October 7, 2004

Hypocrisy by the Topeka Capital Journal 
in Reporting Campaign/PAC Contributions

Repeated E-Mails to the Topeka Capital Journal asking them to responsibly report a huge political money story from 2002 were ignored. We do need some new laws, but we also need better reporting that will enable public discussion.

I estimate the chances are approximately 0% that the Capital Journal will publish this letter:

Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 11:09 PM
To: 'letters@cjonline.com'
Subject: Hypocrisy by the Topeka Capital Journal in Reporting Campaign Contributions

Please consider the following letter for publication in the Topeka Capital Journal. I've included some background material below to re-enforce the claims I make in my letter:

Hypocrisy by the Topeka Capital Journal in Reporting Campaign/PAC Contributions

Recently the Topeka Capital Journal published a curious editorial about a subject they know little about: campaign/PAC finance reporting. The Journal's editorial board should apologize to the public for their selective and poor reporting on campaign finances before they have any credibility on this issue. Specifically, the Capital Journal newspaper needs to apologize for intentionally withholding campaign contribution information from Kansans in 2002 when one individual's $300,000 of political money almost changed the results of a statewide election.

<name and address of the Kansas Meadowlark>

So where's the proof that the Capital Journal knew about this story?  The following are some of the E-mails I sent to them (in chronological order): 

Dear Editor:

Please print this letter in your next Sunday newspaper:

A quarter million dollars the press can't find in last year's election

Last year an individual in Kansas spent over $250,000 of personal and business money to influence politics in Kansas, but the press cannot find this story. The individual gave money to one Political Action Committee (PAC), which in turn gave the money to another PAC, which spent the money mostly to assist a single candidate. This certainly has the appearance of money laundering.

Information was disguised in the October 2002 contribution reports so nothing looked unusual before the election. $40,000 was sent from one PAC to the other and was reported before the election. But, the October report for the first PAC included a cryptic acronym for the recipient PAC, a PO Box that didn't match that filed with the Secretary of State by the recipient PAC, and a confusing address with a city and a ZIP that were over a hundred miles apart. There was little chance this relationship could have been discovered before the election. But why hasn't the press found this by now? The "Leadership" PAC even accepted a money transfer from the first PAC several days before payment of their registration fees according to dates in the contribution reports filed with the Secretary of State.

Through a "miracle", over $215,000 was donated to one PAC by the individual, and then transferred to the other PAC to buy ads in the week or so before the November election. Magically, the same day a donation was made to the first PAC, the same amount was sent to the second PAC, like on Nov 1, 2002 when $153,000 was laundered this way in a single day. If one believes the dates on the contribution reports, ads were even bought on the Monday before the election to start running on the previous Saturday – a neat trick. Some might find this interesting, but why has the Kansas press not found this story?

Which is the bigger story here?

- the individual that spent over $250,000 to influence a political cause?

- a biased, agenda-driven press that cannot find and report the laundered, political money?

< name and address of the Kansas Meadowlark>

Dear Editor:

Please print my letter in your newspaper:

Many Kansas Newspapers Suppress Story about $250,000 in Political Money Laundering

There was a reason that the Attorney General's race was so close in Kansas last November. One individual gave over $250,000 to a PAC, which laundered the money through another PAC, which spent the money for ads to support Chris Biggs against Phill Kline. Approx. $200,000 of this money was craftily transferred in the week before the election so no one would know before the election. Why did the press ignore this story?

The Lawrence Journal-World can take credit for breaking this story on July 31st, and the Salina Journal and Wichita Eagle can take credit for reporting the story and opining that Kansas' law needs to be changed so that large, last-minute contributions are reported before an election, instead of months later.

The Hutchinson News and Kansas City Star barely reported the story. The Capital-Journal, the Manhattan Mercury, the Dodge City Globe, and many other Kansas newspapers and TV stations can take credit for either sleeping through this story, or suppressing it in their area. The Kansas City Star can take credit for worrying more about Bill O'Reilly's beef with Al Franken, than opining that Kansas' campaign laws may need updating.

The Capital-Journal was concerned with a $300 cash contribution accepted my Mayor Butch Felker, but ignored a story about $250,000 in laundered PAC money? This just doesn't make any sense.

< name and address of the Kansas Meadowlark>

So why was "History" a story, but the following is not?

Kansas gets "F" in Campaign Disclosure

http://www.campaigndisclosure.org/gradingstate/ks.html

And it's still a mystery to me why they Cap Journal won't report anything about the individual that spent nearly $300,000 last year to influence Kansas politics.

Kansas gets an "F" in Campaign Disclosure, AND an "F" in Campaign Disclosure Reporting.

< name and address of the Kansas Meadowlark>

Why can USA Today ask this question, but the Capital Journal ignores me and my letters to the editor asking you to opine about the need for campaign finance reform in Kansas?

Now look who's hiding special-interest donations

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-09-25-our-view_x.htm

Such lax standards hide how wealthy interests try to influence elections. In the final days of a 2002 race for Kansas attorney general, a doctor who performs abortions poured more than $150,000 into a barrage of TV and radio ads attacking an anti-abortion candidate who won, nonetheless. The source of the ads was not disclosed until months after the election.

BTW, the $150,000 figure is quite low. A single contribution laundered in the week before the election was $153,000. The total "participation" for the Wichita doctor is at least $299,665 . If you can make an endorsement in this race, why can't you report other facts about the election?

Why are you so afraid of the truth?

< name and address of the Kansas Meadowlark>

Eighteen-year-old, Democrat, Lacey Hanson showed professionalism and courage in her fight against censorship of her Oskaloosa High School Insider article. So the ACLU gives her an award:

Oskaloosan earns ACLU honor for newspaper article fight

http://www.cjonline.com/stories/093003/kan_aclu.shtml

The Capital Journal prints a story about censorship, but ignores its own censorship?. The Capital Journal is the largest newspaper in Kansas that has censored the $299,665+ political money story from last year's election. The story was even mentioned last week in USA Today. although the press has only discovered the first $150,000 (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-09-25-our-view_x.htm).

So why isn't the ACLU complaining when the Capital Journal censors stories?

< name and address of the Kansas Meadowlark>

K a n s a s M e a d o w l a r k @ e f g 2 . c o m