Across Missouri, bright white yard signs with red and blue lettering bearing the words “Protect Life” and “MO Protects” have quietly but unmistakably appeared. Volunteers distribute them at local fairs, parades, and door-to-door events, promoting the upcoming Amendment 3 on the November 2026 ballot. The group behind these efforts, MO Protects, has presented itself as a volunteer-driven campaign advocating for incremental pro-life reforms. Yet, questions linger about how the organization funds its operations, especially given its minimal financial footprint in public records and its prior incarnation as a federal Super PAC.
In an era of heightened scrutiny on political spending, Missouri’s small grassroots political action committees (PACs) operate under thresholds that often obscure their fundraising and spending. For MO Protects, this opacity raises questions not only about the organization itself but also about its vocal leader, Tom Estes, who combines roles as pastor, political operative, and outspoken critic of some factions within the conservative movement.
MO Protects and the 2026 Amendment 3
MO Protects first emerged shortly after Missouri voters approved a reproductive rights measure in 2024, initially under the name Missourians Protecting Children and Families. That entity operated as a federal Super PAC, registered with the FEC under ID C00888149, but reported $0 in receipts and expenditures for the 2024 election cycle. Afterward, the effort transitioned into the state-focused MO Protects, now campaigning to pass a new Amendment 3 in November 2026 intended to reverse or modify elements of the 2024 law.
The group positions itself as a coalition-builder, mobilizing volunteers, distributing yard signs, producing literature, and hosting community events. MO Protects emphasizes that its efforts are grassroots, volunteer-driven, and fueled by donations from supporters. The group maintains a P.O. Box in Jefferson City for correspondence and solicitation of contributions, and unlike its federal predecessor, the MO Protects website does accept donations online.
Despite this, searches of Missouri Ethics Commission (MEC) records for MO Protects show no reported contributions or expenditures as of late August 2025. For a group claiming to produce hundreds of signs and distribute materials across the state, this absence of financial filings appears unusual. Missouri law requires PACs to report contributions and expenditures exceeding $1,500 in a calendar year, suggesting either operations remain below that threshold, or significant spending may not be publicly documented.
The group’s claimed outputs include over 675 yard signs, events like the Soybean Festival in Mexico, MO, and coalition-building with other pro-life groups. Volunteers manage on-the-ground logistics without salaries, consistent with the PAC’s narrative of low overhead. Still, the contrast between visible statewide activity and the absence of financial reporting prompts questions about funding sources, in-kind support, and internal accounting.
Tom Estes – From Pulpit to Politics
Tom Estes serves as MO Protects’ founder and executive director. He is also a pastor at Calvary Baptist Church in Versailles, Missouri, and chief of staff to State Senator Rick Brattin (R-31st District). Estes’ dual roles provide him with both a political network and a platform in local faith communities, potentially bolstering grassroots support for MO Protects.
Estes has cultivated a vocal presence on social media, particularly on X, where he engages directly with the pro-life community. However, his commentary often reveals arrogance, dismissiveness, and combative rhetoric, especially toward abortion abolitionists advocating for immediate, total bans on abortion without exceptions. These posts underscore strategic divides within Missouri’s conservative movement and suggest a transactional approach to advocacy, emphasizing compromise and incremental policy wins over ideological purity.
Some representative X quotes illustrate his position:
“Abolitionists can’t unify with anyone unless they’re in total agreement, because humility isn’t in their playbook. Working with others requires grace. They’d rather grandstand.”
“This is 100% legal in Missouri, and abolitionists are fighting to keep it that way. Why? Because stopping this without banning every abortion ever isn’t ‘pure’ enough for them. Insanity.”
“The only thing statistically proven here is that abolitionists will twist numbers to attack pro-life wins.”
“Abolitionists represent a sliver of a sliver of a sliver of the pro-life movement. We do not need their support to win.”
“Being a street agitator or online troll is not serving God. But abolitionists have convinced themselves that chasing clout is a holy mission. They thrive on signs, cameras, and insults, then pretend it’s obedience. It’s not. It’s pride.”
These statements highlight Estes’ strategic pragmatism, prioritizing coalition-building and incremental victories. At the same time, they depict him as dismissive of more ideologically rigid factions within the movement. This style—arrogant and combative, according to critics—raises questions about the degree to which his personal approach shapes MO Protects’ operations and messaging.
Senator Rick Brattin: Connections and Controversy
Estes’ role as chief of staff to Senator Rick Brattin links him directly to a sitting legislator with influence over Missouri’s pro-life agenda. Brattin, a former Cass County auditor, was elected to the Missouri Senate in 2020. He maintains a record of pro-life advocacy, but his tenure has also included moments of tension with grassroots conservatives.
In June 2025, Brattin resigned as chairman of the Missouri Freedom Caucus after supporting $1.5 billion in stadium tax incentives, a move some activists labeled a betrayal of fiscal conservative principles. Estes’ dual positions tie him to this network, raising questions about resource sharing, fundraising, and strategic alignment between MO Protects and Brattin’s political apparatus.
While there is no documented impropriety, the intersection of a vocal political staffer, a pastor, and a PAC leader illustrates a concentration of influence that merits scrutiny, particularly when financial transparency is minimal.
The Money Trail: Funding, Spending, and Transparency Gaps
MO Protects collects contributions through mailed checks and online donations on its website, encouraging “generous individual support.” The group’s stated expenditures focus on grassroots items:
- Printing and distributing yard signs across Missouri
- Producing literature and educational materials
- Hosting events and participating in community fairs
- Maintaining basic web and media presence
Estimates suggest that 675 yard signs alone could cost $1,000–$5,000, factoring in design, printing, shipping, and storage. For a small volunteer PAC to fund such activities without MEC filings or reported expenditures is highly unusual.
Potential explanations include:
- Sub-threshold activity: Total annual contributions or expenditures may remain below the $1,500 reporting trigger.
- In-kind donations: Local printers, volunteers, or supportive churches may provide services without cash changing hands.
- Personal funding: Estes or other insiders may be covering costs, a legal practice if disclosed properly once thresholds are met.
Even with these possibilities, the contrast between the visible scale of operations and the absence of documented financials raises valid questions.
This opacity is further complicated by the PAC’s origin as a federal Super PAC, Missourians Protecting Children and Families, which reported $0 in receipts and expenditures. The subsequent transition to MO Protects and state-level activity suggests a continuity of organization with minimal financial transparency, which some observers find concerning given the costs of statewide campaigns.
Implications for Grassroots Politics
Missouri’s campaign finance laws allow small PACs to operate below reporting thresholds, but large-scale public activity without visible funding can erode public trust. For MO Protects, the combination of Estes’ strategic pragmatism, vocal criticism of abolitionists, and low transparency creates a narrative tension: the group portrays itself as grassroots, yet its operations appear disproportionately large relative to documented finances.
Grassroots conservatives watching the upcoming Amendment 3 campaign may question whether resources are being mobilized strategically, politically, or personally. Estes’ X commentary frames these actions as politics and compromise:
“Abolitionists can’t unify with anyone unless they’re in total agreement, because humility isn’t in their playbook. Working with others requires grace. They’d rather grandstand.”
This approach underscores his belief in incremental wins and coalition-building, but it also highlights the friction between principled grassroots activism and pragmatic political maneuvering.
Seeking Clarity: Expert Perspectives
To understand the full picture, reporting on MO Protects would benefit from:
- Direct inquiries to Estes and MO Protects regarding funding sources, in-kind donations, and total expenditures
- Campaign finance experts, including MEC officials, to clarify reporting thresholds and obligations
- Grassroots conservatives or abortion abolitionists to contextualize Estes’ public statements and the strategic divides in the pro-life movement
Balanced reporting would highlight MO Protects’ volunteer-driven mission and low overhead while probing legitimate questions about transparency and the scale of its activities.
Transparency Matters
As Missouri prepares for Amendment 3 on the November 2026 ballot, MO Protects and its leadership occupy a critical space in shaping the state’s pro-life movement. The combination of visible outreach, minimal reported finances, and the influence of a combative and strategic leader in Tom Estes raises questions worth examining.
Monitoring upcoming MEC filings, reviewing in-kind contributions, and seeking clarity on funding will provide a more complete picture of how grassroots advocacy operates under Missouri law. For voters, donors, and activists, the case of MO Protects highlights the importance of accountability and transparency, even in volunteer-driven campaigns.
Readers are encouraged to share tips or insights anonymously if needed, contributing to a broader understanding of political advocacy and the interplay between personality, strategy, and funding in Missouri’s evolving pro-life landscape.
