Quick Take: The government shouldn’t be using our troops as street cops. It’s a dangerous power grab, and Congress needs to stop it now.
We cannot stand by while our government threatens to turn our neighborhoods into war zones. Troops belong in disaster relief—not patrolling our streets or detaining civilians.
There’s a push underway to use the National Guard as law enforcement and even involve the military in immigration enforcement. This not only violates constitutional principles—it threatens our democracy and undermines public trust in our communities.
We must demand: No troops on our streets. No military role in immigration enforcement. The National Guard should remain focused on protecting citizens from floods, fires, and disasters—not being weaponized for political agendas.
Take action today: Sign and share the petition urging Congress to protect our communities and uphold democratic values.
Carefully assess the actions of Missouri’s governor, Republican members of the state legislature and our Congressional delegation. Then ask yourself: Whose priorities, interests and concerns have they supported, fought for and voted for?
Certainly not those of most Missourians.
Missourians voted for candidates in various elective offices to represent and fight for their interests in Jefferson City and Washington, D.C.
Instead, many of the Republican elected officials seem to have forgotten and folded to the pressure of supporting and carrying out the agenda of the Trump administration, whether it is in the best interest and well-being of Missouri citizens or not.
Look at the behavior of Missouri senators and representatives in Congress. While some bothered to proclaim that Medicaid should not be cut, at the end of the posturing they all went along with approving the Trump administration’s “Big Beautiful Bill.”
Essentially voting for the cuts in Medicaid funding that will deny tens of thousands of Missourians life-saving services. How many rural hospitals will be affected or forced to close in the coming months and years because of these cuts?
Their actions, or failures to act, are disturbing and disconcerting.
How is it that members of the Missouri congressional delegation can get away with the abdication of carrying out their governance and oversight responsibilities?
When it comes to allowing the Trump administration to usurp Congress’s power and arbitrarily disrupt, disband and defund departments that will negatively impact Missourians. First it was the department of education that was the target, cutting needed funding for school districts.
Our representatives in Congress have been silent and given tacit support to other actions of the Trump administration.
When it comes to the impact of increased tariffs on farmers being able to export their soybeans and other produce, and the higher cost of consumer goods across the board for families already struggling to make ends meet.
When it comes to immigration tactics that disrupt business operations, the workforce in agricultural industries and the lives of innocent family members.
When it comes to the short and long-term effects of taxation policies and the national debt, the burden of which Missourians like all Americans must bear.
When there is no oversight, no checks and balanced guardrails, how can we be confident that the policies and decisions being made will be in our best interest?
The actions of our Republican governor, Republican-controlled state legislature and other government offices are in lock-step with the Trump administration as well.
An executive order adopted and ensured the implementation of dismantling DEI programs throughout governmental departments and agencies, colleges and universities, and wherever the state had authority to issue a mandate. Businesses have been sued by the state attorney general for apparent noncompliance.
What measures are being implemented to ensure that all Missourians are treated equal and have equal access and equal opportunity? A state with a diverse population base, who is helped or hurt?
The latest influence of President Trump on what goes on in Missouri is his request for the legislature to draw a new map to eliminate one of the two Democratic congressional districts to help ensure that the Republicans maintain the majority in the House after the 2026 midterm elections.
Such a move, if successful, would eliminate the congressional district that represents Kansas City and some adjacent counties, thereby diminishing or negating the impact the representation and vote of a large number of constituents, including large minority groups.
Congressional districts are usually revisited or redrawn following the U.S. Census taken every 10 years that tracks population shifts and other changes. Redrawing districts mid-cycle or in an off year is solely to provide a political advantage for one party or the other.
Missouri has six Republican and two Democratic Congressional districts.
Every Missourians should think about the meaning of the political move to change that to 7 to 1.
Fundamentally, elected officials, irrespective of their party affiliations, should represent all constituents living within their electoral boundaries despite the racial and ethnic make-up or how they may have voted.
Likewise, representative government means just that. It should represent, as best as possible, all the people it governs.
As there is growing disapproval of President Trump and many of his policies by most recent polls, why are Republican state leaders continuing to bow to the pressure of jumping on an increasingly unpopular Trump agenda?
It behooves each of us to ask a critical question.
Who, among our state Republican elected officials, is standing steadfast to promote, protect and put the priorities of Missourians first amid this national political morass?
Missouri Independent is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Missouri Independent maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jason Hancock for questions: [email protected].
Graves’s “Rails to Trails” bill: a solution in search of a problem
On August 11, 2025, KTTN reported that Rep. Sam Graves introduced the “Rails to Trails Landowner Rights Act,” pitched as protection against federal “seizures.” Missouri Representatives Ann Wagner and Mark “Awful” Alford signed on, along with Bob Onder and others. Here’s the problem: the premise is wrong, and the fix makes things worse for rural communities like ours.
What the bill actually does
The bill rewrites the federal rails-to-trails program to require signed approval from each affected landowner within 30 days. It also forces any trail sponsor—often a small town or nonprofit—to promise fair-market-value payments for impacts and to take on perpetual maintenance. On top of that, it adds a new 90-day federal comment process and a mandated cost-benefit study that the local sponsor must pay for before anything moves. In plain English: one neighbor can veto the entire project, and counties get handed the bill.
What current law already guarantees
Under the National Trails System Act, unused rail corridors can be “railbanked” for interim trail use so the corridor isn’t lost forever. The U.S. Supreme Court has already upheld this framework as constitutional and made clear that if a taking occurs, landowners have a direct path to just compensation through the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. That’s been the law for decades. Federal courts have repeatedly recognized that when the Surface Transportation Board issues a Notice of Interim Trail Use (NITU), a compensable taking often occurs—and the remedy is payment, not shutting down the corridor.
So the real question isn’t whether landowners get paid—they do. It’s whether Washington should give any single person a veto that blocks everyone else’s use, stalls corridor preservation, and forces local taxpayers to shoulder new costs that federal law doesn’t require today.
Why Graves’s approach hurts rural Missouri
First, a “one-neighbor veto” means miles of rail corridor can be wasted because one signature is missing. That’s not how we get public works done. We don’t build roads, water lines, or power lines by unanimous consent of every parcel along the route. We follow a lawful process and pay fair compensation.
Second, the bill shifts costs from the federal government to small towns, counties, and volunteer groups. Requiring pre-arranged, fair-market payments and perpetual maintenance guarantees will scare off community sponsors and bury rural budgets in legal paperwork.
Third, it undermines corridor preservation. Railbanked rights-of-way aren’t just for walkers and cyclists. They keep a continuous corridor intact for future rail service and can host utilities and broadband later. Once a corridor is chopped up, it’s gone—for trains, for emergency access, for fiber, for the next generation.
About that “federal seizure” claim
Calling railbanking a federal “seizure” is political spin. The Supreme Court has already said the program stands on firm constitutional ground, and when property rights are burdened, the remedy is just compensation. That balance—public use with payment when required—is exactly how America has built infrastructure for a century.
Who pushed it
Missouri’s Mark “Awful” Alford jumped to co-sponsor, with Ann Wagner and Bob Onder joining the list. That tells you who this bill serves: not the everyday taxpaying landowner who already has compensation rights, but a political agenda that makes projects impossible and hands local governments unfunded mandates.
My commitment
When I’m elected as your congressman, I’ll defend both property rights and local taxpayers. I’ll keep the current compensation pathway intact, cut the red tape that chokes small towns, and protect rail corridors so our communities can use them—for rail, trails, utilities, and broadband—without a one-neighbor veto.
What’s happening in Texas is a warning for the whole country. A major Texas newspaper blasted Governor Greg Abbott for putting partisan map-drawing ahead of basic governance. That’s not leadership. Civil disobedience has long been part of our democratic tradition when those in power try to rig the rules. I will always stand with citizens who demand fairness and accountability—peacefully and lawfully.
Here in Missouri, I will fight for fair maps and honest government. Our congressional districts are drawn by the legislature as a regular statute. Any attempt to change maps mid-decade would still have to meet state and federal constitutional standards and would face court review. If politicians try to tilt the field before an election, I’ll push back—loudly and within the law—so Missourians keep the right to choose their leaders, not the other way around.
Reports of a possible special session to redraw Missouri’s congressional map mirror the power-grabs we’re seeing in Texas. I’m a Missouri-grown centrist who will work with anyone—Republican, Democrat, or Independent—when it helps our families, farms, and small towns. Cheating the map breaks trust and weakens government. We will not fix America by gaming districts.
Some politicians, like my opponent Mark “Awful” Alford, serve big donors and special interests first. You can see it in the money and the votes. Public records show who funds their campaigns and how they vote when it counts. That’s why I support stronger transparency, an end to partisan gerrymandering, and tighter rules on big-money influence. Missourians deserve representatives who answer to them—not to super PACs or out-of-state benefactors.
I believe in checks and balances. No governor, president, or member of Congress is above the Constitution. When leaders try to change the rules midstream, voters lose faith and problems go unsolved. The fix is simple: fair rules, fair maps, and fair elections. I’ll defend those principles in Congress every single day.
If you’re tired of division and political theater, you have a choice. Send me to Washington and I will defend fair, legal maps; work across the aisle on real solutions for broadband, rural clinics, flood recovery, farm input costs, and small business growth; strengthen transparency and anti-corruption reforms; and put principle over party and Missourians over special interests.
Missouri is strongest when the rules are honest and everyone plays by them. That’s how we lower costs, create jobs, and restore respect for our state and our country. I’ll never sell out Missourians for campaign cash. I’ll listen, be straight with you, and do the work.
This isn’t just about Texas. It’s about protecting American freedom—right here at home.
By Ricky Dana, Candidate for U.S. House – Missouri’s 4th District | August 10, 2025
When big money buys our politics, we lose our voice—and our democracy fractures. Citizens United unleashed this corporate cash flood, fueling divisive Super PACs and shadow spending that drown out regular Americans.
How Money Has Rigged Our Democracy
On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision allowed corporations and unions to spend unlimited money on elections—striking down decades-old campaign finance limits. Today, outside spending has swelled from about $574 million in 2008 to approximately $3.3 billion in 2020, and $4.5 billion by 2024. (The Guardian, Brennan Center)
This gave birth to Super PACs and dark-money groups that funnel vast sums into politics—with little transparency.
The Cost: Division, Distrust, Policy For Sale
Big money rigged the rules, and the voters paid the price.
Citizens don’t trust government: Just 16 % of Americans say they trust Washington to do the right thing “always” or “most of the time.” (Builders Movement)
Policy favors the wealthy: Studies show economic elites and business interests drive policy, while average citizens have nearly zero influence when their views conflict. (Builders Movement)
Dark money fuels negativity: Outside groups hiding donors run more negative ads on social media and elsewhere, undermining accountability. (arXiv)
How I’ll Fight Back
I’m committed to restoring democracy—not handing it over to an oligarchy of billionaires.
1. A Constitutional Amendment to Overturn Citizens United. We need a new amendment—like the proposed “Saving American Democracy” or “We the People” amendments—that states only natural persons have constitutional rights and lets Congress and the states set reasonable campaign limits. (Wikipedia)
2. Strong Transparency Laws. I’ll back laws like the DISCLOSE Act to shed light on super PACs, 501(c) groups, and shadow spending—forcing disclosure of donors above certain thresholds. (Wikipedia)
3. Returning Political Power to the People. Campaign finance policy belongs with voters and legislators—not unelected judges. We’ll push for a “For Our Freedom Amendment” to ensure decisions on spending limits rest with the people. (Washington Post)
Conclusion
Money should never define our democracy—but unless we act, it will. I’m ready to take on Citizens United, expose dark money, and ensure that government answers to people, not millionaires. Join me—we’ll rebuild a democracy that works for all.
Bringing Real Action to Rural Agriculture — Not Just Election-Year Optics
By Ricky Dana, Candidate for U.S. House — Missouri’s 4th District
On August 8, 2025, Congressman Mark Alford’s office promoted the Growing Opportunities in Agriculture (GO Ag) Act. It sounds new, but it isn’t. The bill was introduced on March 19, 2024 — and it’s still sitting in committee with no movement.
So why the big splash now? Because it’s campaign season. Dusting off an old, stalled bill makes for headlines, not help. Our farmers deserve more than a press release. They deserve results.
If a bill truly matters, you work it. You build a coalition, get hearings, and move it to a vote. You don’t put your name on it, let it stall, and bring it back when you need attention. That’s not leadership. That’s optics.
What I’ll Do Differently
When I’m elected as your congressman, I’ll push to actually pass the GO Ag Act — and then go further. Here’s how:
Farmer Apprenticeship Grants: Create federal grants so experienced farmers can train young Missourians on real farms. This keeps skills local and keeps farms locally owned.
Stronger Rural Workforce Pathways: Link high schools, community colleges, and ag programs to hands-on jobs in crops, livestock, mechanics, and ag tech.
Infrastructure and Broadband: Fix farm-to-market roads and finish rural broadband so students can learn and businesses can flourish.
Veterans & Transitioning Service Members: Provide pathways from service to ag apprenticeships and farm ownership.
Why This Matters
Family farms are the backbone of Missouri. They feed our communities, strengthen our towns, and preserve values of hard work and fairness. Big money and D.C. insiders may not understand that—but I do. My vision is for the next generation of farmers to inherit both land and opportunity.
Our rural communities can’t afford more political showboating. They need a representative who fights for progress, protects Missouri’s agricultural heritage, and prioritizes people over special interests.
Mark “Awful” Alford’s latest public statement paints him as a crusader for truth and transparency in the Jeffrey Epstein case. He claims to stand for victims, for exposing corruption, and for shining light on the darkest corners of this scandal. But when you look at his actual record, the reality doesn’t match the rhetoric.
Alford says he supports releasing Epstein-related grand jury testimony and DOJ files. What he leaves out is that these materials—especially from the Manhattan proceedings—are unlikely to reveal much more than brief summaries from law enforcement, not explosive new evidence. Legal experts have warned that the way Trump’s Department of Justice is pushing these releases looks more like political theater than genuine pursuit of justice.
In fact, the public record shows Alford has voted against or ignored measures that would strengthen transparency across the board, not just in headline-grabbing cases. His brand of “truth-telling” seems to apply only when it aligns with Donald Trump’s agenda and benefits his own political image.
And make no mistake—this is about politics. Trump’s sudden interest in Epstein’s files comes years after being photographed and associated socially with Epstein, raising questions he has never fully addressed. Alford’s full-throated support for Trump’s directive isn’t about justice for victims—it’s about staying in Trump’s good graces and energizing a political base, even when that base is led by a convicted felon with a history of troubling associations.
Meanwhile, survivors of Epstein’s abuse have voiced concerns that this political tug-of-war is re-traumatizing them. They want real accountability and privacy protections, not grandstanding from politicians who selectively care about transparency when it suits their talking points.
When you strip away the soundbites, what’s left is a congressman who consistently sides with big donors, special interests, and a president whose record on ethics and law is deeply questionable. Missouri’s 4th District deserves a representative who fights for truth all the time—not just when it makes for a good press release.
I believe in full accountability for everyone involved in Epstein’s network, no matter their political connections or bank account size. But justice isn’t served by selective outrage. It’s served by consistent, principled action—and that’s what I’ll deliver when I’m elected as your congressman.
Let’s be honest—right now, Democrats aren’t winning many popularity contests, especially here in rural America. And there’s a reason for that. Too many in my party have moved too far from the center, focusing on issues that don’t reflect the day-to-day concerns of folks who work the land, raise their families, and keep small towns running. They’ve forgotten what it’s like to live where neighbors know your name, where common sense still matters, and where people expect their leaders to listen instead of lecture.
But this isn’t just a Democratic problem. Republicans have done the same thing—diving deeper into division, choosing political fights over practical solutions. Both major parties have gotten caught up in the noise instead of doing the job they were sent to do: serving the American people.
I’m a Democrat, but I’m also a proud Missourian with rural roots. I understand the values of hard work, responsibility, fairness, and community. That’s why I call myself a common-sense Democrat—because I believe in standing for what’s right, even if it means disagreeing with my own party. I don’t believe in pushing an agenda that ignores the needs of rural families, farmers, and small business owners.
America has been great before, and it can be great again. We’re in a slump—not because the American people have failed, but because too many in Washington have stopped working together. The solution isn’t more division—it’s more cooperation. It’s finding the middle ground where we can pass legislation that benefits everyone, not just one side’s base.
When I’m elected as your congressman, I will work with both Democrats and Republicans to create bipartisan legislation that strengthens our economy, supports rural communities, and protects the freedoms we all value. That means prioritizing agriculture, infrastructure, job creation, healthcare access, and veterans’ services—issues that matter here at home.
Our nation’s greatness doesn’t come from political victories. It comes from the hard work and determination of the American people. It comes from building bridges instead of walls between neighbors. It comes from leaders who are willing to listen, compromise, and put country over party.
I’m running for Congress because I believe Missouri’s 4th District deserves a representative who reflects our values, understands our way of life, and refuses to play the partisan games that have held our country back. It’s time to move forward together, with respect, common sense, and a commitment to making the United States stronger than ever.
The future is ours to shape—if we choose leaders who are willing to work together, find solutions, and put the American people first. That’s the kind of leadership I’ll bring to Washington.
Mark “Awful for Missouri” Alford wants you to believe he’s fighting for truth and transparency. Just last month, he made headlines calling for the full release of the Jeffrey Epstein files, sounding like a champion of open government. He said he wanted “complete and total transparency” and made it clear he thought the public deserved answers.
But here’s the problem—when the time came to actually vote, Alford did the exact opposite. A Democratic amendment that would have forced the release of the Epstein files came to the floor. Instead of standing up for transparency like he promised, Alford joined virtually every other Republican in voting against the procedural steps needed to make it happen.
This isn’t just a small oversight—it’s a clear pattern. Alford’s public statements and his legislative actions don’t match. On one hand, he says what sounds good to voters—especially when the cameras are rolling. On the other, when it’s time to deliver, he falls in line with party leadership, super PAC agendas, and big-money interests.
Let’s be clear: Alford’s rhetoric supported the release of the files. His vote blocked it. He can try to spin it all he wants, but there’s no getting around the fact that his actions kept those documents locked away.
I was born right here in the Show-Me State, and like most Missourians, I don’t trust a politician who says one thing at home and does another in Washington. Mark Alford spent his career in front of a camera reading from a teleprompter, weaving tales like every other polished news anchor. Now, he’s doing the same thing in Congress—feeding voters lines while protecting the status quo in D.C.
His “Excuse” — What’s the Explanation?
Here’s the kicker: Mark “Awful for Missouri” Alford hasn’t offered one. No press release, interview, or social media post followed his vote to explain the glaring contradiction between his words and his deeds.
He made a high-profile call for “complete and total transparency” and warned that this “unfortunate sideshow” should not tarnish President Trump’s legacy. But when it came time to back that up with action, he fell silent—choosing party loyalty over Missourians’ right to know. There’s simply no excuse when the spotlight fades but the secrecy remains.
Missourians deserve leaders who show up for us every time, not just when it’s politically convenient. Alford needs to explain why he sided with party bosses instead of standing with the people he claims to represent. Until then, all the sound bites in the world won’t change the fact that when Missouri needed him to act, he chose to protect secrecy over transparency.
When I’m elected as your congressman, I won’t just talk about transparency—I’ll vote for it. Every time. Because in Missouri, we still believe actions speak louder than words.
By Ricky Dana, Candidate for U.S. House of Representatives – Missouri’s 4th District
We both want a stronger Missouri—but the path we take matters. My path is built on homegrown values, rural priorities, and common-sense solutions that come from living and working right here in our community. My opponent’s record, on the other hand, reflects an allegiance to out-of-state donors and Washington insiders.
Homegrown Leadership, Not Outsider Influence
I was born and raised in rural Missouri. I know the struggles our families face because I’ve lived them. My campaign isn’t funded by billionaire donors or PACs from thousands of miles away—it’s powered by Missourians who want real change.
Mark Alford’s campaign, however, leans heavily on out-of-state special interests. That kind of money doesn’t come without strings—and it rarely aligns with the priorities of rural Missouri.
Putting Rural Missouri First
My platform focuses on the things that matter most to our communities:
Affordable housing through the Build Missouri First initiative—using federal surplus land and local builders without adding to the national debt.
Rural healthcare access so every family can get the care they need close to home.
Infrastructure improvements that keep our small towns connected and thriving.
These aren’t just talking points—they’re actionable plans ready for day one.
Contrast in Records
While I focus on targeted investments in our communities, my opponent’s voting record tells a different story. For example, on July 18, 2025, Mark Alford voted for the Rescissions Act, which cut $7.9 billion in foreign aid and $1.1 billion from public broadcasting. That includes PBS and NPR—resources that bring news, education, and culture to rural areas where other options are scarce.
That vote may have pleased party leaders and big donors, but it doesn’t serve rural Missouri families.
Why This Matters
When your representative answers first to outside money, your voice gets lost. I answer to you—the people of Missouri’s 4th District. My commitment is to build a future where our kids have opportunities here at home, not just in the big cities or out-of-state.
Be Part of the Change
This campaign is about more than winning an election—it’s about returning power to the people of Missouri. Every dollar donated helps spread our message, reach more voters, and fight back against the influence of big money in politics.
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.
