Emily Fessler: Our first candidate is Lori Rook. Thank you so much for joining us. Let's begin by having you introduce yourself and tell us why you decided to run for this office. You have one minute.
Lori Rook
Lori Rook: Thank you for having me.
Rook: So, my name is Lori Rook. I have never held public office before. I am a bit of a political outsider. I am the Republican senator elect for Senate District 20. In my private life, I'm an estate planning and elder law attorney. I run a law firm called Ozarks Elder Law. So, I've been advocating for people, for people, real people, for the last 20 years. And I enjoy that. And I think we need more of that mentality in Senate District 20, where we're actually working for the people. Um, I have three children and I have been married to my husband, Ryan for 23 years. He's also a small business owner. And I jumped into this race because I think we need a voice for the people in Jefferson City. This isn't about a job or a career. It's about public service. And I think we can do better in that regard.
Fessler: Amendment 3 would repeal the reproductive rights amendment voters approved in 2024 and replace it with a band that includes exceptions for medical emergencies, fetal anomaly, rape and incest under 12 weeks. It would also add a constitutional ban on gender affirming medical care for minors. How will you vote on amendment three? And given that gender affirming care provision largely duplicates existing law, what do you see as its actual practical effect if passed?
Rook: I am going to be voting yes on Amendment 3. I am very, very unapologetically pro-life. I actually don't believe amendment three goes far enough. I believe that all babies should be saved no matter how they were conceived. I don't believe God makes mistakes, and I think I actually think we could have done better and gone further. Um, but this is what we are, we have in front of us. And so to, in my world and my beliefs, I believe that saving some of the babies is better than none. As far as the transgender issue that you talk about, yes, we already do have those protections in place, but there is a sunset. So, I think it's going to cover that sunset. So yeah, I'm a yes on 3. I think we actually could do better in terms of saving all the babies.
Fessler: Senate District 20 includes rural counties like Barton, Dade and Webster alongside part of Greene County. Can you name one specific policy that you would pursue in your first year that addresses a need that is unique to rural parts of your district, as distinct from the Springfield metro area?
Rook: That's a really good question. Data centers are one of the top issues right now. And I think when you look at that issue, rural areas are being inundated with, um, with them because they don't have planning and zoning. I am not a proponent of planning and zoning. I think we need legislation at the state level to deal with these when it comes to protecting our agriculture and our farmland. That is an issue that is more distinct than what we're seeing actually in the Springfield metro area.
Fessler: The 2025 law, allowing utilities to charge customers for power plants still under construction, was a major issue during the primary. Do you support keeping, repealing or amending that law, and what specific change would you make if you could rewrite it?
Rook: I think we need to go back to a complete ban on allowing those infrastructure costs to be passed on to the ratepayer. Prior to that change, there was a complete ban and now that standard has changed. So, I think we need to go back to that. Unless we can come up with something better to give assurances to our constituents and our ratepayers that they are not paying for these. It's called CWIP construction work in progress. I think unless we can come up with something better to actually give them assurances, because right now there's a complete lack of trust. They're seeing their utility rates go up, they're seeing data centers go in. And by deductive reasoning, their belief is they're paying for these increases. And so right now, there's nothing in place because of all the NDAs that are giving them assurances. So, if we can't go back to that complete, ban, then I think we need to come up with some other mechanism that can provide that peace of mind for them.
Fessler: Voters rejected a proposed income tax overhaul by a wide margin this year. What is your specific plan, if any, for changing how Missouri funds state government? And which current taxes would you raise lower or leave alone?
Rook: It was an overwhelming majority when we were knocking doors in the primary, that people are very put out with property taxes more than income taxes. That's something that no demographic is shielded from. And so, there's some interesting issues there because of the local needs that those fund, but I think that's something that we need to address more than anything. I also think maybe the timing of when those come due, that's something that's easy to take care of. You know, it's coming right at December, right around the holidays, and I think that's something that people would like to see moved. It's simple. It's not something that's going to cost the government a lot of money. And so those, those are a couple of things that I've been talking with other legislators about.
Fessler: Both candidates have talked about representing the people over corporate or lobbyist interests. Can you provide a concrete example from your own record, campaign or professional background that demonstrates how you have gone against a powerful interest group and at what it cost?
Rook: Amendment 5 is a prime example of that. The corporate interest that was behind that, the outside money that was behind that, who that was actually going to benefit was not really the people, especially the people of the 20th Senate District. When you get out into these rural areas in Barton and Dade County, those people were not worried about income tax. They, the belief there is that was going to mostly benefit corporate interests. And my stance on that, especially going against a lot of people in my party, was, was hard. I caught a lot of flak for that, but I listened to the people. I heard what they said at the doors. I heard what they said in the town halls and I stuck to my guns on it. So, I think that's a prime example of working for the people and going against what may be some of the people in my party thought.
Fessler: And to conclude, please tell us what your top priorities will be if you are elected. You have two minutes.
Rook: My top priorities in the Senate would be working towards transparency. At the forefront. I spoke about this in my primary and it rings. It still rings true. We've got to bring trust back to Jefferson City, and we are not going to be able to do that unless we put cameras in the Senate. This is low hanging fruit. This should be a non-issue. We are one of two states that does not have cameras in our Senate. So, I've already been speaking with other senators about this, and I think it's going to be something that we can get done pretty easily. With that is going to be kind of a domino effect where you're going to start seeing our senators actually follow the rules, where we're actually going to be present on the floor. We're going to be reading legislation, and this is going to hopefully have a domino effect in other realms. We're going to see less back door deals. We're going to see actual business being conducted on the floor. We're actually going to see us be a more deliberate body. So that's a huge priority for me. I also think on the pro-life front, we can do better. I already spoke about that with Amendment 3. Some of the other issues that we spoke about, would be for me, being more present in the district, even though that's not necessarily a legislative issue. That was something that was very lacking in our district. And so, I want to listen to our constituents. I want to be more present with them. So those are just some of the things. Data centers are huge. We've got to get some legislation there, I believe, to deal with that.
Fessler: Lori, that concludes our interview. Thank you so much for taking time to talk with us. Thank you again. I've been speaking with Lori Rook, who is a candidate for Missouri Senate District 20.
Our next candidate. Joining me now I'd like to introduce is Sean Falconer. Thank you so much for joining us. Would you please introduce yourself and tell us why you decided to run for this position? You have one minute.
Sean Falconer
Falconer: My name is Sean Falconer. The conversation about running for this candidacy started with sitting down with some party leadership, and I had approached them and said, hey, I think I have some skills that would be useful. I'd like to be helpful. I see needs in our community that aren't being addressed. And they said, well, you can run for, you know, a congressional seat or you can run for this, but have you heard about the 20th Senatorial District? And the more we talked and the more we got into the conversation about, you know, what's going on in the district and the need that was there and the recognition that there wasn't someone out there who was sort of slated to run on the Democratic ticket. I went home and talked about it with my wife, and we agreed that we thought it was really important that our neighbors have a voice and that our neighbors have an opportunity to select someone who aligns with their values.
Fessler: Amendment 3 would repeal the reproductive rights amendment voters approved in 2024 and replace it with a ban that includes exceptions for medical emergencies, fetal anomaly, rape and incest under 12 weeks. It would also add a constitutional ban on gender affirming medical care for minors. How will you vote on amendment three? And given that gender affirming care provision largely duplicates existing law, what do you see as its actual practical effect if passed?
Falconer: I think this is a great question and it's a really important point of conversation. Um, my perspective at this point is that Amendment 3 that passed in the last election cycle should stay in effect. I thought it was a really reasonable compromise. I think we should focus on the conditions that allow people to raise their families well, and focus less on trying to restrict access to abortion as a as a practical matter, for, for what is really important level of care in a lot of different circumstances. But that being said, I really value and agree with our pro-life neighbors that human life is something that we should be looking out to protect and take good care of. And so to me, I want to make sure that we're, we're implementing those good policies. I think that part of, part of the function of having the transgender care and the abortion linked together does a really good job of bringing people to the polls to, to vote on things. But I think that part of the reason I want to vote no on this is that those need to be separate conversations, and there are conversations that need to be had on their own merits, but again, for me, my, my focus is going to be we must focus on things like childcare and education and health care and the things that make it possible for people to raise their families and to, to engage in their communities and look at a pregnancy that's unexpected and say, yes, I can do this. Missouri has done a very good job of passing increasingly strict abortion members, abortion legislation. But what we're seeing is that most of the abortions received in Missouri are actually being taken out in other places in other states. And so, for all that we've passed this legislation, we're not driving that number down. We need to drive the number down for our pro-life neighbors.
Fessler: Senate district 20 includes rural counties like Barton, Dade and Webster, alongside part of Greene County. Name one specific policy you would pursue in your first year that addresses a need unique to the rural parts of the district, as distinct from the Springfield metro area.
Falconer: That is a fantastic question, and it's something that my neighbors and I have been talking about a lot. It's something I've given a lot of thought to. It seems odd, but a high speed internet broadband internet is absolutely essential for providing some benefit to our rural communities. It allows you to use the internet to be agile with education, so you can put a para in a classroom and share a specialist educator among those rural counties, and they're able to hire one teacher who can be shared between the districts. It allows you to, if you're running a small business, whether that's on Etsy as your own shop or whether that's you want to run a new tool and die factory, it allows you to be able to connect with the broader economy. It allows people to have access to things like the justice system. So, if you're out in the rural area and you can't afford to get to court, you can still go in via, like a, I don't want to say telehealth. It's not telehealth, but you can get in through that remote video capacity. You can you can access the system that way. And those are things that our community partners are saying, things that are, that are needful for our communities. And so, I think those would be broadband internet would be the first thing I would say is, is huge for, for helping our rural communities to thrive better.
Fessler: The 2025 law, allowing utilities to charge customers for power plants still under construction, was a major issue during the primary. Do you support keeping, repealing or amending that law? And what specific change would you make if you could rewrite it?
Falconer: Oh big picture. Lots of, lots to unpack there. I think the, the best thing we can do for our communities is make their energy more affordable. And so, I would look at amending it before I look at a full repeal. But I think that there are a lot of people who are trying to understand why there's benefits happening for these companies that aren't necessarily being, you know, agreed to or voted on by, by the people who are utilizing these services, and so for, for me, I think that part of it is we need to help create the infrastructure in the law to allow these smaller communities to build more resilient local power networks. I also know that part of the legislation is focused on doing this high base load capacity power. That power supply is designed in part to be able to fuel AI and data centers. And so, looking to coal as a, as a high-power supply for these areas doesn't interact well with our, our future energy needs. And certainly it doesn't interact well with the possibility for connecting it to more sustainable or renewable resources, or even just hydroelectric, which is already growing in southwest Missouri. And so, I think we need to tweak the bill and allow for a more flexible power system. Looking ahead to the next 20 or 30 years. There are ways that we can connect existing powers to the building of a grid, but I think if we double down on, on coal, and attach a price point to that for our neighbors, we're going to see diminishing returns.
Fessler: Voters rejected a proposed income tax overhaul by a wide margin this year. What is your specific plan, if any, for changing how Missouri funds state government? And which taxes would you raise lower or leave alone?
Falconer: That's a great question. There's a lot of different ways that we can go about this. I think that people are of a mindset that taxes need to make sense. And part of why the proposed measures didn't pass was because they didn't make sense. They took what was a fairly broad base of taxation, and they put it onto a smaller base and increased the level of taxation on that base. I think we need to take the opposite approach. I think we need to make taxes make sense. And so, part of that is we need to make sure that the people who are least able to thrive with taxes should receive the benefit from the most cuts, and that we recognize that investment in public goods, whether that's education, whether that's childcare, whether that's the business community. That doesn't happen just because we do tax cuts. That's the product of the government aligning its priorities with those things. And so, for what I would change, I think we need to, to do some root cause analysis and make sure that our local tax taxpayers, whether that's in property taxes or in sales tax, that they're not getting squeezed. There's a lot of different ways you can do that. Some of that is through spending cuts in terms of where we spend better, but to me, I think that there's a large argument to be made that there are, there are individuals who could be paying a different level of taxation than they are currently who are able to absorb that more readily than our, than our small communities can and than our, than our low income earners can.
Fessler: Both candidates have talked about representing the people over corporate or lobbyist interests. Can you provide a concrete example from your own record, campaign or professional background that demonstrates how you have gone against a powerful interest group, and at what cost to you?
Falconer: That's a great question. I don't think of myself as someone who's in the room with powerful interests all the time. I just am doing my job most of the time, so I have to think through that. There's always going to be someone further upstream who wants to push back on something you want to do, whether that's, you know, advocating for better policy at work, which I've done, whether that's advocating for better education, which I've done. Bottom line for me is that we, the role of someone in the state legislature is to be an advocate for the people, and that is my focus. Professionally, I have spent my entire career working with people of the right, people on the left, people in the middle, people who are political, people who are completely apolitical. The reality for me is that that's just what you do. I remember a quote from a Queen Latifah movie, The Last Holiday. And you know, she's sitting there talking with her senator, and she's like, you know, why aren't you back in the community? Why aren't you doing this stuff? Why are you out here in the middle of nowhere with these, with these filthy rich people? He says, well, this is a political reality. And she goes, I don't have time for political realities. I've got time for reality realities. And to me, that's, that's kind of where I want to sit. Everyone's allowed to have their share at the table. Everyone's allowed to have a seat at the table and have a conversation and advocate for their position. That's, that's appropriate. That's government. That's what we're supposed to do. The point of being the person in the room in that role is that you weigh all of those things and you make the best decision that you can, and that's what I've tried to do through my entire career. And that's what I intend to continue doing regardless of whether I win this primary or not.
Fessler: And to conclude, please tell us what your priorities will be if you're elected. You have two minutes.
Falconer: Oh, this is a great question. My focus is on trying to build up the communities that we live in and set them up for success for the future. So, the Missouri Chamber of Commerce has been, has been begging for movement on improved access to childcare for years. So, we definitely need to do that. There's billions of dollars on the table economically that if we can resolve this issue of access to childcare, we will build the economy. So, for families it's a win win, for the economy it's a win win. Childcare is huge. Access to healthcare is, is absolutely something we need to focus on. Part of that is expanding access. Part of that is making sure that the access we have works better. Barton County's or sorry, Dade County's sorry, not Barton or Dade, Webster County's health unit has done a really good job of making sure that we have access to an urgent care out there, that they have local services that are available. Encouraging our local partners to do that is really important. So, access to healthcare is, is huge. Making sure that we have communities that are livable, so rural infrastructure, roads that work, internet that works, utilities that work, making sure that these communities that we want to send people to, whether they're as teachers or as workers or as families, that those are vibrant and viable communities is huge. That's, that's the baseline for all of this, right? We need to build those communities up. Making sure that we have schools that will function, so properly funding those, making sure that we are creative with how we allow them to use their budgets is really important. There's, there's a lot to be unpacked, but I think the main thing for me is, you know, there's 180,000 people, I'm not going to know everything. There's going to be questions I haven't gotten yet, and certainly every day is a new question. My approach is you, you look at the question you're being asked. You say, who's asked this question before, you find the best answer you can with the information you have that meets everyone's needs to the best of your ability. And you, you work with the other partners on the other side to get there.
Fessler: Sean, that concludes our interview. Thank you so much for taking time to talk with us. I've been speaking with Sean Falconer, who is a candidate for Missouri Senate District 20. This concludes our interviews with candidates for Missouri Senate District 20. I'm Emily Fessler with the League of Women Voters of Southwest Missouri. Thank you for joining us.
