[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6335458,"mediaKeyId","2289413-6522c3650cd123b38ee1307182b2b6b4","parentId",2289413,"title","Sponsor seeks statewide standard on tobacco sales and to preempt local rules; health groups oppose","audioSeconds",2254,"startMs",2614000,"endMs",4868000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2289413-6522c3650cd123b38ee1307182b2b6b4&start=2614&end=4868","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2289413-6522c3650cd123b38ee1307182b2b6b4/thumbnail_2614000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6335458/Missouri/Sponsor-seeks-statewide-standard-on-tobacco-sales-and-to-preempt-local-rules-health-groups-oppose","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6335458-3f82d38509347515f4de5a1f2b65553d/orig.mp4?Expires=1776187870&Signature=WrusKB-Wt3uKhjJF6HajlA6mKQO-WbAthEHDXKLrGlPHm5RDjjosKumvyFSUEy9Vki6kl4YgEkmKdtihTrVNFhvsXpRbrECLPcmVfAT4LuiomesW4RRRlzENFZpqQ0mrttlpBKUR3KyoNv7u80pfdDCoX3EbP-9K7R~D4ztBtYmqb5F9peZYALfXYpJQYoTzLALZyAkKUbHd2BMD04AZqFKBEUKZa1QWwq1ctDVVec3RFcqiwhunvHxsjjKLmqHCwXZYeLJJLhXp3ekwfwliGA1ocHrGdb4Nuj2SUv7BoTNh3HJbKSVesL0sx8l-0v8CWWlLkfL7WiHMvcwheBsNrQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Missouri State Legislature","date","2025-02-11T00:00:00Z","article","Representative Ben Keithley (West St. Louis County) presented House Bill 344 to the House Commerce Committee as a measure to create consistent statewide rules for retail sale and display of tobacco and nicotine products and to limit local governments from enacting more stringent retail sale rules. \"Essentially, we state law right now sets up a framework...and then we kind of undo all of that at 1 point where we put all these restrictions in,\" Keithley said, arguing that the bill would prevent municipalities from imposing inconsistent or punitive licensing and product bans.

Keithley told the committee he planned a committee amendment to raise the state age of sale from 18 to 21 so the state standard would be uniform and that he would accept language to preserve local enforcement authority for ordinances that match state standards. \"I think a lot of the provinces, local jurisdictions have already gone to 21 on that. The state standard is 18. So we would go up to then just make that the statewide standard then from 18 to 21,\" he said.

Public‑health and medical witnesses opposed the bill. Emily Kalmer of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network testified in opposition and warned that local smoke‑free laws and tobacco‑21 ordinances have reduced tobacco use in communities: \"tobacco use remains the number 1 preventable cause of death in The United States,\" she said, and urged the committee to preserve local authority. The Missouri State Medical Association likewise registered opposition, saying local governments are \"uniquely positioned\" to address health disparities and local enforcement that the state cannot match.

Retailers, convenience‑store and tobacco‑industry groups supported state uniformity. Jake Silverman of the Missouri Vape and Alternative Products Association and industry witnesses said statewide predictability protects small business owners from sudden local product bans; Sam LeCliter of the Cigar Association of America and other trade witnesses also urged a single standard. Convenience‑store and grocer associations warned local flavor bans or licensing moratoria can depress downtown retail and push sales across borders.

Committee members asked detailed questions about scope: Representative Miller asked whether restaurant and indoor‑air rules would be affected; the sponsor said the bill does not change planning, zoning or clean‑air ordinances. Representative Sites and others raised questions about whether volunteer poll workers or municipal employees could be restricted from membership in civic groups; the discussion prompted the sponsor and the Missouri Municipal League to discuss amendments and clarifications to preserve local enforcement of sales‑to‑minors rules while creating statewide retail standards. The committee received lengthy testimony on both sides and did not take a vote during the hearing.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Commerce (HR5) February 11, 2025 ","oneSentenceSummary","Representative Ben Keithley told the House Commerce Committee that House Bill 344 would preempt local retail rules for tobacco and nicotine products and that he intends to set a statewide age‑of‑sale standard — moving it from 18 to 21 by amendment.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature MO, Missouri","taxId",77693,"location","Missouri","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6335463,"Bill would bar private and subscription funding to local election offices, sponsor says",527,1993000,2520000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2289413-6522c3650cd123b38ee1307182b2b6b4&start=1993&end=2520","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2289413-6522c3650cd123b38ee1307182b2b6b4/thumbnail_1993000.jpg","/articles/6335463/Missouri/Bill-would-bar-private-and-subscription-funding-to-local-election-offices-sponsor-says","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6335463-2697d1bd02a00e2d3d51c0200511384a/orig.mp4?Expires=1776187870&Signature=IF76HkIFL8RgFnn50QSqvZ3GzE2DbADvIIm3-sT8RERV0GULSPbGqSLpFn0OPYSIDsZB13vieHEh5sS0SIghopbzSpCOsC9scU3mSxLr~0D6CLnlbTcEQvoW-ROhB0ddtB2V48FtnfHph8dquCIUYKxH1CLxpCOkn4enl3tiLBQ-CJtJJ3O1gpjfUaJ31qfZkU2Bbw4wXDwPtkpCPEZAOjuKWAjkneDY8eiObe5Rt7mf8W~6zw72zr6rlcnPbQR1iIDVrv7I797UzCqjSyFJPiuT~ltaR4CNMh3d9KjuJsxlrw26CXzwNy5tw6605SgDfOLDpz7~gacigPP6vB8OzQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Ben Baker, sponsor of House Bill 794, said the bill closes a loophole that allowed private funding for local election administration to flow through membership or subscription programs. \"We passed a bill prohibiting private funding in election administration... but they found another way to kinda get around that, with the US Alliance for Election Excellence... starting a subscription service,\" Baker said, and added the proposed language would make indirect or subscription funding unacceptable for local election authorities.

Baker framed the bill as a continuation of post‑2020 reforms that many states pursued after large private donations to election offices drew scrutiny; he cited examples he said were associated with the 2020 cycle, including donations tied to the Center for Tech and Civic Life (sometimes called \"Zuck Bucks\"). Committee members asked whether ordinary in‑kind arrangements — for example, use of churches as polling places — would be caught by the bill's language. Baker replied that the bill's subsection 3 sets certification requirements and that the sponsor would clarify wording; \"we will be clarifying that and tightening that part up,\" he told the committee.

Questioning focused on the bill's definitions and on how the measure treats foreign donations. Representative Sites asked whether an election officer's private‑life memberships would be restricted; the sponsor said private‑capacity memberships would require disclosure but that the bill's prohibition centers on public‑capacity participation unless the entity meets certification criteria (including being \"free of direct or indirect foreign donations\"). Members also pressed whether the bill would bar membership in nonpartisan civic groups such as the League of Women Voters, and Baker said groups that \"indirectly finance\" election administration by raising and spending funds on voter engagement could fall under the restriction.

Proponents of the bill argued it restores the intent of prior state statutes and protects fairness across jurisdictions; opponents and some members of the public said the language as drafted risked unintended consequences for volunteers, civic groups and polling‑place operations. The committee did not vote on the bill in this hearing and sponsors indicated they would work with municipal officials to refine certification and disclosure language.","Representative Ben Baker told the House Commerce Committee that House Bill 794 would bar private funding for election administration even when provided indirectly through membership or subscription programs.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6335468,"House bill would require 90‑day written settlement demands before extra‑contractual claims",206,1677000,1883000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2289413-6522c3650cd123b38ee1307182b2b6b4&start=1677&end=1883","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2289413-6522c3650cd123b38ee1307182b2b6b4/thumbnail_1677000.jpg","/articles/6335468/Missouri/House-bill-would-require-90day-written-settlement-demands-before-extracontractual-claims","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6335468-d6d790eee023e73ea9874d199bb8b4f5/orig.mp4?Expires=1776187870&Signature=F67shbrvu1pS7jNUCie4jQR9GDjBU~EhDd4P3FkIxN~3ZPuBd1msrtspljUexv6Jtzf3K4vhMohxSKZTjeNFaKmQIdnEiGNwUfGWSoKSlEzsvZk7anCOh1ah60Oafq5-Jz7XEo9hHpq7jn-LKDbKh8C1VH5Gypr9~ymVZLcgfV~Khhst7wIanDMlF9WlicIrykeu1yPAP5wKFynerhy5yLTWM2yEOAOv~0UrLRKB09xfPNDB8B5T-TR58aDncFe4Nar9v96Uf3XoSwi93paJ3Lo0nMDqE-0RMaoZO6XdMlv25MQQF~jkAQwtbdGRuqk5Zaz~G3Y6J-qbEFlYCi7UjQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Bill Hardwick, sponsor of House Bill 437, introduced the measure to the Missouri House Committee on Commerce as a rule change for settlement demands in injury cases. \"My name is Bill Hardwick. I represent House District 121 presenting House Bill 4 37,\" Hardwick said. He said the bill would require that a time‑limited settlement demand that will later be used to support a claim for extra‑contractual damages be made in writing, reference the statute, and \"be held up in 90 days.\"

The bill targets what supporters described as a loophole in existing law governing extra‑contractual or \"bad faith\" claims. A lawyer testifying for Shelter Insurance Companies and the Missouri Insurance Coalition told the committee \"the purpose of this bill is as plain as it is simple. It's to afford insurers a fair and reasonable opportunity to settle third party liability claims within their policy limits.\" That witness and other industry supporters said a 90‑day window gives insurers time to investigate claims, gather medical and wage records, and consult counsel before deciding whether to accept a demand.

Opponents — including lawyers representing the Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys and other consumer advocates — argued the bill would disadvantage injured people who try to settle without counsel and could delay payments. Bailey Geller, a Springfield lawyer testifying for the Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys, said the current statutory scheme already sets detailed requirements for time‑limited demands and that some claimants will not know how to comply: \"How is the average person who's in a car wreck supposed to even know about this statute?\" she asked.

Committee members pressed both sides on the rationale for 90 days and on how the bill interacts with prior legislation. Hardwick and defense witnesses traced the 90‑day figure to earlier changes adopted by the legislature and to a comparable prejudgment interest provision; industry witnesses also pointed to the Uniform Commercial Code's concept of a \"seasonable\" or reasonable time for offer acceptance. Trial‑lawyer witnesses said many bad‑faith claims already require years of follow‑on litigation before a jury would consider bad faith, and that an untimed demand cannot realistically create a cheap \"gotcha\" bad‑faith claim.

Several insurance‑industry witnesses and trade groups said the change is intended only to limit which pre‑suit demands can later support extra‑contractual claims and would not bar recovery of policy limits or other contract remedies. Representative questions focused on whether the rule would be symmetric for plaintiffs and defendants, how the requirement would start (when a demand reaches the insurer), and whether the change would affect market availability of coverage.

The committee did not vote on the bill in this hearing. Members heard roughly equal numbers of witnesses in support and opposition before the panel recessed to consider testimony and next steps.","A House Commerce Committee hearing on House Bill 437 heard sponsors and insurance‑industry supporters urging a 90‑day written window for settlement demands tied to extra‑contractual (bad‑faith) claims; trial‑lawyer witnesses and public‑health/consumer groups warned the change could delay payments and limit local enforcement options.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Sponsor seeks statewide standard on tobacco sales and to preempt local rules; health groups oppose

Bill would bar private and subscription funding to local election offices, sponsor says

House bill would require 90‑day written settlement demands before extra‑contractual claims