The KRA Blog Rotating Header Image

Kansas Liberty

Ethics Commission fines private citizen, allows corrupt politician to walk

Feb 18th, 2009
by admin.
No comments yet

ethics

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.

ethics_pr

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

Who will blink first?

Feb 16th, 2009
by admin.
No comments yet

Republican leaders in the House and Senate today refused to allow Gov. Sebelius to borrow additional cash to make state payroll this Friday. From the Topeka Capital-Journal:

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.

The speaker and president said the Democratic governor must first deal with the $326 million deficit-reduction bill adopted by both chambers last week. Once action is taken on Senate Bill 25, O’Neal and Morris said expenditures and revenues would likely be brought in line sufficiently to approve more debt.

From Kansas Liberty:

When combined with previous requests, this would create a total loan of $775 for fiscal year 2009, the largest certificate of indebtedness ever issued in Kansas history.

This has understandably angered Democrats and liberals in general.

For the legislative branch to hold the executive branch over a barrel like this, to actually prevent payroll and tax returns from being made, is unprecedented and inexcusable. It is wholly unaccepted for the the Republicans to extort the Governor in this manner, and it comes awfully close to an out-and-out constitutional crisis. Separation of powers guarantees the governor’s power to sign or veto a bill, and if the House and Senate doesn’t like her action, they can always override her veto.

Absolutely true. Gov. Sebelius is free to veto the budget reduction act and continue to pretend the state has money to pay its bills. And legislative leaders are free to refuse to borrow more money that can’t be paid back. So, I guess everyone is free to do as they choose.

I would note however, that I heard not one Democrat complain about the 2005 Supreme Court Decision mandating a set amount of money be spent on K-12 education. Separation of powers only seems to be relevant when you’re on the loosing side.

State Treasurer Dennis McKinney had another take on the situation:

By failing to act on the recommendation of the state budget director to shore up balances in the general fund, legislative leaders put our reputation as a reliable bill payer and our credit rating at risk.

Wrong. Unprecedented spending on the part of liberal Democrats, including McKinney and Sebelius, has put our state’s fiscal reputation on the line.

Republican’s refusing to approve more debt that no one is sure would be able to be repaid, is simply the symptom of years of overspending by legislators and out of control court mandated spending sprees.

It is high time Sebelius and liberal Democrats face reality and address the disease rather than the symptoms.

“Ethics” Commission targets private citizen

Dec 18th, 2008
by admin.
No comments yet

The First AmendmentTwo 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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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!!!
———

Related:
KRA Blog: Ethically Challenged Commission ‘clears’ Umbarger
Kansas Liberty: Talking to press attracts Ethics Commission ire
Kansas Meadowlark: 1st Amendment Constitutional Right may become issue in Kansas Ethics Commission Hearing in January. Silence the accuser?
Kansas Meadowlark: Did Senator Umbarger violate ethics rules buying a carport with campaign money? Umbarger clairvoyant?
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

Senate prescription for change: Take two pills in ‘moderation’?

Dec 16th, 2008
by admin.
No comments yet

Leadership Vote RecordPolitical change came to many parts of the country and Kansas as well, but leadership elections in the Kansas Senate showed little change.

A blog post by Americans for Prosperity is getting quite a bit of attention on the political blogosphere. The post proposes probable votes of Republican Senators in the recent leadership elections.

It wasn’t the attention the post gathered that I found interesting, rather it was the lack of attention from any Kansas Senate member that I found interesting. Committee assignments left little doubt of who supported liberal leadership and who didn’t.

Julia Lynn was first elected by precinct leaders to replace former Sen. Kay O’Connor two years ago. This November was her first general election to the Kansas Senate.

Lynn’s campaign was infused with thousands of dollars from the Senate Leadership PAC. This is the same PAC that infused $45,000 into KTRM to fund their KKK press releases and their mailers against Sen. Mary Pilcher-Cook saying she didn’t want parents to be able to get help for their sick children.

Lynn describes herself as a conservative and has a pro-life voting record. So why Sen. Lynn has decided to associate herself with this crowd is a little confusing. Is power so greatly desired by some that they’re willing to do anything to get it?

When asked by Kansas Liberty why she cast her vote for liberals, Lynn just flat out lied.

“What I looked at was how much experience they had with the budget and their breadth of knowledge, and the current leadership obviously had a depth of operational knowledge.”

This is the same leadership team that refuses to rule out tax increases to fix the state’s budget crisis. This is the same leadership team that oversaw massive spending increases the past four years. This is the same leadership team that allowed the budget to get where it is in the first place!

Julia, just tell the truth. They bought your seat with Senate Leadership PAC money and now you have to pay them back. Politics would be so much nicer if people just told the truth.

Now, here’s the part I don’t understand.

“Contrary to popular belief, Derek Schmidt is an extremely capable, conservative Republican, and I think our current leadership team knows what we need to do.”

Huh? Schmidt a conservative? The leadership team knows what to do? They can’t rule out tax increases, but they know what to do?

Barnett was probably the biggest surprise. Conservative Susan Wagle was his running mate just two years ago but Barnett decided not to vote for her.

Unlike Lynn, Barnett has a record of leadership roles for conservative causes, most notably during the 2007 session when the now all-too-apparent-fatally-flawed gambling bill was passed.

It’s these outspoken roles and votes in the past that make his leadership vote so confusing. It doesn’t make sense why you would vote for a team that will use their power to stop legislation that you want passed. What good is a chairmanship if leadership won’t allow a floor vote?

Leadership votes will be hard to explain to conservative activists, especially if Barnett chooses to try for higher office again. This is especially true when you look at the quality of candidates conservatives have for Governor (Sam Brownback) and in the first congressional district (Tim Huelskamp.)

Supreme Court orders Kline to move to Artic, exchange law degree for ice-fishing license

Dec 5th, 2008
by admin.
1 comment

Did the headline get your attention? Upset because it was misleading?

Now you know how I feel.

I began with the Kansas City Star’s Primebuzz blog, then I moved to the Lawrence Journal-World, The Topeka Capital Journal and others. And it couldn’t have been more plain from the headlines I was reading…man, what a beating Phill Kline took today.

For instance, I began with this headline, “KS court blisters Kline” where I was told, “It’s one of the most blistering opinions delivered in memory, according to The Star’s legal reporter.”

Then I moved to the Journal-World, “Supreme Court blisters Kline, orders return of abortion clinic records.” The first paragraph said it all, “The Kansas Supreme Court on Friday ordered Johnson County District Attorney Phill Kline to turn over copies of patients’ medical records from an abortion clinic he is prosecuting.”

KSN in Wichita, “The Kansas Supreme Court orders Johnson County District Attorney Phill Kline to turn over abortion patients’ medical records.”

As I continued on my ‘mainstream’ media tour, it was more of the same.

Finally, I turned to my emailed headline from Kansas Liberty, “Despite opinion’s scathing language, DA Kline can keep copies of abortion records.”

Based on the scathing language directed toward Johnson County District Attorney Phill Kline in an opinion issued by the Kansas Supreme Court this morning, it might seem easy to conclude that Kline not only suffered a legal defeat, but that he disgraced the offices in which he served during an investigation of Planned Parenthood.

But, cutting through the criticism and innuendo contained in the majority opinion, written by Justice Carol A. Beier, it appears the ruling actually favored Kline on the law.

Beier wrote: “The above analysis leads us to the conclusion that [Planned Parenthood] and the Attorney General are not entitled to the primary relief they seek. We will not force Kline to disgorge ‘each and every copy’ of the patient records Kline and his subordinates have made ‘and any and all other evidence Kline developed and obtained while he was acting as Attorney General that he took with him to Johnson County’.”

Then, I turned to KAKE Channel 10 from Wichita. What I read there made me think two different rulings from rival courts had been passed down today.

“Supreme Court Denies Contempt Proceedings Against Phill Kline”

The Supreme Court denied an abortion clinic’s petition for contempt proceedings against former Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline on Friday, but the court granted other relief and sanctioned Kline for his handling of the clinic’s patient records.

What a difference some perspective gives.

It’s amazing what a loaded headline and a writers slant will do to your understanding of the facts. As I read headlines proclaiming that the records must be “returned” to the AG’s office, I found myself thinking that Kline had lost, the records had to be returned, and the case was over.

It was amazing. I continued to think this even as I read, in story after story, that only copies had to be turned over. It wasn’t a return of records, it was a copy and supply of records.

I have to admit, it never fully sunk in until I got to the Kansas Liberty and KAKE 10 stories.

How many people do you think never got around to reading those articles?

Today isn’t a defeat for Phill Kline. Today is a defeat for a free and responsible press and an informed public.

← Earlier Posts Newer Posts →