The Chappell Challenge:

CPAC Crony or Constitutional Conservative?

Jun 21, 2025

Dear Sweet Darin Chappell,

I see from your comments that you want a debate. That’s not how it works. Tantrums and intimidation don’t lead to getting your way. I recognize you’re a constitutional scholar, a state representative, and a CPAC award winner, but I don’t recognize you conservative bona fides.

Representative Darin Chappell asked for a debate in his FB response. He's challenged me to defend my argument that his high CPAC scores represent corporate cronyism rather than constitutional conservatism. I accept his challenge—but not on in the format or controlled debate stage where slick rhetoric can mask inconvenient truths. I’m just a journalist. I’m not as practiced in the art of misdirection as a politician.

Instead, our debate stage will be the public square, where readers can examine the evidence and decide for themselves whether Chappell is the constitutional conservative he claims to be, or as my asssertion that he is another corporate crony hiding behind manufactured credentials.

Words can be picked apart and researched on the internet. It’s hard to fact check a radio show in real time—and he knows it.

The Challenge Question

The fundamental question before Missouri voters is simple: Does a 93% CPAC score make you a constitutional conservative, or does it make you a reliable corporate crony?

Representative Chappell, I challenge you to explain these documented facts to your constituents:

Challenge #1

The Speaker Vote That Opened My Eyes

On January 8, 2025, you faced a choice that revealed your true loyalties between your voters and biting down on your pillow. Justin Sparks challenged Jon Patterson for House Speaker, specifically citing Patterson's corruption and "the system that gave us Jon Patterson."

Sparks said "Power is for sale in Jefferson City" and accused GOP leadership of "demanding large campaign contributions in exchange for plum committee slots." He made it clear what a vote for Patterson meant.

You voted for Patterson.

Patterson has been recognized as the most liberal Speaker in Missouri history. The corruption of the vote for him was so obvious that when Democrats nominated their floor leader Ashley Aune of Kansas City for Speaker, she withdrew her candidacy and urged her colleagues to support Patterson instead, effectively ending any chance Sparks had of blocking the establishment's chosen candidate. Aune is radical and she thought Patterson was a great choice. So did you, Chappell.

Think about that: The Democrats were so confident that Patterson would serve their interests better than a principled conservative challenger that they abandoned their own candidate to support him. This is the "Republican" Speaker you chose to back.

Only 10 Republicans had the courage to vote against the corrupt establishment: Lisa Durnell, Keith Elliott, Mazzie Christensen, Deanna Self, Justin Sparks, Bob Titus, Bryant Wolfin, Steve Jordan, Dale Wright, and Burt Whaley. All ten of these people were braver than you and more principled than you in this one vote than you were all session.

Representative Chappell, explain to your constituents: When given a choice between the establishment candidate who represents pay-to-play politics and the candidate challenging that corruption, why did you choose corruption?

Challenge #2

The Property Tax Appointment Payoff

Recently because of voting for Patterson, you received an appointment to property tax review boards—a position that directly benefit the same corporate interests that fund the political machine you supported.

Scratch Patterson’s Lottery Ticket, he Scratches yours too.

This isn’t a coincidence. Property tax review boards determine assessment appeals, essentially deciding how much corporations versus regular citizens pay in property taxes. The corporations funding Missouri's political establishment through organizations like the Hawthorn Foundation include:

Ameren ($75,000+ Governor Bond Investor)
Spire ($50,000+ Board of Governors)
Evergy ($20,000+ Show Me Missouri Level)

These utility companies have billions in property that could be assessed higher. Though after the Utilities Bill passed this session, we are all going to be paying to build them new plants. Having "conservative" appointees who are actually corporate cronies ensures their assessments stay favorable while residential property owners see their taxes increase.

The Strategic "No" Vote Deception

Even when Chappell appears to vote against corporate interests, it's often meaningless political theater. Take Senate Bill 4, the massive utility bill that allows companies like Ameren and Spire to shift power plant construction costs to taxpayers—potentially increasing household bills by over $1,000 annually. Chappell voted "no," but the bill passed easily 96-44, meaning corporate interests had a 52-vote cushion. With 27 votes needed to kill the bill, Chappell's opposition was entirely symbolic. This is how controlled opposition works: the corporate machine ensures enough reliable votes for passage while allowing "conservatives" to vote no for their political records. Chappell isn't sitting on property tax review boards to keep utility companies in check—he's there to serve the same corporate interests that his Axiom Strategies consultants represent, while his meaningless "no" votes provide cover for the systematic betrayal of Missouri taxpayers.

Vote for Patterson, get cover as a conservative later on other bills, get Board position, make sure Axiom is happy by keeping Ameren happy.

Representative Chappell, explain to your constituents: Is your appointment to property tax review boards a reward for voting with the establishment, and will you recuse yourself from any cases involving corporations that fund Missouri's political machine?

Challenge #3

CPAC Scores vs. Constitutional Principles

Your 93% CPAC score isn't the badge of honor you think it is. Research shows that CPAC is "heavily funded by some of the wealthiest conservative foundations and dark money groups," with chairman Matt Schlapp previously serving as "a chief lobbyist for Koch Industries." Koch Industries supports School Choice which seeks to privatize public education so that they can control it and take government money, not so they can fix it.

CPAC rewards legislators who vote for corporate-friendly policies, regardless of constitutional concerns. Meanwhile, real constitutional conservatives like Senator Mike Moon sometimes vote against conservative legislation when it violates constitutional principles—even though it hurts their CPAC scores.

Mike Moon was "named Most Constitutional Legislator by the Locke and Smith Foundation from 2017 to 2019" in the House and "from 2020-2022" in the Senate specifically because he "sometimes votes against conservative legislation to send a message to abide by the state's foundational document."

Representative Chappell, name one time you voted against your party leadership on constitutional grounds, even though it hurt your CPAC score. You claim "I do not follow what the party tells me to do. I've never been that way," yet extensive research of your voting record reveals zero instances of principled dissent against party leadership when it mattered for conservative principles. If you can't provide a single example, how are you different from any other corporate-sponsored politician?

Challenge #4

Attacking the Press Instead of Answering Questions

When confronted with legitimate questions about your voting record and appointments, your response was to challenge a journalist to a formal debate rather than simply answering the questions posed to you.

You wrote: "Im happy to put my conservatism up against anyone's, any time, any place. You let me know when/where you'd like to debate the premise of what Conservatism actually is, and I will make my self available to the very best of my capacities. I await your proposition of honorable discourse."

Your phrase "I await your proposition of honorable discourse" clearly implies that you consider legitimate journalistic inquiry about your voting record and appointments to be "dishonorable." This is a direct attack on the free press and reveals contempt for the basic accountability mechanisms of republican government.

This response reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of both journalism and constitutional governance. When a member of the press asks legitimate questions about your votes and appointments, the appropriate response is to answer those questions—not to attack the journalist's character while demanding they engage you in a format of your choosing.

The First Amendment explicitly protects the press's right to question government officials, and the entire foundation of republican government rests on citizens' and journalists' right to question, criticize, and hold accountable their elected officials. Your attempt to characterize legitimate press inquiry as "dishonorable" while deflecting into a formal debate format suggests you either don't understand these basic constitutional principles or are deliberately trying to avoid accountability.

Representative Chappell, explain how a supposed "constitutional scholar" and "constitution and foundational documents advocate" considers legitimate journalism to be "dishonorable." Why are you attacking the character of journalists asking questions about your voting record rather than simply providing the transparency that Missouri voters deserve?

Challenge #5

The Corporate Cronyism Connection

Your voting record reveals a pattern: you make impassioned speeches about constitutional principles, then vote with the establishment when it matters. This is exactly the behavior that corporate interests want—reliable votes disguised as principled conservatism.

Look at Ben Baker, another Missouri legislator with high corporate scores. Baker was "recognized by the Missouri Chamber of Commerce in 2019 as a Business Champion" and "ranked No. 2 in 2019 on the Missouri State Legislature Vote Studies by the Club for Growth Foundation." Yet Baker pushed legislation to benefit Petland after they hired lobbyists, acknowledging he wasn't aware of any actual problem in Missouri.

But Baker's corporate cronyism goes much deeper. At the 2024 Missouri Republican State Convention on May 4, Baker used procedural tactics to help undermine grassroots conservatives who had successfully elected their own leadership. Along with Rep. Dan Stacy, Baker repeatedly addressed the chair on "convention protocol and amendments," apparently stalling for time to get delegates to leave and create a loss of quorum just as grassroots activists were advancing truly conservative candidates.

This is how CPAC scores hide corporate cronies who work against actual conservatives. Baker maintained a 97% American Conservative Union lifetime score while actively working to disenfranchise the grassroots delegates who elected him. The result? The Missouri Republican Party is now controlled by establishment figures like Peter Kinder, while authentic grassroots conservatives have been marginalized. Thank you, Ben Baker for Kinder who has alleged sexual assault charges in his past. However, Kehoe wanted him, so I guess everyone is happy.

This is the pattern: Corporate-friendly votes earn high scores, high scores create "conservative" credibility, and that credibility gets used to sabotage genuine conservative movements while protecting corporate interests. CPAC scores don't measure constitutional conservatism—they measure corporate reliability disguised as conservative activism.

Representative Chappell, explain how your pattern differs from Ben Baker's corporate cronyism and grassroots betrayal.

Challenge #6

The Blunt Machine Connection

Your appointments connect you directly to Missouri's bipartisan "uniparty"—the network of former politicians, lobbyists, and corporate interests that maintains influence regardless of which party officially holds power.

Jon Patterson, whom you supported for Speaker, has family connections to the Blunt lobbying empire. The Hawthorn Foundation, which receives millions in state funding, employs Rebecca Willard, who "served as Deputy Campaign Manager for US Senator Roy Blunt in his 2016 reelection" and "managed Blunt's $16 million campaign budget."

The foundation pays "six figures" to Kit Bond Strategies, where Roy Blunt now works. This creates a circular system where state funds flow to private organizations that benefit the same political families who influence the officials controlling those funds.

You swim in the same toilet as Bond and Blunt.

Representative Chappell, explain how your support for this system serves Missouri families rather than corporate interests.

Challenge #7

The European Model You're Enabling

Through your votes and appointments, you're enabling a system that mirrors the failed European model of corporate socialism—where private companies socialize their failures through taxpayer-funded economic development while privatizing their profits.

Governor Kehoe's recent trip to France, funded by the same corporations that benefit from favorable property tax assessments, exemplifies this corruption. Kehoe promoted the interests of German (Bayer), Canadian (Canadian Pacific Kansas City), and French (Schneider Electric) corporations while Missouri families face higher property taxes and regulatory burdens.

Representative Chappell, explain why Missouri should follow Europe's model of managed decline rather than America's model of constitutional self-governance.

Challenge #8

The Axiom Strategies Contradiction

Perhaps most damning of all is your use of Axiom Strategies as campaign consultants—the same mega-consulting firm that represents the exact corporate establishment network you claim to oppose.

Axiom Strategies is one of the largest Republican political consulting firms in the United States, with thirteen offices across the country and approximately 150 full-time employees. The firm told potential investors it had taken in $196 million in net revenue in 2022, earning more than $22 million in profit while capturing "at least 63% of every dollar spent by its campaigns."

The Axiom-Patterson-Kehoe Network

Your consultant choice directly connects you to the establishment you claim to fight:

Jon Patterson Connection: In January 2024, Patterson selected Hannah Beers Sutton of Axiom Strategies as executive director of the House Republican Campaign Committee. Sutton serves as vice president of Clout Public Affairs, Axiom's lobbying arm. The HRCC strong armed every legislator into payments that looked a lot like bribes for seats.
Mike Kehoe Connection: Kehoe's campaign paid Axiom Strategies a success fee bonus after winning the Republican primary, with Axiom's advertising arm AxMedia receiving more than $628,000 for ad purchases.
Legislative Control: Axiom has "numerous clients in the legislature, working for 10 of the Republican senators elected in 2022 and nearly two dozen House members."
Corporate Client Base: The firm "touts more than 170 corporate clients and more than 1,200 clients in general," creating a web of conflicts between legislative voting and corporate interests.

The Roy Blunt Legacy Connection

Axiom founder Jeff Roe's firm worked for Roy Blunt's successful 2010 Senate campaign. After leaving the Senate, Blunt joined Husch Blackwell Strategies as a lobbyist, completing the circular system where former politicians become lobbyists while their consulting firms elect new politicians.

Representative Chappell, explain how hiring the same corporate consulting machine that:

Controls nearly two dozen Missouri House members
Represents 170+ corporate clients nationwide
Captures 63% of every campaign dollar to create financial dependency
Lobbies for corporate interests through its Clout Public Affairs division
Was selected by Jon Patterson to run House Republican campaigns
Worked to elect both Patterson and Kehoe

...makes you different from any other corporate-sponsored politician? You paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to the exact consulting firm that manufactures "conservative" candidates for corporate interests. How is this constitutional conservatism rather than corporate cronyism with better marketing?

The Public Square Debate

Representative Chappell, you said you're "happy to put my conservatism up against anyone's, any time, any place." Here's your chance. Respond to these challenges publicly, with documentation, so Missouri voters can judge for themselves.

Don't hide behind debate stage theatrics or controlled formats. Answer these questions in writing, where your words can be fact-checked and your record examined. My guess is you will ignore this article and hope it goes away. Or complain about it on your radio show where you attack me with ad hominem insults.

The voters of the 137th District deserve to know: Are you a constitutional conservative who puts principles above party, or are you a corporate crony who trades votes for appointments?

The Choice for Missouri Voters

This isn't about Republican versus Democrat—it's about authentic representation versus manufactured conservatism. It's about whether Missouri will be governed by constitutional principles or corporate interests.

You have inalienable rights that come from God, not from corporate-sponsored politicians who wrap themselves in conservative rhetoric while serving foreign masters. You have the right to representatives who put Missouri families first, not corporate donors.

We must remember rights that aren't exercised tend to disappear. If you won't hold politicians accountable for their actual voting records—as opposed to their marketing scores—then you've chosen corporate feudalism over constitutional governance. Do you really want to vote for a politician because they have good PR?

Representative Chappell, the floor is yours. The public square awaits your response.

A Final Word on Authentic Representation

Representative Chappell, your talentless niece Roan Chappell is a more convincing performer than you are. You sir, are a poor imitation of a conservative. You host conservative radio shows, you argue for Christian values, but you sell us all out for committee seats. You're either the Token Conservative on the chessboard, or you're in on the Con, meant to spoil the results.

Next time you give a speech about how bad a bill is like SB3, we'll all be more convinced when we learn you were voting against bad bills and Speakers all along. Maybe next time, you should get a zero from CPAC and fire Axiom.

This is what authentic constitutional conservatism looks like: voting against unconstitutional legislation even when it hurts your political score, refusing to hire establishment consulting firms, standing with principled challengers against corrupt leadership, and declining appointments that create conflicts of interest.

You do none of these things while wrapping yourself in constitutional rhetoric. That doesn’t make you patriotic. It makes you Larry Flynn wearing the flag as a diaper.

That's not conservatism—that's corporate theater designed to fool Missouri voters while protecting the interests that fund your campaigns and reward your compliance.

Voters shouldn’t have to vote for someone who’s a good boy.

David Rice is an investigative journalist and Missouri resident. This investigation is ongoing. Representative Chappell's Facebook tantrums have not responded to requests for comment at the time of publication.