HB2130, a measure that would stop unions from automatically deducting political contributions from members, passed on a 75-46 vote, but not without union thugs in the galley attempting to stop the vote from happening. Video of the incident can be seen here.

After union members attempted to stop the vote through blunt intimidation, they were escorted out under Kansas Highway Troopers supervision. So much for improving the public discourse, right?

14 Republicans voted with the unions. You can see everyone’s vote here.

As members entered the chamber, female legislators reported being called derogatory names by union thugs. And the Wichita Eagle is reporting a union boss told everyone to be quiet until HB2130 came up for a vote, and then they could, “…do whatever you want.”

Absolutely disgusting behavior Kansas voters will continue to reject.

One must look no further for evidence of this than KAKE Channel 10′s website where a condensed version was published under the byline of the Associated Press with no mention of “Analysis,” “Opinion” or otherwise with it.

The fact is in the past decade, “Analysis” has become in vogue with the press to justify using opinion pieces as news. Some claim it to be the brainchild of the mainstream media attempting to further influence the electorate. More likely it is simply the symptom of a press corps seriously strapped for cash partly due to them being completely out of touch on how to report real news relevant to the public.

Whatever the reason, it’s clear they are written in an attempt to publish select facts and influence the public. In this instance, it appears Milburn is attempting to explain away Brownback’s superior proposals on education in Kansas. It’s interesting that in attempting to place blame on the courts rather than the politicians for out of control education spending, Milburn actually validates past arguments by conservatives that unelected judges in Kansas virtually control over half the state’s budget.

While in the actual piece this isn’t necessarily the explicit message, it’s interesting to note this piece from the KAKE Channel 10 revision.

Both Republican Sam Brownback and Democrat Tom Holland say they will focus on preserving what they see as an excellent system of K-12 schools. Where they differ is how they would steer the behemoth system that consumes more than 50 percent of the state budget.

History would suggest that it’s more likely that litigation, not pontification, will decide the course.

In the past two decades, action or the threat of from the Kansas Supreme Court has played a bigger role than activity in the Statehouse.

If these last two sentences are true, then that means that unelected and unaccountable judges control our tax dollars and how they are spent, not elected officials who represent the people. This stronger language by KAKE 10 shows the power of “Analysis” pieces by the press and how they can morph into a story of their own. It just so happens that KAKE happened to take the piece in a direction that highlighted past arguments made by conservatives.

The piece also once again highlights Holland’s curious stance against revising the state’s finance formula due to increased property taxes while simultaneously advocating for increasing a district’s local option budget.

In any case, the public can analyze this, “Analysis” is just another word for “Editorial.”

It’s an interesting strategy that so far seems to be reaping what it is sewing. While Holland has consistently and loudly attacked Republican Sam Brownback from the halls of the state capital, he swung and missed when it came time for his innovative ideas on how to move Kansas forward.

The Topeka Capital Journal highlighted Holland’s non-sense best when it quoted Holland as saying Brownback’s education plan would result in, “significantly higher property taxes and guaranteed litigation.”

Too bad for Tom that Kansas schools have been suing the state for more than a decade and in fact won a verdict for more than $1 billion in additional funding, all under the direction of a Democratic administration. The state is faced with even more litigation this year, again under a Democratic administration. So far it seems to me and many Kansans that if a Democrat like Holland had a better idea, he’s had more than enough time to propose and pass it. Holland must be pretty dense to make such a statement in light of current and previous litigation.

But Holland just couldn’t stop himself and topped off his statement by expressing his support for… you guessed it… higher property taxes.

Holland said if elected governor he would maintain the state’s constitutional obligation to equalize opportunities for children while supporting a move to grant local school boards authority to raise additional property tax for schools through the local option budget process.

Tom, what do you think “local option budget process” means? Uhh, property taxes Tom, it means property taxes. And you just said you’d support raising them.

Tuesday we found out that Holland is just more of the same when it comes to what Kansas Democrats want to happen to our state. More money for the education bureaucracy, at a time when our state can least afford it, higher taxes and more government. That isn’t a detailed plan, it’s a hastily laid sketch for disaster.

While Holland has been screaming at the top of his lung, hoping to stick anything he can to his opponent, Sam Brownback has been touring the state, actually meeting with voters and fulfilling his promise to visit every one of Kansas’ 105 counties. So far Holland has become familiar with Shawnee County, especially the capital grounds, but so far has failed to meet many folks outside of that area.

A new KWCH/Survey USA poll shows that Holland is way behind Republican Sam Brownback. Brownback leads Holland 67% to 25% with a margin of error of only 3.9%.

It’s unfortunate that Holland has decided that campaigning means calling press conference after press conference at the capital and then saying one thing when he supports another. But perhaps Holland knows he doesn’t stand a chance against the Republican wave that’s coming to Kansas this November and this is just his last desperate attempt to spend as much time as he can in the capital.

After the U.S. Senate results were in, Sen. John Cornyn issued a statement critical of the Democratic candidate, Lisa Johnston.

“Democrat nominee Lisa Johnston has clearly demonstrated that she would simply serve as another rubberstamp for President Obama and Harry Reid’s out-of-control economic agenda if she makes it to Washington.”

The “huh” moment came when the Kansas Democratic Party’s official blog came to Johnston’s aid by guarenteeing that she’ll be no rubberstamp. In fact according to them, it’s nothing more than mudslinging because, you know, she’s already told them she won’t be another rubberstamp for Harry Reid and Obama. She’s going to vote against her own party. You know, the party that’s posting her response on it’s own official blog.

“During a July 15, 2010 bipartisan candidate forum in Mound City, KS, Lisa was asked “Will you as a Senator vote according to the wishes of the people you represent even if it meant voting against your party line?” She replied, “Absolutely, without question. One of the things I am committed to is leading with integrity and having an independent mind.”

Independent mind? Right. Which is why the party’s official blog had to write about it. Because the Kansas Democratic Party has clearly demonstrated their willingness to fully support candidates that don’t 100% adhere to an all out liberal mind set.

Psst. Does party leadership’s endorsement of Chris Steineger ringer a bell? The name Mark Gilstrap jog anybody’s memory? The guy who voted against his party and got thanked with a party recruited and funded primary opponent?

Yea right, the KDP is going to support somebody who doesn’t tow the party line. Because they’ve clearly been so tolerant in the past.

Besides, how is she going to respond to a puff question like that?

“Oh yes, I believe 100% in the economic and social policies of our President and Harry Reid, both of which I know nearly 70% of the voting public in Kansas don’t approve of. I think what they’ve done for America is right on. I’d support government run health care that I know not a single sane Kansas voter supports and I’d pretty much go to Washington and jump however high Harry Reid told me I needed to jump.”

Now that would have been a truthful response. Of course it also would have been a suicidal response.

Oh, and by the way, I know the elitists at the KDP probably won’t figure this out anytime soon, but by continually referring to your candidate as, “Dr. Lisa Johnston,” all you’re doing to making her seem as if she’s better than the people she wants to represent. Only elitists like Johnston insist on people recognizing her educational status by calling her “Doctor.” We know power tripping on your students is educationally in vogue Lisa, but you should really get a grip on that before you have a Barbara Boxer moment at a candidate forum. I’m not sure what’s up with Democrats and their love of titles but apparently it’s a universal thing.

Maybe instead of Doctor, Lisa would prefer to be addressed as “Independent Doctor Lisa Johnston.” Or “Independent, committed, not a politician, independent, vote against my party, independent Doctor Lisa Johnston.” She could be like the educational elite who put more letters about how educated they are behind their name than are in their name.

Oh, that’d make an awesome “I approve this message” message.

“My name is Independent, committed, honorable, independent, not really a Democrat, independent, Doctor Pepper, independent, Doctor, Doctor Lisa Johnston, and I have to tell you I approve this message because I’m clearly smarter than you and I’m not quite sure you’d figure that out without me telling you.”

All kidding aside, does anybody really think Johnston (PhD, MD, DO, MSKJLEKKWIUTH, blah…) won’t be just another “Yes” vote for Reid and Obama?

Nah, I didn’t think so.

At the Wichita School Board meeting, Harold Schlechtweg, business representative of Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 513, outlined the union’s efforts to pack a Sedgwick County legislative forum. The effort was so coordinated that Schlechtweg was able to list signs that were present at the forum and detail efforts of Wichita State University education students coming in to make calls to district employees. At one point, he even becomes somewhat confused and referred to the event as a “rally” rather than a legislative forum for the public.

Oh, oops, “I shouldn’t call it that!”

Do SEIU members have a right to be at these forums? Absolutely. Is it the union’s right to organize these people into a tax and spend frenzy? You bet. But isn’t this just the kind of actions that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called “astroturfing?”

In light of a new plan by Senate conservatives to replace the budget shortfall with revenue from the sale of state property, are schools and spending advocates really concerned about this budget or do they just want to hike taxes? According to those at the forum on Saturday, SEIU attendees shouted down legislators who were trying to save the budget with this plan. Is this not what spending advocates wanted: more spending?

With a plan on deck that would “save” the budget, shouldn’t SEIU members cheer their victory? Or maybe it’s not about the spending at all? With a plan that achieves their spending goals but not their tax desires, the SEIU supporters on Saturday showed themselves to be nothing more than tax happy bureaucrats who could care less about their neighbor who’s out of a job or taken a pay cut in this down economy.

The SEIU forum crashers care about one thing and one thing only: raising your taxes. Regardless of achieving their own spending desires, regardless of their out of work neighbors and certainly regardless of the payments future generations will be making for decades to come.

The study concluded that a sales tax increase would cost private sector employment, but would fuel government jobs, thus saving close to 2,000 in the first year. The study confirmed a January study by Dr. Art Hall of the University of Kansas who ran a 6 year projection of over 26,000 private sector lost jobs. Monday’s study by Dr. John Wong of WSU only made one year projections.

Monday’s study received significant media coverage because of it’s pro-tax sympathies, while Hall’s January study received little attention.

Read more at:

• Studies Agree: A Sales Tax Increase Kills Jobs
• Who’s Really Behind Pro-Sales Tax Study
• Opposition blasts Wong report stating increase in taxes better than budget cuts

As a quasi government agency, Amtrak has been loosing money for years and only continues to operate because of federal subsidies. While federal money is outside the control of KDOT, a KDOT press release notes the one time infrastructure improvement costs and annual operating cost of the four different plans.

For example, the first plan estimates an annual ridership of 92,500 at an annual cost burden to the state of $3.2 million. This doesn’t include an estimated $114 million in improvements for the line to operate. And the $114 million doesn’t include local improvements like platforms and train stations, which would have to be provided by local Kansas communities. Just taking into account the state’s annual costs, it comes to $34.60 per rider.

A more expensive alternative would bring in an estimated 174,000 annual riders but would cost the state $8 million a year in operating expenses. Excluding $476 million in infrastructure improvements, that’s just under $46 a rider. If one includes the infrastructure costs and extends out annual costs for 30 years, the cost per rider increases to just over $137 a rider.

Why would KDOT push for a service that would require $8 million a year be taken from their budget when they are canceling new construction and repair projects left and right? Rather than subsidize passenger rail service to potentially $46 a rider or more, couldn’t those millions of dollars be better spent maintaining Kansas roads that would benefit everyone rather than the few who find passenger rail service so nostalgic that they advocate government subsidies to keep Amtrak going?

Couple this with a continuing push to renovate the state capital because ‘material is so cheap’ and lawmakers so desperate to tax rather than cut spending that soda pop is now on the radar, and it certainly leaves Kansas taxpayers wondering just what happened to our government’s priorities.

AFP member Vonda Wiedmer displays her T-shirt message

There’s a TEE Party in the statehouse today. Americans for Prosperity – Kansas has organized grassroots activists to come and encourage lawmakers to not tax their way out of their spending problem. Citizens met this morning at 10am and are now spread throughout the statehouse speaking with legislators about what needs to be done to fix their budget problem. Here’s what AFP Director Derrick Sontag had to say this morning.

• “This is not just your regular veto session. We’ve been spending too much money in this building since day one.”
• Spending has increased by 48% since 2004. “Those are the real numbers folks.”
• “The budget that they are proposing to finish off this year leaves $39, $40 million in the bank.” That’s significantly less than what is required by statute. But then again, statutes can always be changed to suit the situation.
• “If they had just spent what they took in, they’d have a billion in the bank.” 22 months ago the state of Kansas had $1 billion in the bank. Now the state is still trying to fix a $1 billion plus problem
• Legislators knew the problem was coming and yet did ignored their own staff. “They were warned by their own staff two years ago”, that they’d have a negative balance.
• By law the legislative session must be wrapped up in 90 days. “They have nine more days to go.” A tax increase is certainly not outside the realm of possibility. “They’ll get creative and do whatever they have to do at the end of the day.”
• K-12 education is being asked to cut less than one percent of their budget. Yet K-12 spending has increased by 53% since 2003. “It’s simply not sustainable.”

Flint Hills Center investiative reporter Paul Soutar spoke briefly about his newest report on how much money K-12 education is sitting on.

Citizens are now spread throughout the capital speaking to legislators, encouraging them to not raise taxes and hurt the Kansas economy even more. More later in the day.

But one big thing was happening last week and the results of it have exploded in the Kansas news this week, dwarfing anything else I need to share with you. The Kansas Senate & House managed to pass a compromise bill dealing with the 2009 budget shortfall. All that’s needed as of this afternoon is the Governor’s signature and the current financial crisis is averted. Of course this means cutting spending, which the Governor had the power to do herself last November and still has the power to do today.

You’ve probably heard the dire warnings: Tax Refunds delayed, state employees won’t get paid on time, schools won’t be funded… none of which has to happen if the Governor just does her job. The sky is falling and it’s not my fault, those bad legislators won’t borrow money like I asked! They know they can do this, it’s no big deal, and we do it all the time!

Really, could that be true? As I looked into it, I found myself even angrier than I had been last week watching the circus in DC. You see, the Governor has at her disposal procedures she can take to cut non-essential spending, allowing the government to pay it’s essential bills on time. Has she done it? NO. Instead she’s out there scaring state employees by using taxpayer-funded-email lists to tell them that she cares about them but those bad legislators aren’t doing what I want so you might not get paid on time.

And meanwhile, I’m getting reports of what’s going on with our taxpayer-funded schools. Yes, that would be the schools that reaped a windfall in 2005 thanks to the State Supreme Court legislating funding. Kids are being told to tell their parents that they must call their legislators and beg them not to cut funding or class sizes will double, music and art will be cut from curriculums, and on and on it goes. I have in my hands a letter from a local high school principal, sent to parents with taxpayer funds, reminding them “it’s less expensive to educate children than incarcerate them!”

Honestly, as a homeschool mom who successfully graduated 5 children into community-involved adults without one penny of help from the state, I can assure you I’m quite aware of that little fact, that’s why I didn’t send my children to be incarcerated day after day in government-funded schools. What? You think this means I hate public schools and want them de-funded? Hogwash. See, I can use outlandish rhetoric and hyperbole, too. How about we discuss things rationally and try the truth in regards to funding and the state budget.

The fact is school funding makes up a HUGE percentage of the state budget. We can’t cut spending as much as we must without having the schools share in the cut – unless we are willing to make draconian cuts in other areas like social services and health care to those who can’t care for themselves, the mentally disabled, the elderly with no family, the orphans in foster care. We have a moral obligation to take care of those who cannot care for themselves and if that means a school district can’t build a nice new building this year or must cut a few administrators to make ends meet, well, that’s what’s it going to take. Face it, we can’t just print money and buy everything we want the day we want it. We must budget for it, plan ahead, make do when we can, and be practical in our spending. That’s what families do and that’s what government at all levels needs to do as well. Spending by government will not save us and taxing the people more will not magically bring the state increased revenues if the people cannot pay the bill!

Folks, it’s time you take action. Usually we suggest you call your legislators and tell them what you think – and of course that’s still a good idea now as well. But this time we need something more from you. We need you to make your voices heard in your local paper, on the radio talk shows in your area, and in your communities at town hall meetings, school activities, wherever you are, you need to speak up and say enough is enough, stop the madness, it’s time we live within our means as a society.

There are a number of places you can get talking points and more details. I’m going to list a few of them below. I’m also going to link to the pages on our website that will help you find your local paper, talk radio and elected officials. Please speak up now while we can still make a difference in Kansas.

Charlotte Esau
KRA Executive Director

Links For More Info & Talking Points:

Go to the mainpage of the KRA website and click on your county on the map for local information regarding local papers, talk radio & elected officials. Or follow these links:

Who will blink first? House Speaker Mike O’Neal, R-Hutchinson, and Senate President Steve Morris, R-Hugoton, said it would have been illegal for the State Finance Council to have authorized additional short-term debt because state officials couldn’t honestly declare the state could pay the obligation by the end of the fiscal year.
 
House leadership responds to Sebelius lies  Statement from House Leadership regarding the Governor’s continued efforts to misrepresent her role in the events of the State Finance Council meeting and her responsibility to address a revised 2009 budget.

Governor’s Letter to State Employees – Caution! This link is full of the Governor’s spin!

What You Need to Know About the Kansas Budget Crisis

State Rep. Delia Garcia of Wichita wanted Gardasil given to all high school girls in 2007.

Like many, I didn’t understand why politicians thought they should mandate use of a recently approved vaccine for HPV (Human Papillomavirus.) Gardasil is a vaccine for HPV, which has been linked to cervical cancer. Soon after FDA approval however, recipients of the vaccine began to see some very serious side effects, including some deaths.

Even if the adverse effects were unrelated to the vaccine, opponents questioned why it was an “opt-out” requirement rather than “opt-in.” The Wichita Eagle editorial board thought opposition was solely based on the nature of the vaccine.

The proposed legislation to mandate that Kansas sixth-grade girls be vaccinated against the human papillomavirus has hit a wall in the Legislature in the form of House Health and Human Services Chairwoman Brenda Landwehr, R-Wichita, who chose not to advance the bill. Her inaction is no surprise. In truth, the bill’s chief advocate, Rep. Delia Garcia, D-Wichita, probably lost most of her cautious colleagues at the phrase “sexually transmitted.”

- Wichita Eagle Editorial Board, March 2, 2007

Women without a family history of the disease and who remain abstinent until marriage have a significant risk reduction in contracting HPV. Why expose these women to unnecessary vaccines? As we’ve been told many times, don’t tell women what to do with their bodies.

After taking a class on vaccines where the evidence of possible problems with Gardasil was discussed, I too began to wonder why there was such a push to get the drug into schools as quickly as possible. At the time, over 20 deaths had been linked to the vaccine.

The unsuccessful push to get the vaccine into schools in Kansas was lead by State Rep. Delia Garcia of Wichita. Garcia received $200 from Merck in October of 2007. Merck is the manufacturer of Gardasil.

Yesterday KAKE 10 in Wichita did a short story about a family who’s daughter is possibly dying because of the vaccine. In the story, Garcia now says she wants answers about the safety of the vaccine.

The HPV vaccine controversy has highlighted the importance of careful thought before acting. Just because an issue involves a sexually transmitted disease doesn’t mean that legislators will oppose it because of an ‘icky’ factor. Sometimes more information and a little bit of time simply makes for better public policy.

Thank you Rep. Landwehr for having a level head and making good policy decisions. Kansans are fortunate that you were able to stop a bad, rushed Democrat proposal.

Kansas public schools only got 75% of the payments they should have received in December. The reason? It’s simple really, the state doesn’t have the cash.

“We do not have enough cash in the bank,” said Gov. Kathleen Sebelius’ budget director Duane Goossen.

And I guess it depends on your point of view what the cause of the missed payment is. According to many news outlets, it’s just a sign of the slipping economy (as opposed to massive overspending by Kansas bureaucrats.)

If signs of economic troubles weren’t already clear, here is another one. A monthly payment of $220 million split among the state’s 297 public school districts was delayed four days this week.

And what, just what, might have been done to avoid this? Well, here’s a hint, don’t spend so much!

As American’s for Prosperity’s Alan Cobb said:

“Isn’t it worth mentioning the impact of four years of large budget increases on the current budget situation? If the budget had simply increased at 5 percent, hardly a small number, each year since 2004, we would have more than $2 billion in the bank now.”

Yes, I do think it’s worth mentioning.

But apparently the Kansas press doesn’t. A Google News search turned up only a rehashed AP article and a breaking story from the Journal-World. You would think the state of Kansas literally defaulting on it’s payment obligations would be news, but not in Kansas.

Here’s something else worth mentioning that I’m sure the Kansas press won’t; this ship was run aground by none other than Gov. Kathleen Sebelius.

During her six years in office state spending has risen at astronomical rates. State obligations in the form of more bloated education spending were set in stone by hand picked Supreme Court justices and now Kansas has defaulted on payments because the governor is unwilling to cut spending when the state needed it the most.

And for my favorite quote of the day came from newly appointed State Treasurer Dennis McKinney (D), who was upset that legislative leaders finally got a clue and stopped letting bids for statehouse renovations.

“Now is the time to build highways and renovate the Statehouse because it costs the taxpayers less…”

Look, I’m no fan of the massive amounts of money wasted by public education, but don’t you think meeting our educational needs are more important than plush new offices for legislators?

You have to ask yourself, this is the guy Sebelius chose to be our next Treasurer? Another grand move on her part.

And what’s worse, she couldn’t have gotten us into this royal mess without the help of liberal Republicans.

What’s that? Moderate? I’m sorry, but moderate means just that, taking things in moderation. Voting for massive increases in spending when the state doesn’t have the money isn’t moderation.

And then, in true ‘moderate’ form, it’s all blamed on tax cuts rather than massive spending.

Here’s a newsflash for all the ‘moderates’ out there (Republican or otherwise as no politician in Kansas is a liberal according to the Kansas press); Kansans aren’t taxed too little, you spend too much!!!

The most important of these positions is by far that of the Senate President. Current Senate President Steve Morris has been more than a disappointment to all Kansans. Morris’ past four years have seen an average increase in state spending of more than 5% every year. Is it any wonder Kansas government is staring at a 2010 deficit of over $1 billion?

But Morris is more than a black eye to Kansas, he is a disappointment to all Republicans. During his time we’ve seen one of our Republican leaders quoted in the New York Times as having no other difference with Democrat Kathleen Sebelius than the blocked coal power plants.

“But that’s the only major disagreement we’ve had since she took office,” Mr. Morris said. “She knew she would have to work with Republicans when she came in, and she’s done pretty well doing that.”

Republicans deserve a leader who supports Republicans and not just the next meal ticket they think will bring more power to themselves.

He and Vice President John Vratil used their Senate Leadership PAC to further their quest for power, not for the benefit of Republicans fighting Democrats for Senate seats.

In fact, when Republican Senate candidates needed non-monetary help in defeating Democrats, they were met with praise for the Democrat.

Sen. John Vratil, R-Leawood, chairman of the judiciary committee, said hers (Greta Goodwin) was one of the key races that will determine the Senate leadership next year. Senate President Steve Morris, R-Hugoton, agreed.

Could the picture be more clear?

If re-elected, Morris promises more of the same. Experience seems to be the hot word of this election season, but is experience with higher taxes and more spending what Kansans really need during these tough budget times?

Of course not. What is needed is strong, conservative leadership offered by Senator Susan Wagle. Wagle has a record of being true to the taxpayers and not to those who put her in power.

Wagle was endorsed by the KRA for her re-election bid this past November and also earned our endorsement as a Lt. Governor candidate with Jim Barnett.

Susan Wagle is the clear choice for a new direction in Kansas.

I, for one, have no interest in a governor who’s nothing more than a surrogate of Obama looking for a ticket out of Kansas. And I definitely have no interest in a Republican leader who sells out his party for a ticket on the Sebelius express.

The race for Speaker of the House showcases two familiar candidates. Current Speaker Melvin Neufeld is seeking re-election but has been hounded by his inability to pass legislation authorizing the Holcomb power plants. He’s also getting significant heat for the passage of legislation in 2007 authorizing state-owned casinos in Kansas.

Rep. Mike O’Neal was endorsed by the KRA in his recent re-election bid to the House. Rep. O’Neal has a good record of being true to the taxpayer and as chairman of the Judiciary Committee has considerable experience with judicial appointments and the power of our courts. He also lead the charge against capitulation to the Supreme Court in their mandate to increase education funding.

With over 50% of the state budget going to K-12 education, it’s virtually impossible to cut state spending by $1 billion without a tax increase or education spending cuts. It’s not yet clear that the Supreme Court would intervene again, but with its past history, another mandate is likely. A strong Speaker is needed, and Rep. O’Neal fits the bill.

And the Democrat races? Well, not that we really care, but the Senate Minority Leader race is interesting for a couple of reasons.

First, we’re told all the time about the split in the Republican Party, but not much is said about the split within the Democrat Party. It was highlighted this past election season with the recruitment of Kelley Kultala against incumbent Democrat Mark Gilstrap. The media likes to talk about the recruitment of conservative candidates against ‘moderate’ Republicans, but for some reason didn’t see much interest in the recruitment of a liberal against a true moderate Democrat.

The race between current Minority Leader Hensley and Sen. Chris Steineger is also interesting because of Hensley’s relationship with Gov. Sebelius. Together, they decided to take out one of their own and spend thousands of party dollars to do it, while loosing a Senate seat. It will be interesting to see if other Democrat Senators agree with their strategy.

Related:

Kansas Liberty: O’Neal confident of unseating Neufeld
Kansas Liberty: How careful with your money are candidates for House, Senate leadership positions?
Kansas Liberty: Legislative leadership contests are ‘intimate and intense’
Kansas Liberty: Battle develops for top Democratic leadership post in Kansas Senate
Kansas Liberty: School spending cuts could set collision course with the Supreme Court
Wichita Liberty: Susan Wagle for Kansas Senate President
Topeka Capital Journal: Lawmakers to vote on key House, Senate jobs
Salina Journal: Who will be state’s leaders?

Following the posting of my findings of Sean Tevis’ July and October 2008 campaign finance reports, the candidate found time in his busy schedule to respond.

Mr. Tevis stated his strong disagreement with my findings that he lied in his October 12th press release where he claimed that his campaign had, “taken no special interest money.” Tevis argued that he refunded the money over two months later so that he could, “stay lobbyist-free.”

Apparently, Tevis was for special interest money before he was against it.

But really, there are several flaws with his logic. First, the press release made a blanket statement. We’ve “taken no special interest money.” That’s a fact. Tevis took special interest money on 7/2/08. That’s a fact. Interpret that how you wish.

Second, refunding the money doesn’t change the fact that it was taken in the first place. If he wishes to argue that refunding the money means he’s free from the influence of special interest lobbies, then he’s free to do so. Unfortunately, he continues to promote endorsements by not only the KNEA, his first and largest Kansas contributor, but also the MainStream Coalition and others. In any case, the press release didn’t say, “we refunded all special interest money so we can be free from the influence of lobbyists.” It said they’d “taken no special interest money.”

Third, there’s no way he can “stay” lobbyist free when he retained contributions from special interests over a two month period. You can only “stay lobbyist-free” if you “began lobbyist-free.” Tevis did not begin lobbyist-free, so I don’t see how he can “stay lobbyist-free.”

He also asserted, “No one in my district donated more than $50, the legal limit required to list them on the official report.”

Mr. Tevis says he believes in open government and yet didn’t voluntarily itemize all his small donations. He doesn’t have to, of course, but to not do so and then claim he’s for open government is quite disingenuous. I personally would hope as an ‘advocate’ he would want to go above and beyond what the law requires.

Yes, legally, only donations over $50 are required to be itemized on campaign finance reports.

Does this mean you can’t list them? No.

Has any candidate for state office ever filed a campaign finance report with nearly 70% of all donations listed as ‘un-itemized?’ No.

Would a reasonable person expect that someone who claims to be an advocate of open government would disclose at least a majority of his donors? YES!

So in short, since Mr. Tevis is willing to give his donor list to the Kansas City Star (which never printed it), I’m sure he’ll have no problem filing an amended campaign finance report to the Government Ethics Commission reflecting all of his donors so everyone can see who his financiers are.

But in fairness, I’d also note that Tevis seeks a solution to government accountability that is quite ingenious and desirable.

Allow Kansans to review how government spends our money. We would do this by posting all of these records online in an easily browsable and searchable format.

I wholeheartedly agree that in the 21st century, there’s no reason why citizens shouldn’t be able to see how their tax dollars are being spent. It’s an important step in government accountability and openness.

Thankfully, Republican Representative Kasha Kelley successfully fought for and passed just such an act. Now, thanks to Republicans, citizens can now review tax collection and state expenditures online. Click here to visit the KanView website.

It’s not a perfect system by any means. I sometimes can be frustrated by it myself. But it is an important first step in holding government accountable to the citizens. And thanks to Republican’s efforts, it’s here today.

Sean Tevis, husband of Michelle Tevis, former editor for the Kansas City Star, and a candidate for Kansas House District 15, issued a press release October 12th criticizing his opponent, Republican Arlen Siegfreid, of holding an out of district fundraiser at a country club.

Tevis has raised over $96,000 in July and over $13,000 since August 1st with nearly all of it from out-of-state internet contributions. Over $69,000 was listed as un-itemized contributions on his July 2008 campaign finance report, with another $8,000 plus listed as un-itemized in his October 2008 report. Over 70% of all donations received by Tevis thus far have been listed as ‘unitemized’ with no information about the donors at all.

Both his July 2008 and most recent October 2008 reports show Tevis has yet to raise even $1 from the House District he wants to represent.

We’ve created a google map listing all of Tevis’ Kansas Contributors to date, and as you can see, not one is from House District 15 (represented in blue on the map below.)

Tevis has raised only $2,475.88 from Kansas donors, all of which live outside of House District 15. That means over 97.5% of all donations came from outside of Kansas.

Also in the press release, Tevis’ staff says:

…spokesperson Andrew Blobaum questions any event held outside the district that is restricted from public access. “Mr. Siegfreid has once again made a decision that Topeka lobbyists’ interests come before his constituents’ interests,” Blobaum said. “His lobbyist-first agenda has only hurt the people of the 15th District, and his first major public event of the campaign is a fundraiser that excludes his constituents from attendance without a large contribution.”

Tevis takes Seigfreid to task for holding a fundraiser down the road from House District 15 while he continues to raise cash from not only out of district and out of state, but in many cases, out of the country.

July and October filings show Tevis accepted:
> $120 from Christian Hansen of London, England on 7/18/08
> $100 from Miller Matthew of Kasumigoaka, Japan on 7/16/08
> $100 from Matt Curzon of Brighton, England on 7/29/08

The July ’08 report shows a refund of the $120 contribution from Christian Hansen of England, but the other $100 donations show no refunds. Are these US Citizens living abroad? If so, how was US citizenship established? What about the tens of thousands of dollars that was raised that Tevis listed as unitemized. How were those contributions vetted for citizenship?

Take a look at the second international donor. Who names their kid Miller Matthew? If a name isn’t listed correctly, were these donors vetted for citizenship before their cash was put in the bank?

Tevis’ press release continues:

“We are not afraid to talk with voters and hear their concerns because we have taken no special interest money.“

And yet Tevis’ July 2008 filing shows that his very first contribution was $500 from the KNEA on 7/2/08. The $500 was later returned to the KNEA on 9/23/08, over 2 months later. Tevis’ claim that his campaign had “taken no special interest money” is apparently a lie.

Tevis continued to criticize his opponent for accepting donations from Political Action Committee’s

“Mr. Siegfreid has once again made a decision that Topeka lobbyists’ interests come before his constituents’ interests,” Blobaum said. “His lobbyist-first agenda has only hurt the people of the 15th District…”

And yet Tevis was singing a very different tune on June 17th when he took time out to write a blog post about filling out PAC Surveys.

To fill out all of these would be a full-time job that would take weeks, so you quickly learn to pick and choose. Groups that you disagree with? Groups that are unlikely to impact your voters? Throw them away.

In fact, Tevis elaborated even more about his feelings towards PAC’s with his June 30th post regarding his KNEA endorsement. This post was written 3 days before he accepted $500 in special interest money.

Endorsements are a pretty big part of any political campaign for two reasons. They recommend to all of their members who to vote for and they sometimes give you money to help you along. With the KNEA (Kansas National Education Association) it plays an even bigger role because…I wanted them on my side as partners. Thankfully, it appears that they are.

And remember all the time and energy Tevis would have had to spend filling out forms letting people know what his views were? Well, he’s got time for the right people apparently:

They send out a monstrous survey to all the candidates asking them what their opinions are on a wide variety of issues that affect schools and education. You fill it out and then bring it with you to an interview.

I went to the KNEA headquarters and sat at a big table with eight representatives from their group, all of whom are teachers. My 15 minute interview became an hour-long brainstorming and strategy session. Afterward, I emailed them my answers to their questions. A week later I got an answer: I’m endorsed!

You see? He does have time, it just depends on who’s asking for it!

And in case you were worried it was only the KNEA PAC Tevis wanted to publicize, think again. Tevis also highlights endorsements from the MainStream Coalition PAC, Kansas Families for Education PAC and Educating All Children in Kansas PAC.

Tevis also claims to be an advocate for open government.

The openness, or transparency, of government is a vital function of democracy. Democracy only works if we have a well-informed public and to be well-informed we need transparency in government.

And yet Tevis refuses to reveal who donated over $77,000 to his campaign to date. How can one be an advocate for open government when they refuse to reveal over 70% of their contributors? How can a candidate be for open government when he refuses to let the citizens know who is funding his campaign?

Now, Tevis obviously got a lot of small donations. How can a reasonable person expect him to list everyone?

First of all, all donations went through PayPal, so all of his records should already be in place.

Second, let’s take a look at the original appeal.

There’s two things to note about this.

First, there’s no evidence here that he appealed to internet contributors so he wouldn’t have to take special interest money, as he claims in his October 12th press release. Further, his acceptance of $500 from KNEA and belated refund show that Tevis has no problem taking PAC money.

Second, note the promise of a thank you note. If a guy can go to the trouble of writing a thank you note to a donor, shouldn’t he also have the courtesy to the voters to disclose his donors, especially after claiming he’s for ‘open government?’

Sean Tevis apparently not only lies about taking special interest money, but has trouble practicing what he preaches as well.

Sebelius’ Bluestem PAC took in over $400,000 in donation with only $30,000 of it from Kansas. Tevis raised over $100,000 with just over 2% from Kansas to fund his machine of deception and lies.

When will this flood of out-of-state money end? When the citizens stand up and say, “NO MORE!”, that’s when!

It will only end when the citizens reject the big money in favor of the truth. And that can only happen if we start to stand up for what’s right with not only our mouths, but our pocketbook as well.