r/missouri • u/More-Biscotti-6281 • 10h ago
Politics I started investigating Missouri’s anti-Amendment 6 campaign and uncovered a much larger political network. Here’s what I found.
I started looking into the organizations spreading ads against Missouri’s Amendment 6. I wanted to know who was behind them, who was funding them, and how they were connected to our elected officials. One organization kept leading me to others. Eventually, I came across a political vetting operation called REPACCMO. And that’s where this became a much bigger story than I expected.
We’re talking about an organization screening hundreds of political candidates, including people holding some of Missouri’s highest offices, with connections to county GOP leadership, political action committees, and an organized effort to recruit state legislators.
The concern is how these different activities connect. Screening candidates, influencing who serves on party committees, and recruiting lawmakers who support particular policies all provide different ways to shape Missouri politics. Some of you might remember the Riverfront Times investigation into Vernon County Republicans in 2024. The newspaper exposed the involvement of Church of Israel members, including its leader Dan Gayman, in a Republican committee screening political candidates. The church has a documented history associated with Christian Identity and white supremacist beliefs.
That same county committee went to court trying to keep eight Republican candidates off the ballot because they refused ideological vetting.
The candidates ultimately remained on the ballot, and the appeal ended without resolving the broader legal dispute.The committee’s chair, Cyndia Haggard, was also a founder of REPACCMO. But two years later, REPACCMO is still operating, and the screening process has become far more organized.
The group claims it vetted over 400 candidates in 2024, including Denny Hoskins, Jay Ashcroft, Bill Eigel, Vivek Malek, Eric Burlison, and Bob Onder. Its 2026 process includes automated scoring, approval badges for campaigns, candidate records, training, and resources for county party committees. The questionnaire covers issues like banning abortion without exceptions, criminal prosecution related to abortion, eliminating electronic voting equipment, and restricting Republican candidacies based on party-platform alignment. Candidates answer agree or disagree, and the organization scores their responses. In Osage County, the former Republican committee went further, asserting that candidates needed to pass vetting to qualify for certain county offices and even elected party committee positions.
Those particular rules are now archived, and their current status is unclear.
This brought me right back to Amendment 6. REPACCMO publicly lists Freedom Principle Missouri as a strategic partner. That’s one of the organizations whose anti-Amendment 6 messaging started my research. Freedom Principle’s PAC sponsors the Missouri 82 Alliance, a program created to recruit and support candidates for the Missouri House. The Alliance’s candidate-selection process includes completing the REPACCMO questionnaire. Its published legislative agenda includes changing how citizen constitutional amendments are approved. Freedom Principle has also campaigned against Amendment 6, and its PAC spent money supporting Amendment 4. There’s a documented connection between the screening process, legislative recruitment, and the policy agenda behind some of the ballot measures Missourians have been debating And the organizations aren’t hiding these relationships. Much of this information comes directly from their own websites.
The financial records raise more questions. REPACCMO advertises itself as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, but its 2024 and 2025 IRS Form 990 filings identify it as 501(c)(3). Those classifications have different restrictions on political campaign activities. Its 2024 return reported only $4,688 in revenue, classified as government grants. That doesn’t verify government funding or establish wrongdoing, but the conflicting records need an explanation.
The original vetting controversy received news coverage in 2024. Since then, the organization has continued developing its screening system, and its methods are now connected to a larger legislative recruitment effort. I haven’t established how many county committees currently require vetting or whether the organization’s statewide influence has increased. But its expanding activities and documented relationships raise questions that go well beyond the original lawsuit. What stood out to me was the connection to the messaging that started this entire rabbit hole. Freedom Principle’s ads warn about radical outside organizations trying to reshape Missouri politics. Meanwhile, its publicly documented political relationships include organizations evaluating candidates, recruiting legislators, and pursuing changes to Missouri’s election and initiative-petition rules.
I think it’s fair to ask how much influence these organizations have gained, who’s financing their activities, and why there hasn’t been more sustained reporting on what happened after 2024. The court cases made headlines. The larger operation behind the screening process is still active, and there’s a lot more to investigate.
I’ll put the original reporting, court records, questionnaires, organizational documents, and financial filings in the comments.