Run Mama Run: Margaret Donnelly for Missouri State Attorney General

As a former social worker, public school board member and family law attorney, Missouri State Representative Margaret Donnelly has spent much of her career advocating on behalf of women, children and families. Now, as the first woman ever to run for Attorney General in the state of Missouri, Donnelly plans to bring a family-focused perspective to the office. If nominated in the August 5th Democratic Primary, where she faces State Senator Chris Koster and fellow Missouri House Member Jeff Harris, Donnelly will run against Republican candidate Michael Gibbons in November. 

During our exclusive MOMocrats interview, Margaret Donnelly had this to say about her unprecedented candidacy:

"I am the first woman who has ever even filed for the office. There are only seven women attorney generals in the states, and one is in Guam. And we know from the research that it's been one of the hardest statewide offices for women to break the barrier; we've had more women Governors than we've had women Attorneys General, so it is a hard barrier for women to break. So I am just honored, in this very historic year of firsts, that I get to do this."

JAELITHE: Before earning your law degree, you worked as school social worker, and you were also once a member of a local public school district board. How has your work in education influenced your political career?

MARGARET DONNELLY: I am an unwavering supporter of public education, and I believe that the public schools are essential to our continuing democracy. As you said, the first office that I ran for was the local school board when my children, who are now 28 and 26, were in elementary school— in fact my son was actually still a preschooler; he hadn't actually started school before I decided to run— and I thought it was essential that if you wanted to be sure that not only your child had a good education, but other children as well, that you serve in a public decision-making capacity so that the schools could be all that they need to be for kids.

I took that focus and commitment with me when I went to the legislature, and purposely chose to be a member of the first Appropriations Committee for Health, Mental Health and Social Services within the Budget Committee, so that I could be a part of decisions that were made as to how we spent state resources in funding our public schools.

Many people are not aware that one of the most significant cases handled by the Attorney General last year was the lawsuit regarding the constitutionality of the new state funding formula for public education.

So I think that my professional experience in the schools, my service on the school board, and my work on the legislature all combine to give me the experience and knowledge to provide good guidance to the education issues that come before the Attorney Generals office.

JAELITHE: As a Representative in the Missouri State Legislature, you have expressed your support for expanding preschool education. As Attorney General, what will you do to make sure that local school districts are complying with state laws and guidelines for early intervention for children with special needs?

DONNELLY: The laws about the requirement to provide education for children with special needs are clear, and in my role in advising the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, I'd take whatever steps were necessary to be sure that they were monitoring local school districts for compliance with those statutes.

JAELITHE: In the Missouri State Legislature, you sponsored a bill, which has not yet been put to a vote, to tighten state safety standards on children's toys and hold manufacturers who fail to meet safety standards accountable. As Attorney General, how do you plan to continue the fight for safer products for Missouri children?

DONNELLY: I'm going to use the power of the office to continue to push for passage of a children's product safety act similar to what they have in seven other states; I also intend to broaden the focus in that I am also calling for a ban on the toxic chemicals, the phthalates and BPA, from being used in children's toys and products.

JAELITHE: You once chaired the committee for the first battered women's and children's shelter in St. Louis County. As Attorney General, what do you plan to do to combat the ongoing problem of violence against women?

DONNELLY: Violence against women and children will continue to be a priority for me as it has been in my law practice and my work in the legislature, and my community service as shown by the chairing of the committee to establish the shelter in St. Louis County.

In the attorney generals office there has been funding for a staff position for a specialist in domestic violence. The federal money has run out; it was not funded in this years budget, but I will make the committment to be certain that we have resources for funding the position. That person can then help with local law enforcement and prosecution and services to be sure that we are effectively handling the issue of domestic violence.

The responsibility is at the local level for orders of protection and for prosecuting, but the Attorney General's Office can be used as a resource to be sure that we are doing everything that we need to to protect women who have been battered.

JAELITHE: Here in Missouri, internet harassment has become a very important topic of discussion since the tragic death of Megan Meier. You have pledged during your campaign to fight internet harassment as attorney general. What are your thoughts on the balance between protecting children and adults from harassment on the internet, and preserving freedom of speech? How can we prevent anonymous harassers from getting away with vicious attacks, while still protecting those who use internet anonymity as a shield against potential harassment?

DONNELLY: The internet is another form of communication, and bullying and harassment in any form of communication is not acceptable. We should use the same guidelines for the internet as we would for someone who would harass an individual by mail, by telephone or in person. And the internet cannot be used to shield someone from this sort of harassing action. If you use the same guidelines that you would for any other form of communication, I believe you can strike the right balance between allowing the free flow of ideas and yet not allowing one person to harass or intimidate another.

JAELITHE: Can I ask you a related question as a point of clarification? When I was talking about anonymity in my question, one of the things that was on my mind was the fact that, because, unfortunately they couldn't find a statute to prosecute under in the county where this occurred, the way that they've wound up prosecuting it is by going to California, and the statute that they are using to prosecute is— basically they are prosecuting her for impersonation. One of the things that's come up as an interesting thing for me as a blogger— I mean, as a mother, of course, I think that Lori Drew should be prosecuted to the fullest extent, and obviously I think there ought to be consequences for internet harassment.

But I also know that a lot of people actually use anonymity on the internet to protect themselves from harassment. For instance, children are often told, don't use your real name— use a different name. And so I'm wondering, where do we draw the line between ferreting out people who are impersonating someone for nefarious reasons, and people who are using a pseudonym in order to protect their identity? I guess I'm wondering, do you think that was the appropriate route to take to prosecute her under those circumstances, or do you think that maybe there was a better way?

DONNELLY: Well, it was the only route that appeared to be open at the time, and I think the issue was that you're in essence signing a contract when you get on those services, with the person who is offering you the service, be it Facebook or whatever.

That's different that someone deciding that they're just going a blog site to comment and they want to use a pseudonym. I think there is a difference there, because she was intentionally signing up giving false information. That's what I understood was the basis for it-- that she had used fraudulent information in engaging for that service. I think there's a difference.

JAELITHE: I do appreciate the distinction. I think a lot of people who regularly use the internet are just a little wary that it might be used down the line as a precedent that could restrict people from protecting their identities as a means of preventing harassment.

DONNELLY: The other thing is that I know that people have talked about, you know, where do you draw the line between people being, as they are prone to do sometimes, probably being a little harsher in their tone, or being more sarcastic than they might be in person when they're just on the internet and are anonymous.

But I think there's a difference between that and— again, if you set up the same framework and say, the same type of threats and harassment that you would view as telephone harassment, which you know, has been in the law for a long time, or any other kinds of harassment, then I think whether it's done on the internet, or in another form of communication, it's not acceptable. And then you can use that as your framework.

And the other thing that I would say, is that I fully support as well— there has been a lot of discussion about the need to increase the level of discussion and activity in school settings and with parents to really discuss the whole issue of internet communication, and how it really isn't acceptable to be saying things or using language or words that you would probably never dare to use if that person was sitting across from you. And really trying to educate kids on the pain and the harm that can come from that.
Because it really is a whole new way of communication, and it's very tempting, for kids particularly, to have that anonymity and to behave in a way that could be harmful to them and others. And so just really beefing up the sort of educational component, and including parents in that, and talking about what is the proper form of communication on the internet.

JAELITHE: Yeah, I think that's really important. It's sort of the Wild West and there really isn't an etiquette system that's been adopted by our culture yet.

DONNELLY: I think that those who after the incident suggested that we really do need to be having more of a discussion about what is the proper etiquette and culture, and that that should be part of regular discussions that regularly occur within an educational setting, and with parents and kids, I think they're right. 

JAELITHE: As a legislator, you supported legislation to limit the use of eminent domain and offer homeowners who are displaced by eminent domain fairer settlements. As you know, in 2005, the Novus corporation used eminent domain to acquire contracts on several properties in Sunset Hills, but then failed to pay homeowners what had been promised to them for their homes, and failed to proceed with the planned development because their financing fell through. As attorney general, how will work to prevent similar fiascoes in the future?

DONNELLY: I think that the guidelines that were put in place in [this recent] legislation do require more accountability from a developer-- the developer is required to make payments within a shorter window of time. I still hear complaints however, in this economy particularly, of projects that are not moving forward as quickly as the homeowners would like. I can only say that I would-- the attorney general has very little ability to intervene in what are essentially are local contracts with developers and then individual contracts with homeowners. But I would be watching, and if it appears that the law needs to be tightened even more, so that homeowners are not ever left in the horrible situation that those in Sunset Hills were, I would support that legislation.

JAELITHE: You mention on your campaign website that you are concerned that Missouri is not currently meeting clean air and water targets set by the federal government. How do you plan to use the powers of the Attorney General's Office to help protect the environment?

DONNELLY: I will take vigorous action against any corporate polluters who are polluting in the state. I'm also very supportive of trying to get more state control over some of the clean water initiatives. In the Blunt administration, much of this has been turned over to the federal government. But these programs allow either the federal government or the state to take action, and I would be in favor of allowing us to take responsibility at the state level, because I think it offers us a better chance for having greener solutions for some of the storm water and other issues that are facing us in the area of clean water.
I also can say that even though the policy and legislation are not under my control with respect to trying to face the challenges of our energy needs, such as using renewable fuels, and, again, looking for green solutions, as Attorney General, I can advise the policy makers on how we may be able to accomplish those goals. I want to be sure that the laws are not an impediment to meeting the new challenges.

JAELITHE: And so, do you think then that the EPA standards are too low for clean water?

DONNELLY: I think it's really more a matter of implementation. When you are going to implement, I believe that if the state had authority, we would actually end up with solutions that are better for the environment.

Jaelithe also writes at The State of Discontent.

Comments

[cynematic]

I love the breadth of her commitment and proactive approach to law enforcement when it comes to violence against women, toy safety, and even enforcing the EPA or going after corporate polluters. (She's the second person to note how lame the EPA is, after Sebelius. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if she studied Sebelius' career carefully.)

Sort of a miracle that capable, caring people still go into public service these days, isn't it? What a gem. Hope she wins!

[WhiteWolf01]

This lady place a child into a foster home where the child is being threatened and emotionallyt abused, the mother for this purpose shreddedsociety has brought up two really good kids and looked after a home, this woman Margaret Donnelley ripped a family apart for no reason, has the mum committed any crime no..

No sorry Margaret Donnelly has got to be one of the most Evil people I have ever come across, with one or two exceptions. Dangerous decieving and malicious..

If you dont beleive me see Sliepnir2006 channel youtube..

There you will see a 19 year old harrassing stalking and threatening the life of a 13 year old girl, does she know about this, she should do I emailed her.

Margaret Donnelley is nothing more that a fraud plain and simple.

[WhiteWolf01]

Of course the one thing I forgot to omit.........

Who is the 19 year old none other than the foster parents (Mr P Farrar) SON...

As For the foster parent he is guilty of sustained and prolongued emotional abuse on the child this woman has no care she is a hypocrite....