Ooh! Look what I found at the Missouri Ethics Commission, part 1
“I never did mind about the little things.” When it comes to campaign finance, it’s always the little things.
…approximately 160 candidates for Missouri public office…reported that they had received campaign contributions which were in excess of the limits…
Eleven went before the Missouri Ethics Commission. That also means that approximately 149 returned the excess contribution amounts.
Barney Fisher (r-125), one of the “eleven”, has always managed to raise money for his campaigns. But, you know, that reported January cash on hand was pretty pathetic, especially so for a republican incumbent. I wonder why? No, he couldn’t be sandbagging it, could he? Do you think?
He pled “hardship” [pdf] to the Missouri Ethics Commission on January 23, 2008. Uh, that’s a few weeks after the campaign finance reports were due.
Call me cynical:
BEFORE THE MISSOURI ETHICS COMMISSION
MISSOURI ETHICS COMMISSION
Petitioner,
v.
BARNEY FISHER, Candidate CITIZENS FOR BARNEY FISHER 2008 Respondents.No. 07A167
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
This is the Final Decision and Order of the Missouri Ethics Commission following a hearing pursuant to § 1 05 .961, RSMo, and Chapter 536, RSMo. The hearing was conducted before the following members of the Missouri Ethics Commission: Warren Nieburg, Michael Dunard, Michael Kilgore, Ken Legan Brad Mitchell, and
Robert Simpson.The closed hearing took place on January 23, 2008 at the offices of the Missouri Ethics Commission at 3411 A Knipp Drive, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102. The Commission was represented by Counsel. Respondent Barney Fisher appeared in person and with counsel.
Having considered all the competent and substantial evidence upon the whole record, the Commission fmds as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Missouri Ethics Commission (“the Commission”) is an agency of the State of Missouri established pursuant to § 1 05.955, RSMo, in part for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of Chapter 130, RSMo.
2. Barney Fisher is a candidate for State Representative District 125 in the August 2008 primary election. An Amended Statement of Organization for Citizens for Barney Fisher 2008 (“Committee”), his candidate committee, was filed on April 23, 2007 with the Petitioner, Missouri Ethics Commission.
3. Barney Fisher, as candidate, is responsible for filing campaign finance reports for the Committee, pursuant to §130.058, RSMo.
4. Pursuant to § 130.026, RSMo 2000, the Missouri Ethics Commission is the appropriate office designated to receive campaign finance reports for a candidate committee for the office of State Representative.
5. In 1994, the Missouri General Assembly approved Senate Bill 650, which, among other things, provided limits on the amount of money which candidates for certain offices could accept as a carnpaign contribution from anyone donor, as those limits were set forth in § 130.032, RSMo.
6. In 2006, the General Assembly passed House Bill 1900, which was subsequently signed by the Governor. It contained a provision, which was to become effective on January 1,2007, to repeal the provisions in § 130.032, RSMo which established limitations on contributions from individual donors.
7. On July 19,2007, the Missouri Supreme Court issued its opinion in Trout v. State of Missouri, 231 S.W. 3d 140 (Mo. Bane 2007).
8. On August 27, 2007, the Missouri Supreme Court issued its supplemental opinion in the Trout case.
9. The following contributions have been reported as received by Committee:
Date Amount Contributor
7/17/07 $2,500.00 Ron Richards 200810. The Committee reported money on hand of $711.46 at the close of the December 31, 2007 reporting period on its January 15, 2008 quarterly financial disclosure report.
11. Neither Barney Fisher nor the Committee had actual notice of the potential retroactive consequences of the invalidation of the contribution limitation provisions as a result of the legal challenge to HB 1900.
12. Both Barney Fisher and the Committee reasonably relied upon the House Bill 1900 provision which ostensibly repealed the limits on contribution limitations on § 130.032, RSMo.
13. Respondents contend that retroactive application of the Trout decision would work an injustice in this case because of the financial impact upon the committee if the committee refunded the contributions which exceeded $325 based upon the money on hand as reported on the committee’s January 15 quarterly report.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. On July 19,2007, the Missouri Supreme Court issued its opinion in Trout v. State of Missouri, 231 S.W. 3d 140 (Mo. Banc 2007) which invalidated the portion of House Bill 1900 which had attempted to repeal the limits on campaign contributions in § 130.032, RSMo.
2. In its July 19,2007 opinion, the Court held that “[t]he result is that section 130.032 as it was constituted before H.B. 1900 remains the same.”
3. §§130.032.1(3) and 130.032.2 RSMo provide as follows:
1. In addition to the limitations imposed pursuant to section 130.031, the amount of contributions made by or accepted from any person other than the candidate in anyone election shall not exceed the following:
3) To elect an individual to the office of state representative, two hundred fifty dollars;
2. For purposes of this subsection “base year amount” shall be the contribution limits prescribed in this section on January 1, 1995. Such limits shall be increased on the first day of January in each even numbered year by multiplying the base year amount by the cumulative consumer price index, as defined in section 104.010, RSMo, and rounded to the nearest twenty-five dollar amount, for all years since January 1, 1995.
4. The adjusted contribution limits effective January 19,2006 made by or accepted from any person, other than the candidate, in anyone election to elect an individual to the office of state representative is $325.00.
5. Respondent Committee received between January 1,2007 and July 19, 2007, $2,175.00 in contributions in excess of the amount of contributions which could be made by or accepted from any person other than the candidate in anyone election.
6. In its supplemental opinion of August 27,2007, the Supreme Court stated:
“In any case in which an enforcement action is taken, those individuals or committees must be given the opportunity to present, as a defense to that action, their individual facts and circumstances that they may contend present sufficient hardship to justify a departure from the usual rule of fully retroactive application, …If a candidate believes that retroactive application of the decision would be a hardship in his or her particular circumstances because he or she acted in good faith and in reasonable reliance and retroactive application would work an injustice, that candidate must develop with specificity what those circumstances are to the Missouri Ethics Commission.”
7. The Commission concludes that Barney Fisher and Committee acted in good faith and in reasonable reliance on the provisions enacted in House Bill 1900 which were intended to repeal contribution limitations.
8. The Commission concludes that retroactive application of Trout would work an injustice in this case because of the financial impact upon the committee if the committee refunded the contributions which exceeded $325, received on or before July 19, 2007, based upon the money on hand as reported on the committee’s January
15 quarterly report.9. The Commission therefore concludes as to Barney Fisher and Committee, the Trout decision should be applied prospectively only for contributions received on or before July 19,2007, in excess of the amount of contributions which could be made by or accepted from any person other than the candidate in anyone election.
10. The Commission further concludes, however, that because of the need to consider the impact of this determination on current or future opponents of Barney Fisher in the 2008 elections, the remedy in this case must be structured to accommodate those interests, as well.
ORDER
It is the order of the Commission that Respondents shall not be required to return the contributions received between January 1, 2007 and July 19, 2007 which would, but for the prospective application of Trout in this case, be required to be returned to contributors or paid as fees under Section 130.032.7, RSMo.
It is further the order of the Commission, however, that if Barney Fisher has an opponent in either the primary or general election in 2008, then unless Respondents choose to return the amounts of the excess contributions referenced in the previous paragraph, the Commission will convene another hearing in this case and allow any other candidate or candidates for the same office to intervene and present evidence and argument on how to deal with level-playing-field issues as set out in the Trout decision.
SO ORDERED this 14th day of March 2008
MISSOURI ETHICS COMMISSION
By: s/
Warren Nieburg, Chairperson
Yep. Not having money much money for your campaign, having to return excess contributions, and having a long history of difficulty in raising money for your campaign is certainly a hardship… Oh, wait. You’d think someone would have asked that question, you know, “How much money have you raised in the past?”
And then, there’s this:
Ron Richards 2008
It’s always the little things.