There is too much secrecy in how the Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission operates. There is no way to learn what investigations are, or are not initiated, unless there is a public hearing. Even retrospective studies are not possible. There are several improvements that should be made, but these may take legislative action.
After months of apparently no action by the Ethics Commission on several items I reported to them, in December 2007 I sent the Chair and Executive Director of the Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission a request to speak at their Jan 2008 meeting:
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 2:31
Subject: “Open Forum” at Ethics Commission Meetings?Carol Williams, Executive Director
Sabrina Standifer, Chair
Kansas Governmental Ethics CommissionDear Ms. Williams and Ms. Standifer:
(1) Most school board and county commission meetings have an “open forum” where a concerned citizen can address the board for 3 to 5 minutes about any matter. Does the Kansas Ethics Commission have such an “Open Forum” and how do I request to address the Board? There are several items I’d like the Board to consider.
. . .
Sincerely,
E. F. Glynn
This request was declined, but I was allowed to send an E-mail that was circulated to members of the Ethics Commission instead. There was never feedback about anything.
On Jan 29, 2008 I sent an E-mail to Tim Carpenter at the Topeka Capital Journal, along with the attachment E-mail I sent the Ethics Commission:
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 2:11
Subject: What the Ethics Commission is NOT doingTim,
The Ethics Commission is ignoring a number of matters I brought to their attention in the last six months or so. I asked to address the commission about these issues at their Jan. 2008 meeting but was denied. Is it possible the ethics commission is a bit ethics challenged themselves? Four of the current members, or a spouse, have contributed to Sebelius and/or Morrison. But the makeup may change by four members in the next few days. It’s a mystery if Speaker Neufeld will finally get his appointment on the Board.
E. F. Glynn
The E-mail to the Ethics Commission had six bullet points with some additional detail (not shown here):
1. Some of the PAC summary reports issued by the Commission should be changed to explain political reality to the public, or if not changed, the reports should be abandoned as misleading and a waste of tax dollars.
2. Where are the “Notices Sent” to PACs for errors or omissions?
3. The Commission erred in letting the “Wichita Voters for Truth” PAC to terminate without a final report.
4. The Commission erred in allowing a PAC to hide contributor information for $52,508 through the use of a telemarketing firm.
5. PACs/Committees should not be allowed to use multiple and different names in their reports.
6. Kansas Law needs to be changed to require all “non-profits” that have no non-profit status with the IRS to be considered a PAC until they receive their IRS non-profit status.
With no acknowledgment or feedback that these were issues the Commission would consider, and with no questions of feedback from the Capital-Journal, I looked for a way to push for action on these issues.
I found a way to speak at an “open forum” at the Kansas Senate Elections and Local Government Committee on March 18, 2008 (a day of vacation for me):
Campaign Finance Reform
Today, I would like to make comments about HB 2408, and also discuss other issues related to campaign finance reform.
In general, the proposed HB 2408 changes would be welcome. The new detailed information on expenditures would give greater clarity to bundled expenditures by parties or PACs for a group of candidates.
Most PACs are conscientious in the preparation of their reports. However, some are not. I would expect PAC reports with larger contributions and expenditures to be subject to more scrutiny, but in at least one case this hasn’t happened. I have concerns that new reporting requirements imposed by HB 2408 could be ignored by those choosing to do so, with possibly few or no consequences. Now, there doesn’t seem to be any motivation to get a PAC report right the first time, since anything — no matter how large the dollar amounts — can be corrected by filing an amended report. Before this year, notices of Errors and Omissions for PACs have not been online, so the public doesn’t know about problem reports. [Perhaps this will change this year with the new online page at the Ethics Commission's web site.] I will give examples later of reports that should have been amended, in my opinion, and have not.
HB 2408 only addresses a PAC or Party expenditure that “expressly advocates the nomination, election or defeat” of a candidate. But, what about the stealth “non-profits” that spent nearly $450,000 in the two weeks before the Nov 2006 general election?
The Kansas non-profit “Progress Kansas” spent at least $46,775 and sent out three negative “advocacy” mailings in the week before the Nov 7, 2006 election affecting about six State Rep races, including my district. The Secretary of State’s Business Entity Search now shows the status of this non-profit corporation as “delinquent,” since the group did not file the necessary renewal papers. This non-profit has not filed any papers with the IRS that can be viewed by the public – the IRS refuses to comment on whether this group was a 501(c)4, 501(c)3, or something else under the IRS code.
This group did NOT file either an IRS 8872 or IRS 990 report as a non-profit. Why are the citizens of the state left in the dark about a Kansas non-profit that was only active in the week before an election? Why are only two PACs from Missouri, and one PAC from Kansas allowed to know the players behind this non-profit, and their intent of the negative mailings in the week before the election?
The Kansas non-profit “Kansans for Consumer Privacy Protection” spent perhaps $400,000 and sent out as many as six negative “advocacy” mailings, and perhaps made phone calls and sponsored radio commercials, in the two weeks before the Nov 7, 2006 election. This non-profit also has not filed any papers with the IRS about its non-profit status that can be viewed by the public, and it’s not clear if this group was a 501(c)4, 501(c)3, or something else under the IRS code. Why are the citizens of the state left in the dark about a Kansas non-profit that was only active in the two weeks before an election?
Shouldn’t Kansas non-profit groups that are only active in the week or two before an election, and have no known status with the IRS as a non-profit, be required to file as a PAC so the citizens of the state know something about such groups? Why are “fly-by-night” Kansas non-profits, without an office, without an E-mail address, without a phone, without an public spokesperson, and who don’t hold public meetings, be allowed to affect elections in such a stealth way?
Out of curiosity I have researched candidate, party and PAC reports for over five years. When I started I wanted to find out how big the “Kansas Political Pie” was, and what fraction various groups had in that pie. That’s far easier said than done even after five years. In 2003 lists of the political players cost $0.25/page and by 2004 cost $0.50 page. Luckily, by early 2006 these lists and the many reports were put online for free. We are making progress, but there are still some problems to address, and some improvement that need to be made, including:
- More scrutiny of at least some PAC reports is necessary: Why is “best effort” acceptable for the occupation of large contributors 78 times in one report? Why is no purpose acceptable for a $15,000 expenditure in the same report? Is tuition at Wichita State an acceptable PAC expenditure? ProKanDo filed such a report in Jan 2006.
- One Kansas PAC reported receiving a $6250 contribution from the Young Democrats of America 527 PAC from Washington, DC in their July 2006 report. But that wasn’t the whole story. For some reason, the Kansas PAC actually sent $25,000 to YDA, and YDA two weeks later sent two checks for $15,625 back to the Kansas PAC, according to IRS 8872 reports. I informed the Ethics Commission about this in person on Aug 31, 2007, and followed up with details in an E-Mail. The net contribution was correct in the report, but why has the ProKanDo PAC never been required to file an amended return to explain their large transactions?
- The most serious problem in a PAC report, in my opinion, over the past few years is the $71,332 paid in 33 payments from a fundraising company to a Kansas PAC. Why is the ProKanDo PAC allowed to use a fundraising company, Hudson Bay Company of Illinois (from Minnesota), for solicitations, and then report the contributions as being from the fundraising company instead of the original donors?
- Why are some out-of-state PACs, like the Heavy Constructors from Kansas City, MO, allowed to file “verified statements” and be ignored on the Ethics Commission’s web site, and in their reports? The Heavy Constructors spent $198,300 in the 2005-2006 election cycle, but to view their reports, one must look through mail tubs in the Secretary of State’s Office.
- Why are PACs allowed to start with non-zero balances? The Democratic Party Chairs PAC started with $2908 in 2006. The ProKanDo PAC started with $14,935 in 2002.
- The Wichita Voters for Truth PAC was administratively closed in Jan 2007 with a balance of $860. Why hasn’t this PAC been required to file a final report with details of their expenditures on negative mailings against a Wichita State Rep candidate?
- Why do we allow the four duly elected congressional district party treasurers to be disenfranchised in their oversight of party money in their congressional district by the duly elected state party treasurer? Why is the state party treasurer allowed to be the treasurer of FIVE separate party committees at the same time? This arrangement allowed a Los Angeles housewife to write six checks on one date that totaled $35,000 to the Kansas Democratic Party. There are a dozen or more similar examples of huge contributions from a contributor writing multiple checks on a single date to groups controlled by the same treasurer.
- I believe the “Top 20″ PAC list published by the Ethics Commission is flawed and hides the political participation and power of several large PACs. Attached is a report, Money Rankings of Kansas Political Action Committees, showing how all PACs in Kansas can be rank-ordered to show relative political money and power more accurately.
- Finally, to counter any criticism that I am picking on a few selected PACs, attached is a report, Summary of Contributions and Expenditures of Kansas Political Action Committees, from the most recent reporting period. I have scrutinized ALL PACs in Kansas in a similar way in this report, and have identified what I believe are Errors and Omissions that should be addressed.
In conclusion, while HB 2408 makes some improvements, more major campaign finance reforms are needed in Kansas to improve the integrity of Kansas elections.
We need improved campaign finance laws in Kansas and better transparency on what the Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission does, or does not do.
Tags: Ethics, government transparency
