Campaign donations often tell a story.
Take this one: On Sept. 25, a company called NRRM LLC, gave a $10,000 donation to a political action committee in Missouri called Liberty and Justice PAC. That PAC was set up by Attorney General Andrew Bailey’s allies to support his election effort next year. It’s the only donation to a political candidate NRRM has made in at least the last five years.
NRRM is the parent company of CarShield, a St. Peters-based auto warranty firm. It sells warranties to used car owners, who hope the insurance policies will cover future repairs. Historically, consumers have had a lot of complaints about CarShield and other warranty companies.
CarShield, for instance, has from the Better Business Bureau. “Use caution,†when doing business with the company, the BBB website suggests, laying out a “pattern of consumer complaints†about misleading advertising and failure to cover repairs.
People are also reading…
“How can they charge for a service they don’t provide?†wrote one recent customer on the BBB website.
“I wasted my money,†wrote another.
There are dozens such complaints, many of which end with a customer saying CarShield addressed the issue only after it went public on the BBB website.
CarShield isn’t happy with its grade, which used to be an "F." It is suing the BBB, alleging in court documents that the grade is “indefensible†and that the BBB is “hopelessly biased†against CarShield. The case is scheduled to go to trial next year.
Back to that campaign donation. The day after Bailey’s PAC received it, the attorney general appeared on with Mike Carter. Carter is a municipal judge in Wentzville who runs for office now and then. His interview show sometimes appears on late-night, paid-advertisement slots on Channel 30. Carter is also the general counsel for CarShield.
In the interview, the two men talked about a topic they both know a lot about: the Missouri Merchandising and Practices Act. That’s the law that attorneys general (and private attorneys) use to hold companies responsible for fraudulent claims that cost consumers money.
For instance, NRRM in 2012 agreed to with then-Attorney General Chris Koster over a lawsuit alleging the company violated the Merchandising and Practices Act. That case came after dozens of critical stories in the Post-Dispatch examining the auto warranty business, which has roots in the ºüÀêÊÓƵ area. As general counsel, Carter signed the settlement, which included dozens of requirements changing how NRRM does business.
Neither the settlement nor CarShield was mentioned in Carter’s soft-pedaled interview with Bailey.
“It just didn’t come up,†Carter told me in an interview.
He said the timing of the donation and the interview was a coincidence.
While that may be true, there's also a pattern developing with Bailey — receiving campaign donations from businesses in the middle of legal fights with the state or other parties, often with troubling allegations.
Last month, I wrote about the donations he received from two men facing multiple lawsuits over payday loan operations that create questionable connections to Native American tribes. That came on the heels of the revelation that Bailey filed a legal brief on behalf of Doe Run Resources, trying to help the company move a lawsuit from Missouri to Peru, where it is accused of poisoning children who live near a lead mine. Shortly after Bailey filed the brief, his PAC received a $50,000 donation from Doe Run’s parent company.
Bailey has recused himself from the prosecution of a local gaming company — also a donor — that is accused of operating illegal gaming devices in convenience stores. Then there was the owner of a marijuana company who is being sued by the state but held a fundraiser for Bailey.
Bailey faces Will Scharf in the Republican primary for the attorney general’s office. They'll face the Democratic nominee in the general election. The winner will have the opportunity to stand up for consumers after taking office.
“The attorney general has authority under those statutes to go after bad actors,†Bailey told Carter in his interview.
The question for voters is this: Who determines who the bad actors are? Consumers or campaign donors?