tight Democratic primary race against nine competitors, including Mark Smith, director of career planning and placement at Washington University and Jeff Smith, former University professor and former Missouri state senator. Carnahan is a member of the New Democrat Coalition. He is assigned to the Committees on Science and Technology, Foreign Affairs and Transportation and Infrastructure.

ENERGY

According to Carnahan’s website (www.russcarnahan.com), “The United States must move towards energy independence by developing alternative fuel sources.” Carnahan seeks to remove the tax credits being given to the oil industry. He also wants the federal government to support research that will create technology that will lower energy costs.
In Congress, Carnahan voted for tax incentives for renewable energy, removing oil and gas exploration subsidies and keeping the moratorium on offshore drilling. He voted against authorizing construction of new oil refineries, and he supports letting states define stricter-than-federal emission standards.

JOBS

Carnahan supports union rights. He also wants the government to focus on strengthening job opportunities on a regional level. In February, he unveiled a regional job plan that included an overview of the economy, an evaluation of local assets, an industry-by-industry analysis and a growth plan for each industry.
In Congress, Carnahan voted in favor of extending unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks, restricting employer interference in union organizing and increasing the minimum wage to $7.25. Carnahan is in favor of banning discriminatory compensation and seeks stronger enforcement against gender-based pay discrimination.

HEALTH CARE

Carnahan is in favor of government-sponsored national health care. He believes that Congress should restore taxes on the wealthiest two percent of Americans and use those funds to provide access to basic medical services for all Americans.

Carnahan voted yes on expanding the Children’s Health Insurance Program and on the health care bill.

EDUCATION

Carnahan is opposed to the Bush administration’s No Child Left Behind Act, claiming that it lacks the funding that is required to maintain the legislation. He supports the Obama administration’s initiative to provide college access for 100 percent of Americans.

Carnahan voted in favor of allocating $40 billion for green public schools, providing an additional $10.2 billion for federal education and Health and Human Services projects and offering every parent a choice between charter schools and public schools.

The states, Missouri and Illinois among them, are vying for a slice of the $8 billion in stimulus money available for rail projects. The goal is a 110-mph train network that would be centered in Chicago and link up with 11 other metropolitan areas, including St. Louis.

Supporters say the network would foster economic development, bring jobs to the Midwest, take cars off the road and reduce travel times.

“It would just revolutionize travel in our economy, in this region,” said U.S. Rep. Russ Carnahan, D-St. Louis, a member of the U.S. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. “It would not only link us to Chicago. It would also link the two largest cities in Missouri, and most of our population will have access to that.”

Proponents do not yet know exactly how to cover the $12 billion total cost for the network—stimulus money would cover only a small fraction, and state funding could be difficult to secure due to the recession. The states are focusing on incremental upgrades to their routes as funding becomes available.

Illinois’ route from Chicago to St. Louis could be among the first to hit the 110 mph mark. The Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT), meanwhile, is looking to upgrade the top speed of the state’s St. Louis-Kansas City route from 79 mph to 90 mph, though 110 mph is still far away, said Rodney Massman, administrator of the rail section for MoDOT.

Students traveling on the St. Louis-Chicago route would likely see their travel times drop from over five hours to around four hours, if the route gets the speed upgrade.

Most students when interviewed said they were unfamiliar with the proposed upgrades. But some said they would be more open to using trains after the speed upgrades.

Junior Robbie Gilchrist, a St. Louis-area resident, said driving and taking a bus are currently the quickest ways for him to get to Chicago. Upgrading the Chicago-St. Louis route’s top speed to 110 mph and reducing the travel time to four hours, he said, would make him more likely to travel by train.

“Trains have a lot of stops and slowdowns between here and Chicago,” Gilchrist said. “So speeding it up and also improving the efficiency would make it more viable to use, not to mention the jobs that would be created.”

Decades down the road, some advocates want to build a new rail network in the Midwest with top speeds of 220 mph.

Funding the upgrades

Upgrading to 110 mph could prove difficult enough, however, due to the financial costs.

Competition for stimulus money will be intense—many states are seeking similar money for their own rail projects. Carnahan said he is pushing to get the funding for Missouri approved.

The recession has also dropped states’ tax revenues, dimming the prospects of additional state funding for the network.

Illinois has already poured millions into the Chicago-St. Louis route. Because it has already made some improvements to the route, the state may be able to upgrade the top speed to 110 mph much sooner—which could improve the state’s chances of getting stimulus money.

Ben Reeser, financial coordinator for MoDOT, said 95 percent of MoDOT’s total budget goes toward highways, with very little for rail. The state has not funded high-speed rail to this point, and getting funding from the legislature could prove challenging due to the economy, he said.

Although MoDOT receives substantial funding from the Missouri’s fuel and vehicle taxes, the Missouri Constitution specifies that those revenues can go only toward highways and bridges, Reeser said. Other modes like rail are funded almost exclusively with federal money and through the general budget and must therefore compete with other state programs as the economy continues to hurt states’ tax revenues.

Missouri tax revenues have fallen 10 percent this fiscal year, and state lawmakers say nearly $1 billion in general budget cuts could be needed next fiscal year, which will likely force new projects to the shelf as the state figures out just how to keep existing programs afloat.

“It’s just not a good scenario right this year to be looking for additional funding for everything,” said state Rep. Rick Stream, R-Kirkwood, vice chairman of the Missouri House Budget Committee. “We’re going to look at holding on to what we can and minimize the cuts.”

State Sen. Jim Lembke, R-South St. Louis County, said the chances of the General Assembly funding high-speed rail next year are “slim to none.”

Missouri has long had a debate over how it funds certain modes of transportation, with some arguing the state should shift some funding from roads to other modes.

Former Missouri Gov. Bob Holden, a Democrat, said he supports high-speed rail and said the state should transition some of its transportation needs from roads to water, rail and possibly air.

“We can’t continue to expand the road system and not have a growing population,” Holden said. “The tax base just can’t sustain it.”

No fast track to 220 mph

Some advocates say that upgrading top speeds even further, to 220 mph, could make an even bigger economic impact and perhaps cut travel times nearly in half. Rick Harnish, executive director of the Midwest High-Speed Rail Association, said the lower travel times could boost productivity and innovation and take even more cars off the road.

“Since we’re more productive, more innovative, it will make the Midwest a more attractive place to be,” Harnish said. “We’re more likely to attract the kind of companies that we need in order to be successful.”

The costs would be higher than those for the 110-mph system; some estimate that it would cost $12 billion for a 220-mph route between Chicago and St. Louis.

Carnahan said it will be important to take a step-by-step approach to the high-speed rail project.

“We know we’re not going to go from where we are today to 200-mph trains,” Carnahan said. “But I think the realistic steps are to get to those 110-mph trains that I think could really revolutionize the way we can travel within our own state.”

Ritz Carlton employees wait in a field on Oct. 16, 2008, after being evacuated from their building when a bomb went off in a nearby parking garage. (Matt Mitgang | Student Life)

New information about the 2008 bombing at the parking garage at 190 Carondelet Blvd. in Clayton has brought new attention to Milton “Skip” Ohlsen III, a former Democratic campaign strategist also tied to former state Sen. Jeff Smith, D-St. Louis, and former state Rep. Steve Brown, D-Clayton, who resigned from the Missouri General Assembly on Tuesday.

The bombing injured attorney John Gillis when the bomb went off next to his car, although it is believed that the intended target was Richard Eisen, who was an attorney from Husch Blackwell Sanders at the time of the bombing. Eisen had represented Ohlsen’s ex-wife in a divorce filed in December 2007. Gillis was treated for burns after the bombing.

Ohlsen is also connected to Smith’s 2004 congressional campaign, which Smith lost to now-U.S. Rep Russ Carnahan, D-St. Louis. Carnahan filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission stating that Smith’s campaign violated federal law by producing anonymous fliers critical of Carnahan. Ohlsen has been implicated in the production of the fliers and told federal investigators that he had connections to Smith’s campaign.

Smith was in a 10-way primary race to replace  the retiring U.S. Rep. Richard Gephardt, D-St. Louis. Smith finished second in the primary and Gephardt went on to the seat. Ohlsen was head of Voters for Truth, an independent organization, which sent thousands of anti-Carnahan postcards.

Ohlsen was arrested on firearms charges, an unrelated case, last December and will be sentenced in September on those charges as well as fraud charges stemming from a mortage and equity line of credit he obtained, Ohlsen pled guilty to both sets of charges. Also in December, FBI agents searched Ohlsen’s apartment for evidence related to the bombing.

Ohlsen was also charged with stealing an airplane that was awarded to his ex-wife in the divorce. In March, 2008 Ohlsen was pulled over for speeding and police found a Glock pistol loaded with armor-piercing ammunition in his car.

Former state Sen. Jeff Smith (center), D-St. Louis, exits the Thomas Eagleton Federal Courthouse on Tuesday after pleading guilty to two counts of conspiracy to obstruct justice. Smith faces up to 20 years in prison and/or a $250,000 fine for each count. (Matt Mitgang | Student Life)

Jeff Smith, a Missouri state senator who frequently taught at Washington University, resigned his Senate seat and pled guilty in federal court on Tuesday to two counts of conspiracy to obstruct justice, after weeks of speculation about a federal investigation into Smith and others who worked on his 2004 congressional campaign.

The first count is for conspiring to obstruct a Federal Election Commission investigation into the St. Louis Democrat’s 2004 congressional run. The other count is for conspiring to obstruct a federal grand jury investigation this year that revisited the 2004 inquiry.

Nicholas Adams, the campaign treasurer from 2004, also pled guilty to two counts of conspiracy to obstruct justice. Another legislator connected to Smith’s case, state Rep. Steve Brown, D-Clayton, also appeared in court Tuesday and pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to obstruct justice. Brown also announced his resignation Tuesday.

Each count carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and/or fines of up $250,000. Officials said Brown and Adams may receive lighter sentences, however, because they provided assistance to investigators.

Sentencing in all of the cases has been set for Nov. 10.

The FBI this past summer was revisiting the 2004 FEC investigation, which centered on anonymous literature allegedly distributed illegally by Smith’s campaign. The literature, in the form of postcards, attacked Smith’s main opponent in 2004, now-U.S. Rep. Russ Carnahan, D-St. Louis.

The charges concern how Smith, Brown and Adams tried to “corruptly attempt to obstruct, influence, and impede” the investigations. All three men acknowledged to Judge Carol Jackson they had misled investigators.

Gov. Jay Nixon announced on Tuesday that both seats would be filled in a special election on Nov. 3.

In mid-2004, Carnahan’s campaign filed a complaint with the FEC about the postcards, alleging Smith had violated federal election law by anonymously spreading “false and malicious information intended to deceive potential voters and evade proper federal disclosures.”

Smith in an affidavit, which he acknowledged on Tuesday as being false, denied any involvement. In late 2007, the FEC found there was not enough evidence to prove wrongdoing on the part of Smith and his campaign committee.

Court documents say an unnamed individual affiliated with the organization Voters for Truth approached Smith’s campaign committee in July 2004 to discuss the idea of making and distributing the postcards. Smith’s campaign committee introduced Brown, a “close and personal friend” of Smith and not yet a member of the Missouri House, to an unidentified individual.

At that time, Brown agreed to raise funds for making the ads. He raised “substantial” funds for Voters for Truth and personally gave the individual $5,000 in cash.

Though the documents do not name the individual, Brown’s attorney, Art Margulis, said the individual is Milton “Skip” Ohlsen III, a Democratic operative. FEC documents from 2004 linked Ohlsen to the postcards and Smith’s campaign.

On July 23, 2004, Voters for Truth mailed 25,000 postcards to voters in Missouri’s 3rd Congressional District. Carnahan responded by filing the complaint against Friends of Jeff Smith.

On Sept. 8, 2004, Smith submitted the falsely sworn affidavit to the FEC, stating he had “no knowledge of who was responsible for the [postcard] referenced in the [FEC] complaint, nor who paid for the mailing.”

The FBI returned to the 2004 charges when new evidence emerged this year. The U.S. Attorney’s Office declined to comment on how the new evidence was developed.

Court documents detail several conversations between Smith, Brown and Adams about their plans to mislead investigators in both the FEC investigation and the FBI investigation. Smith is quoted as pressuring Brown to lie to investigators: “Don’t do anything stupid. Stupid would be telling them things that were happening in your brain.” Smith also told Brown he would not be truthful to investigators, saying, “I’d be 90% honest.”

After the court hearing, Assistant U.S. Attorney Hal Goldsmith said the crimes were a “classic case of corruption.” John Gillies, special agent for the St. Louis FBI, agreed with Goldsmith.

“At the end of the day, for those of you in the courtroom, this is pure stupidity,” Gillies said. “You’ve got a Ph.D., a J.D. from Washington University, another guy with a master’s, and all of this for what at the end of the day? Just so they could get a little more power and feel a little bit better about themselves that they’re big shots of the town. We will not tolerate this kind of corruption.”

During his court appearance, Smith said, “I am guilty as charged.” Smith left the Thomas Eagleton Federal Courthouse with his lawyers, relaxed and smiling.

Nixon released a statement Tuesday calling the resignations “necessary and appropriate” because both Smith and Brown had “violated the public’s trust.”

After leaving the courthouse, Smith made several comments to reporters, including an apology to his constituents and family.

“This event has humbled me,” Smith said in a statement posted to his Web site. “I have done some significant introspection and that has been the hardest part: coming to terms with my own poor judgments and mistakes.”

In a press release, Missouri Senate Majority Floor Leader Kevin Engler, a Republican, said: “Jeff has made some serious mistakes and will be held accountable for those mistakes, but that should not detract from his accomplishments in the Senate or his hard work on behalf of his community. Sen. Smith was always a very reasonable person in the capitol. He was someone quite frankly that encouraged more bipartisan behavior between our parties.”

Smith has previously taught courses on ethics in politics and campaigning at the University, but a school spokeswoman announced last week that his scheduled class for this fall had been canceled.

The University released a statement on Tuesday afternoon saying it would not comment on personnel issues.

Associate Professor of Political Science Andrew Rehfeld said he doesn’t think that Smith’s plea will adversely affect the political science department as a whole.

“We are and remain interested in being engaged with people who are involved in politics and being engaged with a wide variety of people, and that means we’re going to encounter the real-life problems and turmoil of human beings,” Rehfeld said. “I think what happened is sad, but it goes along with being experienced.”

Still, Rehfeld is concerned that Smith’s actions may diminish the messages of his lessons. He said students likely attribute “some moral perfection” to a professor.

“I think for better or worse this will cause some of the students to question what he taught, and some of that questioning is justified and other of it is probably not,” Rehfeld said. “The lessons that we teach our students are not about us; they’re about a subject matter and on that score, as far as I can tell, especially in the smaller classes that he taught, he was a gifted teacher.”

With additional reporting by Kat Zhao, Michelle Merlin and Dan Woznica