The KRA Blog » Dwayne Umbarger

Free Speech Under Attack

KRA ED — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 08:34:36 +0000

We learned 2 things on Wednesday:

Properly follow the rules in filing evidence of campaign finance violations. Magically see the accused “fix” the errors before Ethics investigates or holds a hearing. Ethics concludes no intentional violation happened but because a complaint was filed, the accuser cannot speak on the issue. Something doesn’t seem right and a reporter or two looks into the story so they can do their own investigation. Reporters, doing their job, report on what appears to be a whitewashing of campaign finance violations. Suddenly Ethics sees a violation and investigates a private citizen and fines him $7500 (click here to read more on that story). So much for protecting free speech, whistleblowers, or the freedom of the press. Oh, but one reporter who is absolutely certain the original charges were dismissed has never had to reveal his source for that information even though there is no way to know if no one has commented and violated the law, at least according to Ethics. Why has that source never been investigated? Perhaps because it “clears” the person they protected when they allowed him to “fix” his errors and then claimed he didn’t intentionally break the rules?

Meanwhile, in a Senate Committee meeting on this same day, a bill to protect a reporter’s source is shot down. (You can read more on that here.) I wonder what those Senators who voted against this are afraid might get said if sources could be protected from legislative inquiry?

So, here’s what you should take from this: if you have proof of violations of campaign finance law, don’t turn it in to Ethics, go public with it. And if you can’t risk being found out as the source of information, don’t tell a reporter when you see violations of the law.

Anyone else see a problem here?

Having said that, I’m going to take a risk and publicly ask – how is it that Carol Williams, Executive Director for Kansas Ethics, could acknowledge that an investigation of a private citizen was under way when acknowledging such a thing violated the law according to what she was saying the private citizen did wrong? Will we now see the Ethics Commission fine her?

Carol Williams, executive director of the ethics commission, said the board privately reviews all complaints. These preliminary assessments of evidence aren’t open to the public, she said. Neither the complainant nor the target of an allegation is permitted to comment publicly about the contents of a complaint, she said.If evidence points to a significant problem, Williams said, the commission could convene disciplinary hearings. Those are open to the public. Williams said Van Meteren might have committed a crime by speaking with The Topeka Capital-Journal about his case. A commission investigator in Topeka is looking into a possible counter complaint against Van Meteren.

As you can see above, unless the reporter made it up, Carol Williams said Kris Van Meteren was being investigated but didn’t yet know if they had probable cause to prove he violated the statute, which means she wasn’t allowed to comment! I can’t be the only person in Kansas who sees the inconsistently here, can I?

I believe it’s KSA 46-256 that they claim Van Meteren violated, but that’s also where I read that Williams can’t comment on the allegations against Van Meteren until after a hearing has been set, which I don’t believe was the case back in October.

I wonder, will anyone investigate if she broke the law? Will the legislature look into the secret goings on inside Ethics or are they more concerned with who writes $50 checks to organizations that make their actions public?

Ethics Commission fines private citizen, allows corrupt politician to walk

admin — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 04:13:23 +0000

The Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission today fined a private citizen $7,500 for speaking to the media about a complaint he filed against state Sen. Dwayne Umbarger for misuse of campaign funds.

As far as the public knows, no hearing was conducted regarding the charges against state Sen. Umbarger. The commission has never publicly addressed the complaints or even acknoledged an investigation, but several news sources in Kansas have previously reported that the Ethics Commission is no longer investigating Sen. Umbarger and no fines against the Senator are on record.

When emailed for comment, Van Meteren still had nothing to say.

I would love to talk to you about this issue, (but) my attorney advises me that until a higher legal authority lifts the gag order the Ethics Commission has imposed on me, I really can’t.

Is that what our state has come to? Senators can funnel campaign cash and report such violations to the Ethics Commission, essentially proving a law violation, but as long as they amend their reports to be in compliance with the law, no action is taken.

And yet when a private citizen takes the initiative to root out corruption, wherever it may be, he is fined for his efforts by the very government commission that is supposed to be holding our politicians accountable.

For more in depth coverage, see today’s Kansas Meadowlark story.

Related Articles:

KRA Blog: Ethically Challenged Commission ‘clears’ Umbarger
KRA Blog: “Ethics” Commission targets private citizen
KRA Blog: First amendment case postponed one month
KRA Blog: Freedom of Speech defended at Ethics Hearing
Kansas Meadowlark: “Free Speech” May Cost Kansas Citizen $7500
Kansas Meadowlark: First Amendment Defense Thorny Issue for Ethics Commission
Kansas Meadowlark: Fines and other actions by the Ethics Commission at their December meeting
Kansas Meadowlark: 1st Amendment Constitutional Right may become issue in Kansas Ethics Commission Hearing in January. Silence the accuser?
Kansas Meadowlark: Ethics Commission Fines Candidate $500 and PAC $2500
Kansas Meadowlark: Did Senator Umbarger violate ethics rules buying a carport with campaign money? Umbarger clairvoyant?
Kansas Liberty: Talking to press attracts Ethics Commission ire
Kansas Liberty: New campaign finance charges leveled against Umbarger
Kansas Liberty: Primary opponent says Umbarger violated campaign finance law
Kansas Liberty: Umbarger yields to ethics pressure, repays fund

Freedom of Speech defended at Ethics Hearing

KRA ED — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 04:11:59 +0000

Below is the brief that was presented at the recent Ethics Commission hearing that Meadowlark describes in detail here.

“Ethics” Commission targets private citizen

admin — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 04:51:54 +0000

Two important articles came out today (here and here) about a scheduled January 21, 2009 Ethics Commission hearing regarding two counts against a private citizen. For what is believed to be the first time in Kansas history, the commission is charging a private citizen with two counts of “talking to the press” in violation of state statutes.

In the Kansas Meadowlark post, “1st Amendment Constitutional Right may become issue in Kansas Ethics Commission Hearing in January. Silence the accuser?”, the two counts are outlined.

Count 1. On or after Oct. 15, 2008, Kristian D. Van Meteren disclosed to Phil La Certe, blogger for KansasLiberty.com, the filing of and allegations contained in Complaint No. 422, filed by Kristian D. Van Meteren on Sept 17, 2008, amended on Oct. 8, 2008, and amended on Oct 15, 2008 …

Count 2. On or after Oct. 15, 2008, Kristian D. Van Meteren disclosed to Tim Carpenter, reporter for the Topeka Capital Journal, … [the same as in Count 1]

The complaint, brought by the commission itself rather than an outside source, is based on K.S.A. 25-4161(b).

Whenever a complaint is filed with the commission alleging a violation of a provision of the campaign finance act, such filing and the allegations therein shall be confidential and shall not be disclosed except as provided in the campaign finance act.

The commission’s charges are interesting for several reasons.

The complaint was based on public campaign finance records. The records clearly show a violation of campaign finance laws. The commission could have (and should have) taken action on their own without a complaint from the public. The fact that they didn’t take action on their own is troubling.
The basis of the two counts is simply that Kris Van Meteren, the citizen filing the complaint, spoke with two media outlets regarding the complaint. If Van Meteren had not filed a complaint and still spoken with these two media outlets regarding the finance violations, there would be no basis for the two charges. However, if Van Meteren had not filed a complaint, it would have allowed the commission to neither confirm or deny an investigation. How convenient for a commission that seems to be rather disinterested in fining real campaign finance violations.
Hawver’s reported recently that the investigation into Umbarger was closed. According to the commission, even the closure of an investigation should not be disclosed to the public. So, how did the story get out? Did Sen. Umbarger leak the story? If so, will he be charged? Did someone within the commission leak the story? If so, will they be charged? Will the source of the Hawver story even be investigated? Ironically, if you asked the commission, according to state statute, they shouldn’t be able to tell you if they are investigating the investigation or not!!!

———

Ethically Challenged Commission ‘clears’ Umbarger

admin — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 20:24:48 +0000

I just received word this afternoon that the state Ethics Commission (or, as they shall henceforth be known to me, the Ethically Challenged Commission) has cleared Sen. Dwayne Umbarger (R-Thayer) of any issues regarding his funny campaign finance reports. Umbarger is Chairman of the Senate Ways and Means Committee.

Umbarger filed finance reports in late July for the primary election cycle where he showed using campaign funds to build a carport. He claimed that the expense was valid because he needed a place to store his campaign materials. However, photos taken of the new building showed only half walls with the bottom portion open to the elements and, surprise surprise, no campaign materials.

A day later, Umbarger filed an amended report returning the funds.

Umbarger’s finance report also shows quite a bit of funny money being spent with hundreds of dollars spent on fuel within a two or three day time period. His October filing shows multiple reimbursements for the fuel because of a Commission advisory that the expenditures were illegal, issued back in 2007, before his purchases.

I guess it’s okay to break the law as long as you fix it…sometime. I’m curious what the statutes say about how long you have to break a campaign finance law without ‘fixing it’ before there’s action on the part of the Commission.

What hasn’t been answered is how the information about the closed investigation got out in the first place. Neither the Commission or the candidate being investigated is supposed to speak publicly during an investigation, but I’m not sure what restrictions there are after an investigation has ended.

How does the state of Kansas benefit by having an unelected Commission decide who’s fined and who isn’t? How do citizens benefit from closed door hearings and dismissal of relevant charges?

What does the future of our state budget look like if the Senate Ways and Means chairman can’t even be honest about the commingling of his personal and campaign accounts?

———