Representatives Jason Kander (D) and Tim Flook (r) held a press conference on their ethics reform bill on December 14th in the House Lounge at the capitol.

Representatives Jason Kander (D)(left) and Tim Flook (r)(right).

Our previous coverage:

Kander (D) and Flook (r): ethics reform legislation in Jefferson City

Kander (D) and Flook (r): ethics reform legislation in Jefferson City, part 2

Kander (D) and Flook (r): ethics reform legislation in Jefferson City, part 3

The transcript of the last half of the media question and answer session:

….Question: Representative Kander you mentioned that this legislation needs to evolve. Can you give an example of how that would happen or a for instance?

Representative Kander: Well, if I, if I knew, uh, how this legislation needed to evolve I promise you we would have done it. And, and my argument is more that what happens is, you know, fighting public corruption is like fighting any other kind of crime. And it’s, you know what, if people are gonna, are gonna take criminal actions they’re gonna find a way to take criminal actions to go around the laws [inaudible] as they can. And my argument is simply that, uh, that you have to stay one step ahead whenever possible and you have to make them stay one step ahead. You have to look at what needs to be fixed. And I’m simply saying we’re not telling you this is the permanent fix. I don’t want people to see this as the permanent fix `cause in ten years, if people figure out how to get around this I don’t want everyone to go, hey, well Flook and Kander fixed that, we don’t need to address it. Uh, I just don’t think that’s how, how it works in ethics reform legislation….

….Question: A question on the forth bullet, [inaudible] pay for play. If for, if for, if for example one of you was approached by a special interest group and they said we want to get legislation [inaudible] passed and then you say, you know, I don’t want, I don’t think, I don’t like that. And they’re like, well, we’ll give your campaign [inaudible] fifty thousand dollars. And then you’re like, well, I can’t do that `cause this law, send it to the, you know, DHCC or the RHCC. Would that still be considered pay for play?

Representative Kander: Probably be two felonies. It would probably be, the first felony being that you’d be taking a campaign contribution in direct exchange for performing an official act and the second felony would be, it’d be, uh, moving money through committees solely for the purpose of obscuring the original donor.

Representative Flook: And, and, and right now that would be illegal. Right now, under different law. So, um, I think the real focus here is this, uh, changing, changing the discussion. Changing the discussion and to get elected officials, people that are running for office to start campaigning on I will be fully disclosing who supports me. And getting the mindset changed. And, on the issue of, of, uh, everybody will want to write this about pay to play, you know the urge is gonna be there. The fact of the matter is that’s not really what it’s all about. It’s really about disclosure, [inaudible] disclosure. And I’ve been in this caucus now for, this will be my, my sixth year this year. And I’ve been chairman of, of what some consider a powerful committee in the House. I have never been approached with anything like that. Ever. And the rules right now are set up to help deter that. We want to close the circle to make sure it doesn’t happen. And for me, I see this as, as, as a Republican and I, I work with these other Republicans here, and, and, just like Representative Kander works with his Democrat friends. We see a lot of people spending the vast majority of their time trying to follow the rules. And because of a potential loophole there’s accusations that things are going on that aren’t. And then because of existing laws there’s things that appear bad, all right. So, what we’re gonna try to do is zero in on some of these things. Close the loopholes so that if somebody makes an accusation there is a remedy. And you know what that does? That makes people that make those accusations take `em far more seriously, because there’s an actual consequence to the accusation. If you think somebody is violating the law then you need to step up and say it and report it. And you need to follow through. And we’re making sure there’s a law on the books. So when somebody comes up and wants to accuse my Speaker or somebody I work direct, directly with of pay to play, and I know they’re wrong, then I can say to `em, I can look at them honestly and say, here’s the law on the books right here. If you really think that happened, sir, there it is right there, do something about it. [crosstalk] And I think that’s important for public trust.

Representative Kander: Real quick, let me add to that. Um, I have no idea what’s going on with, you know, the FBI and all this stuff, in this [inaudible] like I mentioned, this spectator sport in Jeff City. I have no idea what’s going on with FBI investigations and I promise you that’s the way my [inaudible] wants to say it, right. And that’s how it’s gonna say it. But, and remember Representative Flook says, there’s a law for this already, supported, we’re talking about Federal law, and we’re talking about FBI agents and Federal prosecutors working out of Kansas City and St. Louis, for the most part, and have a lot of fish to fry. And all we’re doing is we’re expanding the jurisdiction of state law to make sure that there are more individuals in the state who have jurisdiction over this and their [inaudible] to [inaudible].

Representative Flook: And we’re gonna model the Federal approach in a lot of ways and create more tools. And, we hope, create more trust in the process.

Representative Kander: Right.

Question: How do you help the public understand, though, the difference between the normal contributions and the pay to play idea. Let me use your example that you already used. You, you support stem cell research, I assume people who support stem cell research have supported your campaigns. How do I tell the difference between those contributions and something that would look like you got extra money because you voted for a specific bill that supports stem cell research?

Representative Flook: Well, I think that if, if, if you reduce the number of intramural committees floating around out there, the ability of somebody to see how donations flow is, is a lot better. I think that’s the best way to describe it. And bear in mind there is a, there is a First Amendment right of association, and the First Amendment right to become involved advocating an issue. So, our ability to wipe out committees doesn’t exist. And, and I, and I, I think in some respects the First Amendment rule is correct, we want people to be able to voice their, their positions, um, we don’t want to stop `em. But, we can, if we can eliminate some of these, some of these committees floatin’ around at a high level that really, really don’t need to be there for First Amendment purposes, their only purpose would be to find the legal loophole to create large donations. Okay.  You know, if you look, whether it’s the governor or any leader in the House or Senate on both sides of the aisle, anybody on politics in this state is gonna raise a lot of money. It doesn’t take a fifth grade education to look at the art at how campaign donations have risen faster than inflation in the last twenty y
ears. That being the case, we think we need to make steps toward more disclosure and more direct disclosures. If you say you’re for campaign finance limits that’s fine, then be for them. And, uh, and don’t take donations that are broken down through multiple committees. If you, if you say that, uh, if you say that, uh, you are not supported by the teachers unions then decline their donation. And if committees receiving that are sending it to you then you’ll have to ask yourself, do I want to receive support from that committee? I know a large part of their, their donation base is coming from this community and do I really support that community or not? And if I take it do I need to change my position?

Question: You’ve mentioned a couple times that most people here are doing the right thing already. Do you see that there’s an ethics problem in the capitol right now?

Representative Flook: Well, I think that for me, I think the problem is perception. The problem is, is perception is, is with these, these incidents around the state over the last, well, just the last six years, say, um, any, any of those incidents can, can be written about in the press, they can be discussed at the kitchen table or at the coffee shops and it casts doubt on what we’re all trying to do down here. And if you get Representative Kander and I on the right topic we can go at it all afternoon, on debate. You know, and, but I, I think that what is lost in all this translation, in all these stories that is, how many people here are really good people trying to do the right thing. And, and while I might disagree with Representative Kander on a long laundry list of political philosophical issues I never doubted his integrity, character down here at all. I know exactly who I’m dealing with, he’s an honest person trying to follow the rules. And that’s what most of us are. And we cannot establish new policy or install good long term healthy economic growth or, or budget management if people don’t have faith in what we’re doing and understand that when they pay taxes and, and render, and render under the government their obligations that we’re in return trying to uphold the highest standards of integrity we can. So we want to eliminate that perception by closing loopholes, or helping reduce that perception, rather, by closing loopholes together, working together.

Question: [crosstalk]

Representative Kander: There’s two things I want to say to that. Um, the first is, it doesn’t really matter whether we believe there’s currently an ethics problem. It doesn’t really matter who we believe might have an ethics problem, if we do. I’m not gonna get into that game because the second I start pointing fingers on either side of the aisle is the second I start creating enemies for this bill. And that doesn’t do anything for the state, it doesn’t accomplish ethics reform, uh, getting to the, to the Governor’s desk getting signed. And the second is, to what Representative Flook’s talking about, about the, the issue of public perception, that’s the second reason it doesn’t really matter whether or not we believe there’s a specific ethics problem in this capitol because the public obviously does. It’s a, I`ve, I’ve been to a place where the public has completely lost faith in their government to, to act in their best interest. And I’ve seen the extreme of that, and I’m not suggesting that that’s what Missouri is gonna look like. But I am suggesting that when people lose faith in their government to act in a legitimate manner they stop volunteering, they stop having hope about what’s gonna happen in their community. And every effort we can make in order to restore that hope and restore that confidence in government, it may not work every time, and it may not work completely, but it’s an effort worth making.

Question:  Rep, representative, to clarify, when you’re talking about incidents across the state are you talking about lawmakers getting arrested and charged with crimes? Or is it broader than that?

Representative Flook: Well, I think it’s staff, but it’s also just accusations. You know it, um, somebody perfectly, with, with, with compliance with the law can set up and use multiple committees. It happens all the time. Um, as soon as somebody does that the party that doesn’t like what that person believes in attacks them. They attack them, say, oh, look how evil he is, he set up all these committees. Well, in fact they follow the law. But, it creates that perception, all right. And for us, what I want is, I want a playing field where people disclose who they’re directly getting support from. And, Representative Kander agrees. So we think that if we can, we can reduce the number of, of, I call `em, intramural committees floating around that that will really help get more legislators to, to approach this issue like, like he and I do. Which is, okay, am I really for this? If I am I need to stand up and be for it or against it and accept or reject support based on that. And it’s, it’s, it’s an important step. That’s what we liked about the Zimmerman, uh, the Zimmerman, uh, Yates bill from last year.

Question: In, in a year like this, of course there have been these incidents and arrests, and at least one of your former colleagues going to jail, you know, the FBI around asking questions. What’s the effect on this body? What’s the effect on people in the capitol, elected representatives, as it relates to their ability to do their jobs, their ability to work with each other? How is this year, uh, affected the overall mood to this building?

Representative Kander: I don’t think we know.

Representative Flook: Well, I, I, I would say, uh, um, we’ll, we’ll see how it progresses. But I think that, uh, on a [inaudible] I think that job creation’s really what matters right now, balancing our budget and, and fighting inflation. And that’s what we’re really trying to do down here every day. I know Representative Kander really cares about that. But ethics legislation has to come up every few years in order to make sure that faith in government can exist. And I can go home and [inaudible] in support of my, of my constituents on, as me as an individual, but if I come down here and, uh, and all the stories are about ethical problems then we’re not, we’re not focusing on what we really need to focus on for the state. `Cause frankly, most people are pretty good people down here. And we are genuinely trying to put people to work and improve the state. And if we need to change the ethics rules a little bit, to help tighten `em up, in order to restore, uh, some, some faith in the system and keep ourselves vigilant on the ethics side, then we should do that. We should do that so we can focus on the bigger issues and put people to work on those types of [inaudible].

Representative Kander: It [inaudible]. We’ve got to be eternally vigilant to make sure the system is sound.

Question: On, on the three people that have stepped, sitting in the legislature, that have stepped down due to pleading guilty to felonies, two of them plead guilty to lying to Federal investigators about their congressional campaign. One of them took bribes, essentially. It seems like those crimes might, would they have been encompassed under this bill? Would they have been caught earlier? It just doesn’t seem like [crosstalk]…

Representative Kander: When you [crosstalk].

Question: …to connect.

Representative Kander: When you talk about, I think it absolutely connects. When you, when you talk about, uh, any Federal indictment that has to do with obstruction of justice you’re talking about had that been a state investigation and they’d obstructed justice that way in that investigation about that, there would not have been a state charge because there’s currently not a state statute for it. What we learned from that incident is that, you know, uh, during the Scooter Libby stuff, regardless of your stripes, Fitzgerald made, that’s why I can remember him saying it, made a very good argument at that time
. People said, why did you charge this person with obstruction justice of justice instead of the underlying crime? And the argument he made about the importance of an obstruction of justice felony provision is that it’s like a baseball game where the guy’s sliding into home and at the same time he throws sand in the umpire’s face. He can’t then say, well the umpire couldn’t call him out or safe, so he must be safe and there’s no consequence. What you can do is you can say, you can’t throw sand in the face of the umpire, there’s a separate crime for that. And when people are scared of a criminal provision, for throwing sand in the face of that umpire, they’re a whole lot less likely to do it. And that’s why, those individuals you talked about, who were convicted of obstruction of justice at the Federal level, had they done the exact same thing, in state law there wouldn’t be a consequence. And we want to make sure that there’s no free pass for lying to investigators [inaudible].

Question: What’s this bill number?

Representative Flook: When we filed, it hasn’t been assigned a number yet.

Question: On the criminal side [crosstalk].

Question: Can we get a copy of it?

Representative Kander: It’s really big, but we’ll give you a copy.

Question: [inaudible]

Question: Do you envision any prosecutor in the state being able to bring these crimes, uh, bring charges for crimes if the occur? Or is this gonna wind up being an extra load here in Cole County because the Ethics Commission is here, the legislature is here, and therefore, theoretically the crime occurred here?

Representative Kander: It can happen in a variety of ways. Um, our focus is on expanding the amount of people who have jurisdiction over this so more people will take action. Basically, all hands on deck, sort of philosophy, right. Well, right now the FBI can investigate any of this stuff, county, city, state. We just want one more entity that can do that. And yes, the Ethics Commission would therefore have jurisdiction to operate under these statutes, but so, too, would, uh, local investigators, so, too, would state, would state prosecutors. And so, too, would the Highway patrol’s investigative division….and it just brings us back to the whole point here, is to say, we don’t have to rely entirely on the FBI to do this, we can also do this in state government.

Question: So is this legislation reactionary to Smith etcetera, and recent [inaudible] going on with the felonies [inaudible].

Representative Flook: No, I wouldn’t say that, because, uh, that implies that, to say it’s reactionary is to say we hadn’t put thought into this prior to the incident, which is not the case. This is, these are concepts that have been around [inaudible] asked questions. What we’re hoping to do is, is that these incidents have shed light on those questions that we’ve been already trying to answer in other legislation in the past. So maybe with these recent incidents we’ll use them as little bit extra energy to move these bills. We know that there’s going to be several ethics bills filed this year, um, some of `em will be, will be, uh, bipartisan, I think [inaudible] ours is probably gonna be the most prominent bipartisan one we know of right now. Um, some of `em are quickly gonna be identified as, as partisan campaign maneuver. Um, we don’t know which is gonna be which, but we do know this, uh, we’ve got [inaudible] people talking about the topic. We’ve got a chance now to do something together and, and really make an effort that everybody can, can, can build on.

Question: If anything’s gonna happen, gonna wind up with some of those bills combined into one larger one?

Representative Flook: That could very well happen. I’ve already talked with the floor leader about this proposal. Um, uh, Steve Tilley would like to see some things added, added to it. I know that, uh, the Democrat, uh, uh, caucus would have some things they want to add. Uh, it’s hard to, it’s hard to put something like this through without having a lot of disagreement and a lot of, uh, a lot of [inaudible]. So, I have time for one more question and then I’m gonna [crosstalk].

Question: To clarify, [inaudible] is this essentially your cau, focus your caucus’ ethics bill? Is this [crosstalk]…

Representative Flook: No [crosstalk]…

Question: You [crosstalk]…

Representative Flook: …I wouldn’t say that. Because, um, [crosstalk] we still have to ask our own caucus members [crosstalk] to, to join with us. We have several people on both sides of the aisle will probably support this. I think on the whole our caucuses are, are genuinely interested in some, some, some real ethics reform. Um, and I think that, to the extent that we can build that body from there we’ll, we’ll keep pushing forward.

Question: But right now you’re independent contractors.

Representative Flook: In some way with the, yeah, but we do have the support of our leadership.

Representative Kander: Right, I mean, Representative LeVota’s already expressed an interest in co-sponsoring the bill, um, I know that Representative Flook’s had positive conversations with the Speaker, so.

We filibuster you guys? You got anything else? All right. Thanks a lot.

Representatives Jason Kander (D) and Tim Flook (r) held a press conference on their ethics reform bill late Monday morning in the House Lounge at the capitol.

Representatives Jason Kander (D)(left) and Tim Flook (r)(right).

Our previous coverage:

Kander (D) and Flook (r): ethics reform legislation in Jefferson City

Kander (D) and Flook (r): ethics reform legislation in Jefferson City, part 2

The transcript of the first half of the media question and answer session:

…Question: Last year, uh, Rex Sinquefield created a number of committees in, in the time that was legal, uh, and, and there were some who suggested that he made those committees so he could get around the existing campaign laws. Does this bill address that in any way?

Representative Tim Flook: Let me answer that. Uh, make sure it’s understood, this bill isn’t about Rex Sinquefield…

…Question: No, I [crosstalk]…

Representative Flook: It’s not…

Question: That’s [inaudible]…

Representative Flook: But I, I will tell you, um, one thing that’s, one thing that, I would frame it this way, uh, Representative Kander point [inaudible]. He and I had this discussion for over a year. That the reality of it is, that, that when you have multiple committees then there’s a temptation from legislators to pick up support here, but not ever admit or talk about it over there. And there’s legal methodologies for doing it. It’s legal. Uh, what Rex Sinquefield, what his, his donations were perfectly legal. Um, but, you know, I believe, and Representative Kander believes with me, that, uh, you should take the donation directly from who you receive support from, the public should be aware of it, and they should be judging you by that.

I support stem cell research. I’ve taken in, in, support from stem cell community. The general public deserves to know that. And if they feel like I, I’m not appropriate elected representative for their area they, they can vote accordingly. Just like my votes are on record. That’s what this is really about.

And one of the, one of the hot topic issues between Democrats and Republicans are campaign finance laws. Um, for, for me, particularly, I voted to remove the limits. I voted to remove them, one, because I believe philosophically you should be able to make whatever donation you want. But at the same time I also felt I would be willing to step up and support legislation like this to eliminate the use of these committees so that whenever you’re taking a large amount of support it’s known, and it’s directly known, and the legislator admits it up front. And, and, you know, for me, If I receive support from a committee I need to be prepared to, to talk about that. And that’s what this is really about. And I think if we eliminate that at, it, it makes the process more straightforward, it makes it more disclosed, and, although there are legal methodologies for donating to committees that can donate to other people, we would like to narrow that down so that we get more direct donations and more disclosure to the public on who and what we’re getting sup, uh, support by.

Representative Jason Kander: And to add to that, to add to that, you know, in essence your question is somewhat about campaign finance limits. Uh, and Representative Flook references it, and I think that is, that really speaks to how bipartisan this bill is. I, I believe that campaign finance limits would be a vital part of ethics reform. Representative Flook and I don’t completely see eye to eye on that issue. And that didn’t stop us from sitting down and saying what can we do to sort of satisfy both sides that, that believe that ethics reform is necessary and get us to the point where maybe we can get, uh, maybe from my side that believes in campaign finance limits, maybe it’ll open more people up on the Republican side to discussing them when we address these issues as well. Uh, I saw in the Independence Examiner I think today Representative Dusenberg said that he’s, he would look favorably now possibly upon a bill, uh, for campaign finance limits. I’m a cosponsor, Representative LeVota’s bill to re-impose campaign finance limits. But I’m not going to allow my advocacy for campaign finance limits to keep representative Flook and myself from getting a lot done this year as well.

Question: Last year we stood here around the same time of year and there was another bipartisan ethics bill, uh, and there was a bipartisan news conference proposing this ethics bill, uh, with some of the same, uh, information. There’s quite a bit different in this bill. What, what’s different, uh, in terms of getting such a bill through the legislature. Last year the ethics bills went nowhere.

Representative Flook: Well, uh, I , are you talking about  Representative Yates and Zimmerman?

Question: Yeah, Yates and Zimmerman.

Representative Flook: Okay, yeah. Well Representative Yates will not be here. He’s taken a job so, uh, which give me opportunity to become involved. Well I’ll tell you what’s, what’s different. Last year we had a lot of priorities we needed to move on. I, what, what has become different is, is that, you know, we’ve had incidents around the state, we have more people asking questions, and we’ve had a year of, frankly, debating these ideas on our own. Um, what, what I would impress upon you as members of the media is to recognize is that just because a bill doesn’t get out to the House floor doesn’t mean we’re not talking about it. Uh, you know, Representative Kander and I have these kind of discussions amongst ourselves and others. We sit around here at night drinking coffee during the, during the, the, the less, uh, sexy pieces of legislation, we sit back in the House lounge and talk to each other. And we talk about common ground. And one of our concerns was is that so much of the time ethics legislation is always turned into campaign politics. And you cannot get anything legitimate off the ground because it’s always being seen as trying to poke the other guy in the eye. You know, my, my philosophical belief and, uh, Representative Kander’s philosophical belief about owning up to who you’re receiving support from has nothing to do with, with anything else going on in the state. It’s a philosophical belief. But, by virtue of, of more questions being asked we see an opportunity to put it back out there and rejuvenate it. We didn’t want the efforts on the part of, of, uh, Representative Yates, Representative Zimmerman that we certainly agreed on, we don’t want to see those die on the vine. And we wanted to make this effort. I mean, we’re in communication with our leadership on both sides of the aisle on this bill. Um, we think it’s a good stepping off point to show that we’re really gonna try to resolve some things. We’ve had incidents in St. Louis, we’ve had incidents in Kansas City, um, you know, we want to make sure that the public understands that there are people down here working together and that, for the most part, we really are trying to do the right thing. The best way to show that is this joining together working on a bill that, uh, that changes the, changes some of the, the laws and close loopholes and help create a little more security and trust in, in our government.

Question: What, what I don’t see here, talk about pay to play, prohibition on the exchange of campaign contributions for legislative action, what I don’t see is specific language that says, uh, no contributions during the session. Uh, you didn’t go there, why not?

Representative Kander: Well, I mean, actually, it’s not a
conversation we’ve had to a great degree but I would speculate in front of everybody, uh, that a lot of it has to do with just, there was a court case that, that had issue with that. And I think what we didn’t want to do was get pretty far down the road and then be faced with a [inaudible] court challenge.

Representative Flook: Yeah, and, and to that point, that, that goes after other things that turns into campaign fodder. And we know we risk that as it is trying to do a legitimate bill. So we, we’re not interested in, in challenging things in the court. We’re not interested in making that kind of noise. What we’d like to do is establish the new laws and get it passed. We want a bill that can build consensus and make it to the House and Senate floor and be passed.

Representative Kander: And to add to that, you mentioned that’s been proposed  in the past, obviously, since there was a court case about it. What we really are focused on in this bill are new ideas. There are people, you know, Tony, you mentioned, uh, Representative Yates, Representative Zimmerman’s bill, Representative Zimmerman is, is more than capable of, of pushing that bill and I’m sure that he will. There’s no need for me to come in and, and retread that. That’s not necessary. There are really capable people with really capable, uh, really great ideas out there. We were not focused on sort of gathering any of those up and pushing them forward.

Question: Representative Flook, what have you heard from Republican leadership about [inaudible] ethics bill or ethics in general?

Representative Flook: Well, you know, I’ll tell you, I, I’m, I believe in my Republican caucus here in the State of Missouri. I think we’ve got a good caucus. And I think we’ve done a good job. And when I, when I approached, uh, uh, our Speaker and members of the caucus and said, you know, I want to work with Representative Kander on, on this bill, you know, they, they obviously had questions about what the bill contained and is this a real serious effort. Um, and, and the answer was yes. You know, so, my, my Republican members are interested in this legislation. There’ll be things they want to tweak or add, uh, just like I’m sure the Democratic caucus, caucus will want to tweak and add things. But, uh, the bottom line is, is that if we have, if we have something we want to improve upon they way to improve upon it is to get people to agree on what a good change is. You don’t start out an effort at teamwork by accusing your team member of being a bad person and telling them that you want them thrown out of office. That doesn’t accomplish anything, in fact, that just guarantees gridlock. Where, as Representative Kander and I realize that we know, we talk to each other all the time in the hallways and in our offices and in the lounge, we know there’s a lot we can agree on. And we know that when a bill I seen as a genuine effort to work together that, that House or Senate members will rally around that bill. And in this particular case this, this bill is gonna make people in my caucus happy, I believe, because it’s gonna answer some of the very things that we’ve talked about amongst ourselves and with the Democrats for years, things we’d like to change.

Question: So, so this legislation would ban a candidate [inaudible] say [inaudible] a candidate committee from receiving money from like a district committee or a political action committee or what, what, what would that part be?

Representative Kander: No, what we do, because going back to the court challenge issue there’s a certain element of the question, whether or not. So, what we do is we simply say that, that district or that individual political action committee, they can’t send money back and forth to one another. If you choose to, uh, you know, an organization, for instance, my wife is on the board of the Greater Kansas City Women’s Political Caucus, they have a political action committee. They obviously have a mutual interest, a reason that they would want to have a political action committee. If they are going to make a contribution to a candidate, obviously they’re making it in the, in the furtherance of their cause. Well, what the Greater Kansas City Women’s Political Caucus does not have is seventeen committees so they can move money back and forth twenty times so that a candidate can come to them and say, hey, I’d really like to take money from this person so that I can do this favor for them and never be caught, so would you just wash the money around until nobody’s really sure where it came from. What we do is we say, if a donor makes a contribution to a committee then that committee turns around and makes a contribution to a candidate then at least, at a minimum in the court of public opinion, when that candidate runs for reelection or runs for election for the first time somebody can make the argument you took money from a, from a committee that, that is funded by this. Instead of, who knows where that, where that committee [inaudible], you know these obscure names, Americans for America and Politicians Who Love Fuzzy Animals, I mean, these kind of joke political action committee names that go back and forth. What we’re trying to do is streamline that process. And furthermore, make it a felony, if you do use the process that exists after our law, to actually obscure the source of [crosstalk]…

Question: How do you approach that, though, if there’s no documentation that says that?

Representative Kander: Same way the Federal government [inaudible]…

Representative Flook: Same way, yeah. It’s the same fight every, every law enforcement officer has, in, in, in mul, different types of cases. Those cases can happen, you, you saw, uh, we saw cases recently in Missouri. You’ll see other types of areas. You know, I think it important to point out, you know, uh, both parties have people out there, um, with committees and those committees handle a lot of money from multiple directions. And to say, to say that it’s one party over another is just simply wrong, it’s simply. You know, you know, Re, Mr. Sinquefield was, was mentioned. Well he’s just one you all wrote about. As far as I’m concerned, I mean, he’s really not a, not a story. The real story is that it goes on all the time everywhere. And for us we just believe one, uh, very simple philosophical principle, and that is, say what you believe in, accept support from those that, that, uh, that support you, accept it openly. All right? You know, I , I support Rex Sinquefields efforts on education reform in the urban core. Absolutely. Check my voting record. I’m probably one of the most consistent ones with him.  [crosstalk] But, you know, I should [crosstalk], I should, like any other issue, if I’m gonna accept support from him and, and work on a [inaudible] he believes in, that’s not illegal. That’s not illegal. But, I should disclose it. It should be known. And if, if you have a lot of support from unions, fine, the public gets to know. If you have a lot of support from lawyers, that’s absolutely fine, but the public deserves to know who’s supporting you. And that keeps you accountable.

Question: But if I’ve got a lot of money, and I’m a reporter so it’s a bad question, but if I’ve got a lot of money [crosstalk]…

Representative Kander: We’ll suspend disbelief.

Question: …and I want to support [inaudible] do you want me to have to give your campaign committee the money directly or will it still be possible for me to give the money also to the Republican State Committee and the Kansas City Area Committee for Do Good Republicans with the, and that money eventually could wind up with you, but the rest of the people in this room may not be able to follow that [inaudible].

Representative Flook: Well I, I think what’ll happen is that this legislation, is that because the intentional hiding of money, you’re involved in intentionally hiding money. And, and an, that’s, I’ll preface it, our law kinda circles around that right now. You already can’t intentionally
launder. We’re just trying to close that circle and make sure that we can close that loophole. And one way to do it is to help eliminate the creation of these other committees. That really closes the circle on it. We’re already almost there. We’re just trying to close it. And, to answer your question, if, if someone wants to make a large donation to the Democrat House Committee, the Republican House Committee they’re still free to do that, all right, they’re still free to do that. And for First Amendment purposes it’d be very difficult to completely eliminate committees. I mean, it just for the, between the court cases and court challenges we couldn’t really do that. Um, and you know honestly, it’s okay to have base donations to the party committees, it’s all fully disclosed. You all can pick that up very quickly. But if we eliminate the number of side committees that are floating around, if we can reduce that number in any kind of significant measure we really start moving down the path further to, to directly, direct line disclosure of where your support comes from. And, honestly, we have to change the conversation to get there, that’s what this joint effort is, we have to begin the dialog and, and create a shift in, in, in the public eye of, of how campaign finance is looked at. And the way you do that is you don’t make it partisan. You don’t make it partisan. I am not here to try and grind a boot heel on some incidents involving Democrats any more than, and Jason Kander is not here to grind a boot heel in on anything or accusations [inaudible] Republicans. This is really about trying to make a cultural shift so that the public says, you know what, these guys are right, we’re gonna support ’em, say what you believe in,  tell us who supports you and be straight up about it.

Question: [inaudible] If I give money to the Kansas City Area Committee Supporting Do Good Republicans the donation should be seen as going to that committee and whatever candidates our causes it chooses to support, not an effort by me to give you more money directly.

Representative Kander: That’s right. And if there’s evidence to the contrary, if there’s evidence that the legislator in question said to you, you know you’re kind of controversial and I don’t want to take your money on record and then you do that and it goes to them, well, then state investigators are going to be interested in that and the prosecutor’s gonna be interested in prosecuting that as a class D felony…

The final portion of the press conference transcript will follow in a subsequent post.

Representatives Jason Kander (D) and Tim Flook (r) held a press conference on their ethics reform bill late yesterday morning in the House Lounge at the capitol.

Our previous coverage: Kander (D) and Flook (r): ethics reform legislation in Jefferson City

Representatives Jason Kander (D)(left) and Tim Flook (r)(right).

The transcript of the opening statements:

Representative Tim Flook: …Good morning. Thank you all for being here. I’m Representative Tim Flook and I’m here with my, uh, friend and Democratic colleague Representative Jason Kander. We’re both of the western side of the city, uh, the state, uh, representing Kansas City, large parts, some other areas. Um, as you know, with virtually every year I’ve been in the Missouri legislature there’s always been a question about ethics and conduct in campaigns. Um, every year that I watched politics as a young man in college all the way until, uh, the time that I was elected I’ve seen the issue come up over and over again. Unfortunately it’s always brought up in the context of partisan efforts to make someone look bad. Um, and unfortunate part of that is, is that it, it creates a lot of distrust among the public for, for the efforts of their elected officials…

…And the fact of the matter is, I can tell you from my experience, um, in my time in the legislature and my time as a, as a citizen dealing with both Republican and Democrat elected officials, it’s been my personal experience that most of the people you deal with are very honest and work very hard to follow the rules. And they are ethical people. But there, there is that few, there is a few that will at times bend the rules. Or, there might be conduct that looks like the, that looks bad even though it doesn’t necessarily violate the rules. Um, and, and those things cast, cast doubt with the public on, on our efforts down here.

And, uh, in the last, in this last summer representative, uh, Jason Kander approached me and asked if I’d be interested in working with him on developing a bipartisan piece of legislation to address some of the, the issues and ethics that have arisen in the last two or three years. And I told him I’d be happy to do it, primarily because, like myself, Representative Kander believes that most people down here are very ethical. And that if we, if we work together we can isolate potential loopholes, we can prevent conduct before it happens, and we can instill some trust in what we’re trying to do down here in Jefferson City. And do so in a way that’s not about campaign, or poking somebody in the eye, or trying to create a, an illusion of an ethical violation when there hasn’t been one, but, but with real direct legislation that actually changes policy for the better.

So, Jason and I, I’ll say Representative Kander, I keep wanting to call him on a first name basis ’cause I consider him a friend, uh, Representative Kander and I began outlining some things, some things that we think that we can get both sides of the aisle to agree upon. And, and to, present those in a bipartisan form. I met with Speaker Ron Richard, um, about these efforts and he supports, he supports this effort. And I, and I, Representative Kander has, has talked to min, Minority Leader Paul LeVota and he’s supporting this effort.

There will be other bills proposed, uh, which will, will have different ideas in addition to those we’re laying out. We’re certainly interested in those ideas and would probably add them to the bill. If they’re good they’re good for everybody.

But I think the main purpose today is, is that we start the ball rolling with legislation that’s bipartisan and, and we let the Missouri public know that the best policy comes from people working together. And the best policies that, creating the best laws result in fairness and aren’t about campaign politics.

So, with that being said I’m gonna let Representative Kander outline specifics of our proposed legislation…

…Representative Jason Kander: Well it’s a pleasure to work with representative Flook. He’s one of the most respected members of this body on either side of the aisle, um, and for good reason. He works hard and he’s very serious about the job. Um, just a few minutes ago most of you were in this room for another press conference with Representative Flook. He’s in high demand bcause he does a good job down here, so it’s an honor having him involved in this issue.

And it’s fitting that this be a bipartisan press conference because we’re trying to create a solution, a bipartisan solution to what is, as representative Flook mentioned, a bipartisan problem. It’s a problem in, in the Missouri system, in our, in Missouri’s laws. This is not an attempt to point fingers at anyone in particular. I’m gonna run through for you some of the major, uh, provisions of the bill and then we’d be happy to take your questions. What we’re doing here is we’re, we’re saying that the, the Jeff City sport of choice, which is speculation about whether the FBI is gonna take action, that needs to not be the sport of choice anymore. We need to do, we need, we need to pass laws that empower state investigators to take action, empower state law enforcement.

First major provision, uh, speaks to the, the practice of money laundering, or the potential for money laundering. Missouri’s anything goes system of campaign finances seems to be built, uh, to encourage, not to deter, the laundering of political contributions. And so that’s why it’s, it’s entirely possible and sometimes common practice for Missouri politicians to wash money back and forth between political action committees and in some cases, possibly, to obscure the original source of, of a, the person giving that money in the first place. This bill will prohibit, uh, party and independent political action committees from washing money back and forth and, furthermore, will make it a felony to transfer political money solely for the purpose of hiding the original donor.

On the subject of disclosure, in order to make it even more difficult to obscure the source, uh, of funds and funnel money through political action committees this bill requires all PACs to file electronically [inaudible] the Ethics Commission, which will make all contributions in the state searchable online for the first time. Now, while the electronic filing change will make it easier to prove potential corruption in the court of public opinion, it doesn’t make it easier to prove corruption in, in the court of law. And so the next provision addresses that.

Uh, this bill will change the law by specifically listing camp, a campaign contribution in, in certain circumstances as a, a potential pay for play situations, potential bribe, which even goes beyond, uh, what’s done in Federal law. It makes it very clear that, given a direct exchange for legislative action or official action, that can, uh, be a, that would be a felony.

Furthermore, on the subject of political money laundering, we say out loud with this bill what is obviously true. That is that there are some people in this state who can act as treasurers in dozens of political action committees at once possibly for the purpose of washing political money. These aren’t treasurers in such cases, they’re bag men. If they do it for that reason that’s what they are. And our bill would prohibit anyone from acting as a treasurer or a deputy treasurer of multiple political action committees at a time.

Also this year we choose to address the issue of conflicts of interest that can be presented in Jefferson City. Now on both sides of the aisle potential conflicts of interest ex
ist and they can occur when those serving in a political campaign role also serve in the office, uh, in the official office of a, of a elected official in the state. Most of the folks who do this, unfortunately, are not currently required to disclose their [inaudible], so as a result there’s potential conflicts of interest but, but the public doesn’t know about it because it may not be the elected member, it could be their staff. And so we simply say that if you want to work for an elected official and be a political consultant at the same time it’s not too much for ask, for us to ask that you publicly disclose your dual roles. This bill makes that change.

Now, outside the walls of this building a bipartisan array of political consultants who  do not hold government positions are free to contract simultaneously both with elected officials and corporations and other organizations that seek to influence the actions of state government. Yet these consultants are not required to register as lobbyists. With this bill we close this sort of stealth lobbyist loophole in state law and we created the category of a de facto lobbyist. And we shed light on these individual’s attempts to influence the course of legislation.

Now, the next part I think is pretty important and it goes into all of these, all of these provisions. If we are to pass new ethics laws this year, or if we just seek to make existing ethics laws mean something more, then we need a state felony provision that applies to anyone who tries to obstruct an ethics investigation. Without an obstruction of justice law we reward politicians who lie to state investigators. This bill includes an obstruction of justice felony modeled upon the Federal statute.

Finally, this bill is truly comprehensive and that it applies these and many existing laws, ethics laws, not just to state government, but to our counties, or cities, our school boards, and various other municipalities.

The proposals put forth by Representative Flook and myself today are among many needed changes and I’m thankful that several of our colleagues have both this year and in the past suggested other ways to stay one step ahead, one step ahead of the small bipartisan minority of individuals who may seek to violate public trust. What we don’t do is stand here today and tell you that these changes are gonna fix the problem permanently. Over time power and influence finds a way to circumvent the law. So it’s our hope, we’ve discussed this, that several years from now two more legislators will reach across the aisle and seek to close any loopholes that may have developed in the legislation passed in twenty-ten, because this is an ever evolving process.

Finally, the reason for that is because fighting public corruption is like fighting the flue, we come up with a vaccine and the flue comes back the next year with a new strain. So, as the flu adapts vac, adapts, a vaccine must evolve with it. Honest governments like healthy societies are the result of eternal vigilance. And so that’s what we’re prepared to do, that’s why we’re trying to do it in a bipartisan manner. And we’d be happy to take your questions…

Transcript(s) of the media Q and A will follow in subsequent posts.

We’ve been getting quite a bit of traffic from right wingnuttia over a reference at one of their sites (no, we’re not going to give them the linky goodness and ensuing traffic).

During the campaign, on July 10, 2008, Michelle Obama came to Kansas City for a town hall on the campus of the University of Missouri – Kansas City. We covered the event:

Michelle Obama in Kansas City – photos

(by the way, one of our photos from the event made its way to the Obama campaign web site)

Michelle Obama in Kansas City – remarks

Right wingnuttia is quite obsessed by this portion of the transcript, claiming that it’s proof that President Obama is illegitimate and this is further proof to be added to the convoluted birther pantheon of conspiracies:

…He understands them because he was raised by strong women. He is the product of two great women in his life. His mother and his grandmother. [applause] Barack saw his mother, who was very young and very single when she had him, and he saw her work hard to complete her education and try to raise he and his sister…

I kid you not. These are the kinds of people who memorize and obsess over every detail of The Brady Bunch as if the complete episodes were Shakespeare’s plays. They just haven’t figured out that there is a difference.

The Faux News Channel will pick this up in, three, two, one… And that’s the problem with political discourse in this country.