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.

According to records obtained by the Kansas Meadowlark, SEIU donated $100,000 to Gov. Kathleen Sebelius in the last election cycle. Is this new request a payback for all of that invested money? It certainly is beginning to look that way.

According to an SRS spokesperson, the department will ensure that the information is not used for “marketing purposes” and that SEIU will be picking up the expense of the request. And how does the SRS or any other government agency plan to enforce the use of information already handed over to the SEIU? Ask for it back? Shake their finger and say, “Bad SEIU, bad!”

Governor Parkinson and his agency heads should quickly abandon this payback scheme and a full legislative investigation should occur. It’s quite troubling that a simple KORA request can result in personal information being released to the public without the employees knowledge.

For more coverage, see Kansas Liberty.

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

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.

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.)

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?

Sebelius’ personal PAC came under fire yesterday from a non-partisan group for using their name to spread lies about a Republican candidate. As the Lawrence Journal-World stated:

“By using the Project’s name to give credibility to these attacks, the Bluestem Fund is cheating the public out of their need for trusted, abundant, accurate, factual information.” Project Vote Smart also said it prohibits the use of its name and information in partisan ads. The Bluestem Fund is chaired by Sebelius and has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in recent months to help Democrats in legislative races.

More importantly, it’s critical that citizens know who’s behind the mailings. Not only does Sebelius twist campaign finance laws to have her own Political Action Committee, but only $30,000 or the hundreds of thousands raised came from inside Kansas. Click here to read the Kansas Meadowlark report.

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.

Calling Goodwin the ’21st Senator’, the Courier cites Morris and Vratil as saying the Senate seat will be pivotal in deciding Senate leadership positions in January.

Goodwin said she was sometimes called the “21st senator” among the moderate Republicans who control the Senate leadership. Those senators want to see her back. Sen. John Vratil, R-Leawood, chairman of the judiciary committee, said hers was one of the key races that will determine the Senate leadership next year. Senate President Steve Morris, R-Hugoton, agreed.

The Winfield article comes on the heals of an AP story where Anthony Hensley, Senate Minority Leader, wouldn’t rule out using a little known rule to block conservative leadership.

The Senate majority leader and minority leader are chosen only by fellow party members. But all senators vote on the president and vice president after the majority party designates its choices. By custom, the minority party defers to the majority party’s choices. But if a conservative is designated as the next president, Hensley said, Democrats could use their votes to prevent that person from taking the top job. Hensley acknowledged doing so would be unconventional and probably unprecedented. Still, Hensley said: “It’s not outside the realm of possibility.”

Even after the heated primary where Senate leadership fed $45,000 into KTRM hit pieces against conservative challengers, including calling a former Congressman a racist, the Courier article comes as a surprise just under two weeks out from the election.

While conservatives and moderates have always had their differences, the party has a history of coming together for the general election and focusing on the work at hand of defeating Democrats and electing Republicans.

To be fair, Vratil and Morris didn’t come out and say they endorse Goodwin and the paper was curiously unable to produce any quotes from the pair. And the statement that the Goodwin/Abrams race will play a role in Senate leadership elections is a factual statement.

However, the way the article is presented, it seems as though the pair hope Goodwin will win so that they can keep their power.

In the same token, it would be folly for one to assume that the appearance presented in the paper is accurate without some verification. It shouldn’t escape anyone’s notice that the article hardly mentions Abrams at all and even goes so far as to say, “Polls show Goodwin with a slight lead over her opponent, Steve Abrams, of Arkansas City, according to sources within the Democratic Party.” Because we all know how reliable those Democratic polls are, right Jim Slattery?

For the sake of party unity, it would seem prudent for the two to clarify their remarks publicly and either validate or clarify their remarks to the Winfield Courier. If however, the appearance of the article is correct and Vratil and Morris have publicly supported a Democrat in order to keep their leadership positions, one has to seriously wonder how they’ll be able to effectively lead after having demonstrated that power is more important than party or any kind of value system they may have held.

In the end, what Republicans need to take to heart is that this race will be critical. Will it again play a pivotal role in deciding critical pieces of legislation like CARA, coal plants and more? Now is not the time to forget the folly of two years ago when Gene Rardin was handed a House seat by Republican leadership only to turn around and be the deciding vote on important coal plant legislation.

And lest you think all hinges on this one race, think again. Conservatives have many candidates across the state that need your help now! Any one of them could be the vote that changes the course of our state the next four years.

Steve Fitzgerald for Senate District 5 – Donate Online!
Mary Pilcher-Cook for Senate District 10 – Donate Online!
Jim Zeller for Senate District 18 – Donate Online!
Steve Abrams for Senate District 32 – Send a check now!