To pass, the amendment needs a two-thirds supermajority of 84 votes in the House. Today’s vote was 76-44. Listed below is how the votes came down according to party and yea or nay. Click the members name to get their contact information and call, fax and email them TODAY.

Republican Yeas: Aurand, Bethell, Bowers, Brookens, Brown A, Brunk, Burgess, Carlson, Colloton, Craft, Crum, DeGraaf, Donohoe, Faber, George, Goico, Gordon, Grange, Hayzlett, Hermanson, Hineman, Holmes C, Holmes M, Horst, Huebert, Jack, Kelley, Kerschen, Kiegerl, King, Kinzer, Kleeb, Knox, Landwehr, Light, Mast, McLeland, Merrick, Morrison, Moxley, Myers, Neufeld, O’Brien, O’Neal, Olson, Otto, Patton, Peck, Pottorff, Powell, Prescott, Proehl, Rhoades, Schroeder, Schwab, Schwartz, Seiwert, Shultz, Siegfreid, Spalding, Suellentrop, Swanson, Tafanelli, Vickrey, Whitham, Wolf B, Wolf K, Worley, Yoder.

Contact (preferably by phone) the Republicans below and ask them why they voted against limited government.

Republican NAYS: Nays: Bollier, Hill, Quigley, Roth, Sloan.

Contact (preferably by phone) the Democrats below and ask them to once again vote yea. They will be under pressure to change their vote.

Democrat YEAS: Lukert, Maloney, Meier, Palmer, Svaty, Wetta, Williams.

Contact (preferably by phone) the Democrats below and ask them why they voted nea and ask them to change their vote.

Democrat NAYS: Ballard, Barnes, Benlon, Brown T, Burroughs, Carlin, Crow, Davis, Dillmore, Feuerborn, Finney, Flaharty, Frownfelter, Furtado, Garcia, Gatewood D, Gatewood S, Goyle, Grant, Henry, Kuether, Lane, Loganbill, Long, Mah, McCray-Miller, Menghini, Neighbor, Pauls, Phelps, Rardin, Ruiz, Slattery, Swenson, Talia, Tietze, Trimmer, Ward, Winn.

These Representatives didn’t vote. Keep in mind that they may have not been able to vote due to illness. Contact (preferably by phone) the Representatives below and ask them to make an effort to vote for the Healthcare Freedom Amendment.

Didn’t Vote: Fund (most likely would have been a yea, is currently hospitalized according to fellow House members), Hawk, Henderson, Johnson, Peterson.

How many times have you heard the words “nonpartisan” or “bipartisan” or “nonpolitical” uttered by politicians right before they do something that is clearly political?

My guess is we’d all be rich if we have a $1 for each time that happens. It’s as if labeling something nonpolitical somehow makes it so, even if what they are about to do is clearly political.

That’s how we were introduced to a Senate bill dictating how redistricting would happen after the 2010 census.

Those on the left in leadership in Topeka are pushing this bill: Sens. Steve Morris and Derek Schmidt (Republicans), along with Sen. Anthony Hensley and Rep. Paul Davis (Democrats).

The bill, SB 291, is just eight pages long, so I’d encourage you to take a look at it.

If you do, have some strong coffee first because the details the description starts with are enough to resolve most cases of insomnia. But, as they say, the devil is in the details, and if you read far enough, you find them.

You see, this plan they’ve dreamed up would require the Senate majority leader (Schmidt), the House majority leader (Ray Merrick), the Senate minority leader (Hensley), and the House minority leader (Davis) to each name one person to a “temporary redistricting advisory commission.”

The list of persons not eligible to be appointed is long. Are you a city council person or township trustee elected in a partisan race? Ineligible. Are you a party officer? Ineligible. Do you work for the state? Ineligible. Is your cousin a state or federal office holder? Ineligible.

We wouldn’t want anyone with a potential bias or experience in politics or government on this commission. Never mind that very political persons are appointing these people, and that no specific expertise is required to be appointed (I don’t see a best friend or business partner ruled out, by the way) and the commission is required to rely on state employees with legislative research for their data.

Those backing this bill claim that removing this responsibility from the Legislature would make the process non-political and therefore leads to a better outcome.
Under this bill, we’ll have a new commission, not directly accountable to the voters, deciding what district you will live in for the next 10 years.

Now you have four political appointees. Who’s going to lead? Well, that’s up to them. They pick a fifth person to chair their temporary commission. So, we have a new commission, not directly accountable to the voters, deciding what district you will live in for the next 10 years.

Don’t like what they decide? There’s not much your representative or senator can do, even if they listen to your concerns, other than voting no time after time. It’s not until they’ve voted down proposed bills twice and are voting on a third bill that they are allowed to make anything but technical amendments.

Can you imagine the political fallout from voting down the plan twice and then amending the third one in an election year? Even the bravest of politicians probably won’t want to take that on!

The closest the public would come to being able to hold the commission accountable for the plans they present is to hold their representative and senator accountable in 2012 for whom they elected as majority or minority leader in their chamber in 2008 (for the Senate) or 2010 (for the House).

Perhaps the most important vote they make is for these leadership positions, but explaining that to the public and then making it a campaign issue is challenging at best.

And can you see the games for 2020 now? Promise me my friend will be appointed by you to the redistricting commission and I’ll vote for you for majority (or minority) leader. Suddenly the “nonpolitical” commission is tied to some very real political actions in a way that the public rarely sees.

Many of the rules for the commission to follow that are spelled out in this bill are similar to how redistricting was handled the last time around – without special legislation to make it happen. The one big change? Public hearings happen after a plan is finalized.

But there is more in this bill and it’s this part that is the most troubling: the commission isn’t allowed to reveal any of the details they are working on to the public or the Legislature until after they’ve finalized them.

This reminds me of the Ethics Commission or the Supreme Court nominating commission, both of which deliberate and come to conclusions in secret executive sessions and then make an announcement.
Say what you will about politicians making political decisions, at least they do their deliberations in public with input from citizens.

Say what you will about politicians making political decisions, at least when senators and representatives made up the committee the last time around, public hearings and committee meetings and decision making was done in full view and with the participation of the public, with much input from citizens around the state.

That’s one reason the lines for Congress were drawn as they were in 2002, as many wanted certain institutions or military bases to be in the same district and their elected representatives listened to their concerns. Moving this very important decision-making process to a closed-door, small, unaccountable-to-the-public commission is a step backwards for open transparency in government.

Will this bill see the light of day? It remains to be seen. Right now it’s sitting in the Senate Federal and State Committee – but if leadership wants it out, they can quickly call for a hearing and a vote and have it on the Senate floor in less than a day.

Assuming it passes the Senate, it still has to get through the House, and so far House leaders have been cool to the idea. As Speaker Mike O’Neal said recently about redistricting, “I think that is uniquely a legislative function.”

Let’s hope others realize this as well and this feel-good bill dies a well-deserved death.

While we all can agree that these are trying times for Kansas families, seniors, and business owners the Kansas House of Representatives respectfully disagrees with breaking the law in order to gain political capital.

The idea that the Legislature is preventing state employees from being paid is the equivalent of shouting fire in a crowded theater. The Governor is attempting to draw attention away from the fact that she has multiple options to fix this problem. Her options do not include illegally issuing certificates of indebtedness when revenues, in this climate, cannot begin to repay the debt. She can easily sign House Substitute for SB 23 or fix the problem by issuing allotments.

The Governor is attempting to mislead the public in an effort to drum up support for poor public policy. The majority of the Legislature recognizes the severity of the current economic situation and is acting in a responsible manner. How the Governor can say on Thursday that we don’t have enough money and issue allotments and then turn around and on the following Monday say, we will have enough money when the numbers HAVE NOT changed is irresponsible and disingenuous. We strongly urge the Governor to use her power to make allotments and cut state spending rather than withholding tax refunds or paychecks from hard working Kansans.

The decision was made, by the Governor, to halt income tax refunds last week. Now that her back is against the wall she is using scare tactics to try to manipulate public opinion. We find it perplexing that she will halt income tax refunds due to not having enough money in the budget but will ask for additional certificates of indebtedness even though she knows the dollars for repayment will never materialize without a fundamental change in the 2009 budget. Kansas citizens deserve better.

The Governor did call a meeting of the State Finance Council to consider the issuance of a certificate of indebtedness. However, when it became apparent to all that the certificate could not be issued because it would violate state law, she reluctantly agreed to postpone the meeting. Incredibly, it was reported that Legislative leadership refused to meet. This is patently false.

Republican Leadership is happy to postpone any State Finance Council meeting until after the Governor has had a chance to review and to sign House Substitute for Substitute SB 23. We fully expect the bill to be on her desk by the end of the day tomorrow. While it was passed last week, the process to engross the bill takes a degree of time and is out of the hands of the executive or legislative leaders. There is still plenty of time for the Governor to responsibly address the concerns that she is raising. In the meantime, she should make allotments consistent with the provisions of House Sub. for Sub. SB 23.

Contrary to what the Governor is saying, the certificate has everything to do with the passage of a revised 2009 budget bill. We cannot issue more certificates if the funds will not materialize by the end of the year. Without the revised 2009 budget bill, there is no way that we can legally issue a certificate knowing full well that the money will not be available to retire the debt.

It is shame that the Governor continues to make the assertion that Legislative Leadership is not representing the people of Kansas in good faith. This (unlike her repeated attempts to leave the state in favor of a cabinet post in Washington) is the right thing to do to ensure that we are taking the necessary and legally permissible steps to fix the structural imbalance in our budget.

The Governor is asking the Legislature to be complicit in breaking the law by approving certificates of indebtedness outside of the parameters set in statute. Kansas law requires the Director of the Budget to certify that money will be present at the end of the year to pay off certificates of indebtedness, and there is no evidence that will be the case. There is no reason to believe that under the current budget such money will be available. It is irresponsible and illegal to act as if the money will be available when all economic indicators show that we may see even less.

If anyone is, as the Governor alleges, “jeopardizing our citizens’ pocketbooks” one should look no further than the Governor’s office. Fee sweeps, illegal certificates of indebtedness and non-existent gambling revenue is no way to provide a long-term solution to the economic issues facing our state.

Although we are glad that the economic crisis in Kansas finally has the Governor’s attention, playing a shell game is not the solution.

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.

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.

Last Thursday a socialist Kansas blog put up a post titled, “Weirdest Post Ever: Kelley, Parkinson Hottest Kansas Politicos.” And I have to agree somewhat, that was a weird post, although I’m not sure about ever.

I guess the Eagle isn’t to be outdone. Phillip Brownlee put up a post this morning titled, “Is Parkinson ‘hottest’ politician in Kansas?”

Of course, it’s not unusual for the Eagle to piggy back off of other blogs. The Kansas City Star’s PrimeBuzz is often copied by the Eagle, although they usually put more time between the Star’s post and the Eagle’s post than this little duo today. However, posting directly from a Kansas liberal-socialist blog is a first to my knowledge.

I’m confused, do you guys just have nothing better to discuss or are you really that hard up for blog topics?

Finally, I’ll leave you with this. The anonymous Democrat included State Rep. Kasha Kelley in their photographs and list of ‘hottest’ Kansas politicians. The Wichita Eagle posted photos of Mark Parkinson and Joshua Svaty, both Democrats and only discussed the two in their post.

First, it’s weird Phillip Brownlee wouldn’t include a woman in his post. Second, how funny is it (and I don’t mean haha funny but how sad funny) that Republicans get more coverage from anonymous Democrat blogs than the ‘fair and balanced’ mainstream media of the Wichita Eagle?

The Eagle editorial staff isn’t even willing to say a Republican looks good!

What do you think? Read the prayer for yourself.

Gracious Father you created us in your own image and likeness and said of each and everyone of us that we are very, very good. On this 36th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision Roe vs. Wade we remember the over 53,000,000 beautiful, innocent unborn children who have been legally exterminated in our land. Forgive us Lord for the times that we have not raised our voices in defense of those who have no voice. Lord may this injustice move us to action. May we no longer stand by idle. Give us the virtue of fortitude to enact just laws that will respect the unalienable rights that you our Creator have endowed, the first of these being the right to life. By your grace, guide us to transform this culture of death into a culture of life and a civilization of love. May we here in the heartland of America have hearts on fire for life and liberty and love. We make this prayer through Christ our Lord. Amen.

53 million plus killed legally in the US. I guess some politicians just can’t handle the facts.

Also read about the massive prolife rally at the statehouse here and here.

That’s the call that is hopefully being sounded through the statehouse this legislative session.

The expansion of the Holcomb power plants was a dominate issue in last years session. As we’ve previously discussed, the failed veto override can be attributed to just one house vote.

Environmentalists and others are already lining up to prevent another attempt to get the plant built. The Wichita Eagle didn’t even wait for the November elections before publishing an anti-power editorial.

Kansans should press their legislative leaders not to refight last session’ s coal wars with Sebelius. Instead, the Legislature should join entities such as the Kansas Energy and Environmental Policy advisory group and Kansas Energy Council in planning how to power Kansas cleanly and comprehensively long term.

The Wichita Eagle Editorial Board, Oct. 28, 2008

Many others have decided that the current budget crisis can be used to try to silence the power plant supporters. Never mind the nearly $5 billion in investment the expansion would bring to a state over $1 billion in the hole.

The fact is state spending and the plants can’t be separated. The budget crisis the state finds itself in only makes the expansion of Holcomb even more important than ever. KRA has posted an online petition to encourage our legislators to look again at the expansion project.

“I encourage you to develop energy policies that are based on proven science to meet our growing need for electricity and allow our economy to grow, while preserving our quality of life in Kansas.”

Follow the link to sign. Signatures collected will be submitted to your state Representative and Senator to let them know you support the nearly $5 billion in economic development the project would bring to the state.

Lower energy costs, a balanced budget. That’s something all Kansans can believe in.

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.