Missouri US House District 4 —A new review shows Congressman Mark “Awful” Alford’s campaign bankrolled by big-city and corporate PAC money, while rural Missourians’ concerns go unheard. Challenger Ricky Dana, a Missouri Grown Candidate, argues it’s time for real local representation.
Some Special Interest Contributions That do nothing for Missourians, nor come from Missourians
T & D Ward, Mission Hills, KS: $7,000 each (the max of $3,500 for primary + $3,500 for general election)
Nancy and John McCarthy, Prairie Village & Olathe, KS: $7,000 each
Corporate PACs at the legal threshold of $5,000 per election:
National Electrical Contractors Association PAC (Washington, DC)
Ameren Corporation Federal PAC (St. Louis, MO)
Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of America PAC (Washington, DC)
All donations stay just inside FEC limits for 2025–2026 elections. Still, the size and source of these gifts stand out.
Rural vs. Urban Profiles
Ricky Dana Profile
Ricky Dana (Rural Missouri Grown Candidate)
Born in the rural town of Waverly and worked farms alongside his grandfather
Understands the daily challenges of rural healthcare, rural broadband, farm costs, and small-town business
Mark “Awful” Alford (Big-City TV Personality):
Career in urban media and television
No hands-on farming or rural policy experience
This contrast raises a clear question: Who understands rural Missouri better?
Why This Matters
Allowing special interest groups to control our rural lands puts Missouri’s future at risk.
These outsiders care only about their profit—not the well-being of our communities, our farms,
or our families. When corporate PACs and big-city donors steer policy, small towns lose broadband,
healthcare gaps widen, and land-use decisions ignore local needs. That’s exactly the path my opponent
is on—putting special interests above rural Missourians. It’s time to reclaim our land for the people
who call it home.
Conclusion:
All gifts in the review comply with FEC rules for 2025–2026, but they come from wealthy urban and out of state donors rather than local Missourians.
Summary: The Trump administration just fired 16 immigration judges even though Congress approved over $3 billion to hire and train them. This will slow down court cases and leave Missouri families—and all Americans—waiting longer for fair hearings. Wasting taxpayer money on political moves instead of keeping courts running hurts everyone’s wallets and communities.
In a July 14, 2025 report, NPR revealed that the Trump administration recently fired sixteen immigration judges across multiple federal jurisdictions, even as Congress had just approved a mega-spending appropriations package allocating over $3 billion to the Department of Justice for immigration-related activities, specifically to hire and train additional adjudicators intended to tackle the massive backlog of cases in immigration courts. This backlog has soared to nearly 4 million pending cases throughout the system, forcing countless families and asylum seekers to endure protracted legal uncertainty and potential deportation orders without timely hearings.
Rather than deploying newly funded personnel resources toward clearing that backlog, the administration’s sudden terminations highlight a troubling disconnect between appropriations intended to strengthen due process and the executive’s use of organizational prerogatives to advance a purely enforcement-oriented agenda. The dismissals—often without stated cause—have left those affected unable to plan their professional futures and have raised serious questions about the politicization of immigration courts.
Legislative Background and Fact-Check
Contrary to the Trump administration’s public assertions that streamlining and accelerating immigration proceedings were top priorities, a closer examination of the legislative record shows that the budget reconciliation package, passed amid divided control of Congress and presented as a comprehensive solution to border security challenges, included broad “pork barrel” provisions well beyond judicial staffing. Known informally as the 2025 budget bill, the legislation earmarked approximately $170 billion over the next several years for a suite of immigration enforcement measures, from constructing additional border wall segments to dramatically expanding detention center capacity.
Within that total, roughly $3.3 billion was designated explicitly for strengthening the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) by funding new immigration judge teams and their supporting staff. Despite these earmarks, the administration’s own Department of Justice moved to terminate dozens of judges who were poised to begin or continue adjudicating cases—an action that not only runs counter to the legislative intent but also risks reversing progress toward reducing court backlogs.
Pragmatic Implications
From a pragmatic perspective, the administration’s apparent volte-face on deploying these newly allocated judicial resources constitutes a stark inefficiency that undermines the very goals articulated by its own leadership. The dissonance between securing billions in funding for legal adjudication and then sidelining qualified personnel suggests that these appropriations were treated less as a genuine investment in fair adjudication and more as a blank check for an aggressive enforcement-first posture.
Meanwhile, the same bill shunted significant capital into private detention operators—allocating upwards of $45 billion to expand detention bed capacity, a move that disproportionately benefits large, for-profit prison firms and local enforcement agencies with vested interests. This reallocation of taxpayer dollars toward incarceration infrastructure, at the expense of judicial due process, risks entrenching a system where expedited removals take priority over transparent, rights-protecting court procedures, ultimately costing taxpayers more in legal challenges and class-action suits down the line.
Political and Institutional Concerns
At its core, this pattern of appropriating funds under broad legislative compromise only to repurpose or withdraw them via administrative fiat strikes at the heart of transparent, accountable governance. The administration’s decision to terminate judges mid-probation—often without stated performance metrics or publicly disclosed rationale—demonstrates a willingness to subordinate merit and institutional integrity to political calculus.
Moreover, by signaling that loyalty to the executive’s hard-line immigration agenda may be as important as or more important than actual courtroom efficiency, the regime tacitly endorses a system in which political loyalty determines who gets to decide matters of life, liberty, and legal protection. It is a disservice to both the public and the principle of separation of powers to weaponize judicial appointments—and dismissals—as tools in a partisan tug-of-war over immigration policy.
Policy Recommendations
To rectify this mismatch between legislative intent and administrative action, Congress must adopt more stringent oversight mechanisms—including regular, public hearings on EOIR conversion decisions and the publication of clear performance benchmarks for terminating or approving immigration judges. Additionally, lawmakers should consider “sunset clauses” on appropriations that allow unspent funds to revert to the Treasury or be redirected to community legal service grants aimed at assisting indigent immigrants—rather than defaulting to traditional incarceration models.
Only by codifying safeguards that ensure appropriations serve their intended purpose can policymakers prevent future misdirection of taxpayer dollars into “pork barrel” diversions that prioritize political spectacle over substantive, rights-protecting measures.
A recent MSNBC opinion highlights how the Trump administration’s “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) — previously led by Elon Musk — has slashed Social Security staffing, closed field offices and imposed new verification rules—sowing chaos at an agency that serves over 66 million Americans[1]. Under Commissioner Frank Bisignano, more than 7,000 positions have already been eliminated, call wait times have exploded, and critical in-person services are disappearing[2].
Who’s Responsible
President Donald Trump — directed the formation of DOGE to deliver “efficiency” through across-the-board cuts.
Elon Musk — DOGE’s original leader, whose aggressive cost-cutting blueprint laid the groundwork for widespread staffing and office closures.
Commissioner Frank Bisignano — confirmed in May 2025 and now overseeing the implementation of DOGE’s staffing and policy changes[3].
Impact on Missourians
AP News reports that at least 47 local SSA field offices nationwide are slated for closure this year under DOGE’s directives—dozens of which serve rural areas where Missourians already drive hours for in-person help[4]. Kiplinger confirmed these closures affect communities of every size, forcing working families to choose between lost wages and long drives just to speak to a clerk[5].
Rapidly aging population: Between 2020 and 2024, the 65 and over cohort in Kansas and Missouri grew by 13 percent, swelling demand for SSA services[6].
High disability prevalence: 10.5 percent of Missourians under 65 live with a disability—higher than the national average of 9.1 percent—and rely on SSDI for essential income[7][8].
Long-Term Pain for Elderly and Disabled Americans
These cuts don’t just inconvenience; they threaten the checks that sustain millions. As of May 2025, the Social Security Administration’s Monthly Statistical Snapshot shows:
69.628 million Americans receive Social Security (OASDI) benefits each month[10].
61.405 million are aged 65 or older receiving Old-Age and Survivors Insurance[10].
74.090 million Americans receive Social Security, SSI, or both[10].
Many of these beneficiaries live on fixed incomes and cannot afford repeated travel or endless hold times, putting them at risk for missed benefits and financial hardship.
References
[1] Zeeshan Aleem, “How DOGE’s reckless cuts created chaos at the Social Security Administration,” Yahoo News.
[2] Meryl Kornfield & Hannah Natanson, “Social Security stops reporting call wait times and other metrics,” The Washington Post.
[3] “Social Security’s new commissioner, rule reversals and cost cuts,” MarketWatch.
[4] “A list of Social Security offices expected to close in 2025,” AP News.
[5] Donna LeValley, “47 Local Social Security Offices to Close After DOGE Cuts,” Kiplinger.
[6] “Fewer kids, more retirees in Kansas and Missouri,” Axios.
[10] Social Security Administration, “Table 1 & 2: Number of people receiving Social Security, Supplemental Security Income, or both & Social Security benefits, May 2025,” Monthly Statistical Snapshot.
If you’re committed to standing with rural Missourians, our seniors and disabled neighbors in this fight against wasteful cuts, please chip in to keep our movement strong: https://secure.actblue.com/donate/ricky-dana-for-congress
Here are the developments from the past week (July 4 – July 11, 2025):
🏛️ Sen. Josh Hawley
Voted in favor of the “One Big Beautiful Bill” (GOP’s 2025 budget reconciliation package), which includes deep Medicaid cuts and work requirements that will strip healthcare coverage from many rural Missourians . The Missouri Dems warn this threatens rural hospitals and could cause up to 250,000 Missourians to lose health insurance and 37,400 jobs by 2035 . Although Hawley later claimed the rural hospital funding would increase, critics point out that the imposed work requirements may actually deprive many rural residents of Medicaid .
🗳️ Sen. Eric Schmitt
Also voted for the same GOP budget reconciliation bill, which includes Medicaid reductions, potential rural hospital closures, and increased energy costs .
⚠️ Summary – Detrimental Impacts on Rural Missouri
Chart 1-a
Here are the votes from July 4–11, 2025 where Rep. Mark Alford took actions that could negatively impact Missourians, especially in rural areas:
⚠️ Negative Impact Votes
July 2, 2025 — Voted Yes on H.R. 1 (the “One Big Beautiful Bill” reconciliation package) This legislation includes proposed Medicaid cuts and stricter work requirements that could strip healthcare coverage from vulnerable rural Missourians and threaten rural hospitals already stretched thin .
References
“Medicaid cuts in ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ could devastate Missouri’s rural hospitals, drive coverage losses,” ABC 17 News (July 3, 2025): https://abc17news.com/news/missouri/2025/07/03/medicaid-cuts-in-big-beautiful-bill-could-devastate-missouris-rural-hospitals-drive-coverage-losses/ “How federal Medicaid changes will affect MO HealthNet and KanCare,” The Beacon News (July 11, 2025): https://thebeaconnews.org/stories/2025/07/11/medicaid-mo-healthnet-kancare-changes-2025/ “States scramble to shield hospitals from GOP Medicaid cuts,” Missouri Independent (July 10, 2025): https://missouriindependent.com/2025/07/10/states-scramble-to-shield-hospitals-from-gop-medicaid-cuts/ “Info – H.R. 1 – 119th Congress (2025–2026): One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” Congress.gov: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1/all-info
Recently, Congress rammed through the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” — a sweeping tax-and-spending package that permanently locks in Trump’s 2017 tax cuts for the well-off while slashing critical supports for working families. The majority of our current Republican leaders in Washington — including Speaker Mike Johnson and Missouri’s GOP delegation — pulled the lever on this giveaway.
The Republicans just keep voting against the people who put them in office.
What this MEANS for Missourians
• 💸 $17 BILLION in lost federal Medicaid funding over the next decade — forcing our state to either cut services or kick 130,000 people off their health coverage.
• 🏥 Rural hospitals on the brink face deeper funding cuts despite a tiny $50 BILLION national rural hospital fund, compared to $1.2 TRILLION in healthcare cuts nationwide.
• 🥘 SNAP beneficiaries will encounter harsher work requirements and higher state costs, jeopardizing food security for tens of thousands of Missouri families.
• 📈 The Congressional Budget Office warns this bill adds $2.8 TRILLION to the deficit, fueling inflation, higher interest rates, and recession risk — and who pays? Middle and Lower-class Missourians.
No more fluff. This is a direct hit on hardworking Missouri families, our rural communities, and our state budget. If our leaders truly put Missouri first, they’d INVEST in people — not pad the pockets of the richest 1%.
📢 The Big Bloated Bill has passed — but that doesn’t mean we’re powerless. Here are a few tips to help minimize the fallout for your family and community:
✅ Check your #Medicaid status now – cuts are coming. Get ahead of them by confirming your eligibility or exploring alternate coverage options. ✅ Plan for higher #energy costs – this bill favors big oil, and rural families may see their bills spike. #Weatherproof your home where possible. ✅ Speak up and stay informed – local advocacy and mutual aid can make a difference.
We’re in this together — and I’ll fight to reverse this mess and bring real relief to #Missouri’s working families.
Today, Republicans in Congress rammed through the so-called Big Beautiful Bill—and with it, they guaranteed that Missourians will pay more for electricity, propane, and gas in the months ahead.
This massive Trump-backed budget isn’t just a slap in the face to working families—it’s a handout to corporate polluters at your expense. Experts now warn that Missouri households could see energy bills jump by 8–15%, especially in rural areas.
The bill eliminates key tax credits for wind, solar, and home energy efficiency—making it harder for Missouri families to save money and power their homes affordably.
Fewer options for solar on farms or rural homes
Less local energy investment
Higher costs from monopoly utilities
2. Expanded Fossil Fuel Subsidies
The BBB showers fossil fuel corporations with tax breaks and removes environmental oversight—letting Big Oil profit while rural communities foot the bill.
Deregulation → price volatility
Profits go up, while rural consumers pay more
3. Gutting Energy Assistance for the Poor
Programs like LIHEAP—which help seniors, veterans, and low-income families pay for heating and cooling—are slashed or eliminated.
Expect more utility shutoffs during heatwaves and cold snaps
Rural counties hardest hit
4. Weakening the Power Grid
Federal investments in grid reliability are gutted, leaving electric co-ops and small towns with unreliable power and bigger bills.
📉 What This Means for Missouri:
Energy rate hikes of 8–15% projected statewide
Rural and low-income families will suffer most
Fewer clean energy jobs and stalled investment in Missouri’s future
💬 We Deserve Better
Mark “Awful” Alford voted for this disaster. He stood with Trump and corporate polluters—and against Missouri families.
I’m Ricky Dana, and I believe rural communities shouldn’t have to choose between groceries and keeping the lights on. I’m running for Congress because we need leaders who fight for us, not fossil fuel donors.
✅ Help us fight back. Every dollar fuels the resistance:
The House’s version of the 2025 budget bill — the so-called “megabill” — threatens to strip health coverage from over 210,000 Missourians, gutting both Medicaid and Marketplace subsidies. These cuts would disproportionately affect working families, seniors, children, and people with disabilities, especially in our rural communities.
🚨 Who’s at Risk?
~91,000 Missourians would lose Medicaid coverage due to new work requirements and administrative hurdles — even though many already work or should be exempt.
~170,000 Missourians, including children and older adults, could lose coverage due to expanded red tape, paperwork barriers, and punitive eligibility checks.
Combined, over 210,000 Missourians stand to lose either Medicaid or Marketplace health coverage — many of them from low-income or rural areas where access to care is already fragile.
These cuts are driven by:
Rigid work requirements for adults aged 19–64 (typically 80 hours/month),
More aggressive verification and reauthorization procedures,
New federal restrictions on provider taxes, which fund Missouri’s MO HealthNet program.
💡 Why This Matters
This bill doesn’t just hurt individuals — it endangers rural hospitals, increases uncompensated care costs, and places new burdens on already strained health systems. Thousands of Missouri families could be forced to choose between health care and putting food on the table.
In Missouri’s 4th District, where rural families already face too many barriers to care, this bill could be catastrophic.
Breakdown at a Glance – Missouri
✅ The Bottom Line
If this House budget bill becomes law, over 210,000 Missourians will lose health care. It’s one of the most reckless attacks on working families and rural communities in recent memory.
We can and must fight back. Our people deserve better health care, fewer barriers, and a government that works for us — not against us.
📢 Join the Fight
I’m Ricky Dana, and I’m running for Congress in Missouri’s 4th to protect health care, strengthen rural hospitals, and stand up for working families. We need representatives who fight for people — not party-line cruelty.
Let’s stop the cuts and build a better future — together.
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
