The news stories indicate that Jim King gave his daughter $145,000 in
the midst of her campaign to be used for her judicial campaign knowing she would
put the money in her campaign as her own money. Some may question whether or not the statute was really that unclear and had enough wiggle room to permit a father to give his daughter $145,000 to finance her campaign under the guise of a "personal" gift.
The criminal justice system is investigating the matter for potential criminality, and now the legislative system is changing the law in an attempt to avoid a repeat. Whether or not the judicial system is going to take action against the elected judge Katie King is unknown at this time. However, I submit the legislative change needs a closer look at their stated goal and method of implementation since I believe it makes an exception based on the "current election cycle" which will benefit the wealthy. To get around the prohibition that some assumed existed before this bill, all that needs to be done after this bill should become law is to make a large gift just before the "current election cycle" begins. Worse yet, by attempting to create this "election cycle exception" has now created another potential ambiguity by its very proposal and even if it NEVER becomes law.
Here is an extract from HB 114. You decide if there was any confusion in the old language. It was money, it was a gift, and it was made to the candidate. And it looks like the money trail ended up in the campaign finance coffers.
However, click here for the entire bill, and I do applaud Jefferson County's legislator's who wish to make it abundantly clear that this is not to be repeated - L. Clark, D. Owens, C. Miller, R. Weston. However, I suggest they take a closer "look see".
The underlined portion is the addition to the statute. With so much in the news on this point, I thought it worth sharing the actual statutory language to avoid any confusion on ambiguity as to what the protagonists are discussing.
(6) "Contribution"
means any:(a) Payment,
distribution, loan, deposit, or gift of money or other thing of value, to a
candidate, his agent, a slate of candidates, its authorized agent, a committee,
or contributing organization, including any payment, distribution, or
deposit of money by the candidate using personal funds, where the candidate has
no expectation of repayment from the campaign fund. As used in this
subsection, "loan" shall include a guarantee, endorsement, or other
form of security where the risk of nonpayment rests with the surety, guarantor,
or endorser, as well as with a committee, contributing organization, candidate,
slate of candidates, or other primary obligor. No person shall become liable as
surety, endorser, or guarantor for any sum in any one (1) election which, when
combined with all other contributions the individual makes to a candidate, his
agent, a slate of candidates, its agent, a committee, or a contributing
organization, exceeds the contribution limits provided in KRS 121.150;
Here is the Courier Journal story. Click on the heading for the entire story. The title of this story is misleading as it does not limit what a candidate cold spend, but rather attempts to limit what can be given to the candidate.
Jefferson
District Judge Katie King would have to run for re-election later this
year without her father's money if a bill being sponsored by state Rep.
Larry Clark becomes law.
Clark's
bill, filed Thursday, would prohibit a candidate from spending large
sums of money given by a parent — or anyone else — for the purpose of
funding a political campaign.
Clark,
D-Louisville, said he filed the legislation in reaction to the case
involving King, in which her father, Louisville mayoral candidate Jim
King, gave his daughter $135,000 in the months leading up to her 2008
election. Katie King, in turn, used much of the money to fund her $360,000 judicial campaign.
Kentucky
law prohibits anyone other than a candidate from spending more than
$1,000 on a state election, but it doesn't specifically prohibit
someone from making a personal gift to a candidate, who, in turn, could
spend the money on his or her election.
According to the Courier Journal's read of this amendment -
"Under the provisions of Clark's House Bill 214, personal funds that
candidates would be allowed to contribute in unlimited sums to their
campaigns would include money they had before the campaign began;
salary earned during the campaign; money from the sale of investments;
bequests and trusts created by bequests; trusts established before the
election cycle; proceeds from lotteries and other games of chance; and
personal gifts that had been customarily given prior to beginning of
the election cycle."
If "customary" is the loophole to allow unlimited personal funds from family, friends, and others, then what are the time limits and amounts that will go into that custom. Keep in mind that the customary plan of giving only regulates gifts during the current election cycle!
But, the negative pregnant of the change is that it makes it clearly permissible for unlimited personal gifts OUTSIDE the election cycle such that this exception may overtake the prohibition for those who plan well in advance.
Of course, the large gift outside the current election cycle thus could be considered as part of the current election cycle since the definition of a "candidate" is "any person who has received contributions . . . with a view to bringing about his nomination or election to public office...."
Since election cycle is not defined. Then, I would make an educated guess that the status as candidate would control and the intent inferred from the facts and circumstances as one goes back to the customary giving and the eventual candidacy when examined based upon temporal, professional, and personal proximity of the donor and the candidate. If so, that is too much legal mumbo jumbo to be effective.
This change to the law has teeth but little bite.
Some commentators have come down even harder on this bill. See Ed Springston's post, by clicking here.
