Takeaways<\/p>\n
Spending on ballot issues has dominated the Missouri primaries this year, with more than $26.7 million being spent by various groups.<\/p>\n
Ads for and against Amendment 5 sharply conflict, with supporters saying Amendment 5 would require income and property taxes to be cut by law, and opponents warning of tax increases on everyday services.<\/p>\n
Few regulations require political advertising to be truthful. Broadcast and radio stations can reject or censor ads from third parties or political groups, but it\u2019s exceedingly rare. In the case of digital advertising, which includes social media, no federal regulations exist, leaving individual platforms to set their own guidelines.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Every year, political ads about candidates and ballot issues flood the airwaves months before the actual election. Campaign signs sprout like dandelions in yards. All attempting to sway undecided voters.<\/p>\n
Typically, candidate ads are the most prominent and generate the most spending. But this year, ads about Missouri ballot measures have dominated, with various groups spending $26.7 million on them.<\/p>\n
Two constitutional amendments have garnered the most attention and dollars.<\/p>\n
Amendment 4 would change the state\u2019s citizen-led initiative petition process to require a measure to pass in all eight congressional districts instead of by a simple statewide majority. The change would not apply to items legislators put on the ballot, with those still needing only the statewide majority to pass.<\/p>\n
But much of the attention is on Amendment 5, which was placed on the ballot through HB 173<\/a>. It would direct lawmakers to pass additional legislation with the goal of eliminating the state\u2019s income tax. It would also grant lawmakers the authority to raise the state sales tax and\/or expand the base of goods and services that can be taxed without needing additional voter approval for five years. Currently, most services are not taxed (the list of what services are taxed can be found here<\/a>) and lawmakers must get approval from voters for sales tax changes.<\/p>\n (For more information on these amendments and other ballot issues, check out The Beacon\u2019s election page<\/a>.)<\/p>\n The competing ad camps for Amendment 5 have wildly different messages. Proponent ads claim taxpayers would keep more money they\u2019ve earned, while opponents warn of catastrophic consequences to taxpayer pocketbooks and state funding, depending on who\u2019s paying for them. The stark divergence in predicted outcomes can make it difficult to determine what the amendment truly does.<\/p>\n The Beacon conducted an independent analysis of the ads and spoke with each campaign\u2019s spokesperson about claims made in the ads.\u00a0<\/p>\n Pro-Amendment 5<\/p>\n The political action committee buying television ads in favor of Amendment 5 is Missouri Promise PAC. Marc Ellinger, a Jefferson City lawyer who has been involved in Missouri\u2019s Republican tax policy campaigns before, is listed as the treasurer.\u00a0<\/p>\n The group has spent $6.4 million on ads as of July 24, according to Federal Communications Commission records<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n The most viewed ad on its Youtube page, entitled \u201cMule<\/a>,\u201d features a talking mule telling viewers about Amendment 5.<\/p>\n Missouri Promise declined to speak over the phone and sent The Beacon an email addressing questions about claims made in the ad.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n One of the first statements the ad makes is, \u201cIt ain\u2019t fair you pay all those taxes while big corporations pay almost nothing.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Missouri\u2019s top income tax rate is 4.7% on any income that exceeds $9,191. The corporate income tax is a flat 4% on income earned in Missouri. Only income related to sales is taxed.\u00a0<\/p>\n The Beacon asked Joe Lamie, spokesperson for Missouri Promise, about the claim that\u00a0 Amendment 5 would, in essence, make corporations pay their fair share as the amendment does not make any changes to the corporate income tax structure.<\/p>\n \u201cAmendment 5 authorizes a process under which lawmakers may broaden the sales tax base,\u201d Lamie wrote. \u201cIf exemptions currently benefiting certain businesses are narrowed or eliminated, those businesses would contribute more in sales and use taxes, with the resulting revenue required to reduce income and property taxes under the amendment\u2019s formula.\u201d<\/p>\n Businesses would pay new sales taxes on previously exempt goods and services that they purchase, increasing costs. Those taxes would go to the state, while businesses would be tempted to pass along their increased costs to customers in the form of higher prices.\u00a0<\/p>\n The ad goes on to address the proposed tax cuts, saying, \u201cDollar for dollar, that\u2019s income and property taxes cut by law.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Amendment 5 would require legislators to pass additional legislation with the ultimate goal of eliminating the state income tax. Lawmakers would set tax cut triggers based on revenue growth, a mechanism that has been used before. This tactic was used to cut the rate to the current 4.7% through the passage of SB 3 in 2022<\/a>.<\/p>\n For property taxes, those decisions are made by the local jurisdictions responsible for setting the rates. The law would require local governments to adjust local sales, earnings or property tax rates if the state expands the base of goods and services that can be taxed to prevent a windfall in new revenue.\u00a0<\/p>\n But in the final lines of the legislation, it also stipulates that school funding cannot be harmed by adjustments local governments make. That inclusion limits how much property taxes, which predominantly fund schools, can be adjusted.\u00a0<\/p>\n Local revenue sources \u2014 the majority of which is composed of property taxes \u2014 account for 57.5% of all revenue for Missouri public schools<\/a>. Property taxes often make up a larger portion of budgets for urban and suburban schools<\/a> than for rural, which tend to rely more on state aid. Kansas City Public Schools reported that property taxes represented 70% of its budget<\/a> for the 2025-2026 school year.<\/p>\n With those factors in mind, The Beacon asked how the amendment would cut property taxes if school funding couldn\u2019t be hurt.<\/p>\n \u201cThe amendment establishes the constitutional requirement; the specific implementation would be determined through future legislation consistent with those constitutional safeguards,\u201d Lamie wrote.<\/p>\n Other entities levy property taxes alongside cities and counties. Special districts like libraries, emergency services and transportation districts often rely on property tax revenue for large portions of their budgets<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n Finally, when it comes to political ads, what isn\u2019t mentioned is as important as what is. The ad says, \u201cEvery dollar brought in must go towards cutting taxes.\u201d It doesn\u2019t specify where those dollars are being brought in from.<\/p>\n The answer is through sales tax revenue and natural revenue growth. Currently, the state sales tax rate is 4.225%, with 3% going toward general revenue (the remaining 1.225% is reserved for schools, conservation and state parks\/soil and water conservation). Several industries, like healthcare, agriculture and real estate, are exempt from the sales tax.\u00a0<\/p>\n Amendment 5 would give lawmakers the authority for five years to expand the base of goods and services subject to the sales tax and to raise the rate without needing additional voter approval. Any legislation that contains changes to the sales tax must contain an income tax cut for an equivalent amount of revenue.<\/p>\n \u201cThe amendment is not simply about \u2018expanded sales taxes,\u2019\u201d Lamie wrote. \u201cIt authorizes expanding the sales and use tax base, which could include applying existing tax rates to transactions that are currently exempt. That distinction matters because opponents \u2014 predominantly liberals, Democrats and socialists \u2014 often characterize it as simply \u2018raising the sales tax,\u2019 whereas the campaign has emphasized broadening the tax base rather than increasing the rate.\u201d<\/p>\n Missouri Budget Project, an Amendment 5 opponent and the group funding the No Everything Tax PAC, estimates the state sales tax rate would rise to 11.925%<\/a> if the base is not expanded to fully replace the $7.75 billion in revenue that the income tax generates. Combined with current local sales tax rates, that means it could be as high as 16% to 20% in some places. If the base was fully expanded with no exemptions, the group predicted that the state sales tax rate would be closer to 6%.<\/p>\n An analysis by the Missouri Independent<\/a> found that the 3% general revenue state sales tax covers roughly $100 billion of Missouri\u2019s economic output, generating $3.2 billion in revenue. To fully replace income tax revenue by only expanding the base, lawmakers would have to find $225 billion worth of new transactions to tax. Missouri\u2019s total economic output is $350 billion annually.\u00a0<\/p>\n Anti-Amendment 5<\/p>\n Four different PACs are coordinating in the campaign against Amendment 5 \u2014 Missourians for Fair Taxation, No Everything Tax, Parents for Missouri Public Schools and Protect Freedom and Democracy.\u00a0<\/p>\n Missourians for Fair Taxation is backed by the Missouri Realtors and lists Jessica Jordan, the vice president of finance and operations for the Realtors, as the treasurer. Most of the ads run against Amendment 5 have been by Missourians for Fair Taxation.<\/p>\n The Realtors have spent $2.42 million on ads for Amendment 5, with that figure including the cost of buying ad space and the production costs, said Amy Jordan Wooden, a consultant working on the campaign.\u00a0<\/p>\n Its most prominent ad<\/a> features a group of 10 people playing musical chairs. When the music stops, the only two spots left are claimed by men representing politicians.\u00a0<\/p>\n After the chairs are claimed, it switches to show a projector with the words, \u201cUp to 80% pay more, seniors and families hurt by Amendment 5.\u201d<\/p>\n The ad and Scott Charton, spokesperson for the Realtors\u2019 No on 5 campaign, cited Missouri Budget Project<\/a> for the figures the campaign has used. The first report on the income tax elimination that Missouri Budget Project created in November 2025 credited the Institute of Taxation and Economic Policy<\/a>, a national, left-leaning tax policy organization, for the data at the basis of its analysis.<\/p>\n Seniors and families were mentioned, Charton said, because seniors, working families and active-duty military are already exempt or pay little to nothing in state income taxes, meaning an income tax cut would provide almost no benefit.<\/p>\n The ad then says, \u201cAmendment 5 opens up your family to being hurt by new taxes on services \u2014 doctor\u2019s visits, childcare and even rent.\u201d It goes on to add that the rate could exceed 20%.<\/p>\n The law would authorize lawmakers to expand what goods and services can be taxed with the purpose of reducing the income tax rate with the revenue those changes generate.\u00a0<\/p>\n That can be done through getting rid of exemptions for certain industries or by taxing previously untaxed categories, most of which are services.<\/p>\n The Beacon asked why those industries were pointed out when the amendment does not specify what industries would be taxed.<\/p>\n That lack of specificity is the problem, Charton said, because any service is on the table. He added that even though Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe has said he wants exemptions for healthcare, agriculture and real estate to continue, no language in the law makes those desires legally binding.<\/p>\n \u201cBecause Amendment 5 expressly lets the legislature off the hook for abiding by the prior constitutional amendments that the voters approved, those are all on the table,\u201d Charton said. \u201cMy point is that in taking away those constitutional \u2014 I don\u2019t even want to call them guardrails, they\u2019re restrictions \u2014 (the legislature gets) an open checkbook for whatever. But we know it\u2019s going to be in the realm of sales and use taxes, because that\u2019s the only pool of money that\u2019ll work.\u201d<\/p>\n The 20% rate the ad mentions also comes from Missouri Budget Project projections, Charton said, and represents the highest possible average of combined state and local taxes if the base of taxable goods and services is not expanded.\u00a0<\/p>\n The local sales tax rates the ad uses are based on current rates from around the state. The law requires local governments to adjust sales, property or earnings taxes, but gives a year grace period to do so. The adjustments only have to occur once legislation is passed, so the rates would gradually be reduced unless the state makes numerous large changes.\u00a0<\/p>\n When asked why the ad doesn\u2019t clarify that the figure represents combined state and local rates, Charton said that the Realtors have no problem with qualifying the distinction but the impact is still the same.\u00a0<\/p>\n The rate could be lower if the base is expanded, he said, but the amendment still represents a problem for taxpayers as they would be paying sales taxes on services for the first time.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cEither way, that\u2019s a loser,\u201d Charton said. \u201cI call it the cradle-to-grave-tax because you\u2019re going to pay for the service of the midwife and the service of the mortician. Cradle to grave. Every service is taxable.\u201d<\/p>\n The ad concludes by saying Amendment 5 \u201celiminates your constitutional protections, including your right to vote on new taxes.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Amendment 5 does not eliminate the 2016 freeze, which prevents new sales taxes on services that were not taxed before that year. It also doesn\u2019t eliminate the Hancock Amendment, which limits the amount of new annual revenue that the legislature can raise each year through taxes or other sources without voter approval.<\/p>\n It does let those requirements be suspended for five years, meaning legislators could approve new taxes that would otherwise need to go before the voters in that time frame.<\/p>\n When asked about that distinction, Charton said that regardless of whether the constitutional protections are eliminated or suspended, the practical effect is the same because of the damage done in that time frame.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cThis is the Show-Me State,\u201d Charton said. \u201cWe\u2019re not the just-trust-politicians state. They\u2019re saying, again, for five years they\u2019re going to suspend Hancock. I wouldn\u2019t trust them for five minutes with that kind of authority.\u201d<\/p>\n What are the regulations?<\/p>\n Over-the-top ads have long been a staple of political advertising.\u00a0<\/p>\n That\u2019s because there are few regulations that require ads to be truthful. Those that do exist mostly apply to candidates, not issues. The FCC<\/a> only requires broadcast and radio issue ads to include clear identification of the person or group sponsoring the ad and the payment details for the ad listed in a broadcast station\u2019s political file records.<\/p>\n Even fewer regulations exist for digital advertising, which includes social media, website and search engine ads. There are no federal laws regarding digital advertising and only six states have passed legislation to bring digital advertising in line with broadcast regulations or have advertisers disclose funders.\u00a0<\/p>\n When campaign ads blur the fine print, fund Missouri reporting that checks the facts. In most cases, digital advertising guidelines are left up to the individual platforms.\u00a0<\/p>\n Meta<\/a>, the parent company for Facebook and Instagram, requires advertisers to go through an authorization process before posting the ad, provide a \u201cpaid for by\u201d disclosure on the ad itself and disclose if any part of the ad was made using third-party generative artificial intelligence tools.\u00a0<\/p>\n Google<\/a> has a similar policy, and X (formerly Twitter)<\/a> specifically prohibits false or misleading information regarding how to vote in elections, information intended to intimidate and information intended to undermine public confidence in election security.<\/p>\n
\n Give now<\/a><\/p>\n