Of course the attacks against me include personal stuff sent by the King's, or their attorney's since the supposed "hidden" info is on Courtnet and they have access that us non lawyers have to work to get, disguised as an ill advised threat aganst me and my reputation are the best they can do. Yawn.
I have always admitted I was off work for a year with no income or paycheck from February 2007 until March of 2008 thanks to a knee surgery that didn't heal quite right and I still suffer from today.
I also went back to work at less than 1/3 of what my income was prior to this medical problem. You guessed it I was one who fell into tough times because of medical and loss of income and have had to fight to keep my home just like so many have over the last few years. Thanks to a faltering economy, and of course no employer usually takes a chance on an employee who just came off of ANY surgery because they are scared of liability, I got behind on some bills just like so many of us.
Of course the fact that I am still here, haven't lost anything I worked my butt off to get other than some pride, and continue to work hard to get things right doesn't mean much to those who are running scared or have money to burn to try and use power against those they purport to represent.
Oh yeah I also have been able to hold on without a government bailout like the banks and corporate CEO's have gotten with our money. Sure would have been easier if I had some of my tax money back but hey we must help our fellow rich CEO's maintain their lifestyles right? God forbid a corporate CEO do without an extra million or so for the person who funds them. But I digress.
So that's the story they think I am scared people will know. You would think by now they know I have no fear of them. I am the exact opposite of those who try to gain power for their own egos. My ego simply does not require adoration and power over others. If it did I would certainly kiss the butt of those I rail against wouldn't I? I mean life could be so much simpler right?
Hell I could have taken some deals that would fix everything I almost lost a whole lot easier. I could have contacted King through some people he was using to try and get me to. Instead I continue to work at a place called Kroger regardless of my management background and resume.
Why? One word. Loyalty. They hired me when everyone else was scared and I appreciate that.
Unfortunately for the King's and their attorney's there is a right and wrong in everything and I always strive to do what is right regardless of the hits I take.
My effort has always been to expose the lies and hypocrisy and get the truth to people so they can make their own intelligent decisions. Heck I am even on the "bad boy" list of some close family members who support David Tandy because he and his staff lied to me 3 times so I took the gloves off in his regard. I love them all and they know I would do anything for them but hey even we can disagree on political things. We just avoid some political conversations lol.
The bottom line in this case has always been one simple question I feel needed answers for the betterment of ALL current and/or future candidates. Including myself.
Was the intent of campaign finance election law circumvented to funnel money above and beyond the $1000 contribution limit the law states? Based on the email and other things I believe so.
A straight answer would have been preferable and would have set this to bed a long time ago. King could have taken the short term hit and said hey I am sorry but it appears I may have made an honest mistake as an overzealous father and done things that could be perceived as wrong. With his money he could have bought the recognition to get elected Mayor. Money talks right? That is why we vote for some people because they pay megabucks to get their name out regardless of what they stand for right? At least it would have been explainable then and who knows handled correctly could have actually given him an early sympathy lead as most can relate to trying to do the best for their kids right? Do it for the kids. In this case it may have worked.
According to them we really are that shallow. I do not buy it.
Unfortunately as with many people who get caught doing things wrong, (hell look at Rick Pitino and his deny fest and what it is costing him now when he could have came clean and put it to bed), Jim King lawyered up immediately with the best attorneys, on paper anyway, money can buy. And that has been the whole problem here. When you make a mistake and get caught take responsibility. Man up, fess up, and ask for forgiveness. We The People are a very forgiving thing aren't we? How else do some of the slimeballs in politics keep getting reelected.
He has the right hire anyone he wants so of course I have no argument here on that regardless of how it appears to most of us.
So how do you shut the messenger up? You play the David and Goliath role and try to bully the little guy. Figuratively speaking of course as any who know me know I am not a little guy lol. Only problem is sometimes David stands up and won't be bullied. And sometimes Goliath just does not win. We are still waiting for the end of this to see either way.
Sheryl Snyder, who some consider a "preeminent" attorney on election law, was hired apparently because he used to argue for the KREF as an attorney. This raised questions of possible conflict of interest and why I took the unheard of step of asking the KREF essentially to dismiss themselves from the case thereby opening the door for AG Jack Conway to appoint a special prosecutor to try to get at the truth in this election financing debacle.
The other attorney on King's staff is Joe Terry as you may recall him being quoted in the Courier Journal, prior to being hired by Jim King of course, that the situation would stink to him if my charges were right. Joe Terry is ex Chairman of the KREF so the political relationships garnered by working with folks in that office could make things tough overall to decide. Why else would Terry contradict himself from his statement in December then go on the payroll of Jim King? Hey that is my speculation and I am entitled to it.
The charges are right. As I have shown the email in prior posts on this website here: http://springston.blogspot.com/2009/05/king-and-kref-explanation.html
Two Goliaths I should be impressed or scared. Problem is I am neither. It just isn't my style.
Essentially it is clear from the back and forth email that King was trying to find a way to circumvent the $1000 contribution limit ALL must adhere to when running for office. Finally after going back and forth with Jan Hines at the KREF Ms. Hines eventually said that the KREF does not regulate the private finances of candidates. She stated further essentially that he needs to think about what the appearance of his proposal would be to the voters. I agree and that appearance is what started this whole thing.
Thanks Jan Hines.
King tried to use this exchange as a basis for funneling money to Katie's campaign. The problem is a simple one.
If the statement King is clinging to by Jan Hines holds up legally then it is one way to launder money to make it "clean" for election purposes. If this scenario plays out and King wins then this would greatly undermine campaign finance laws and make it even harder for everyday folks without money to run for office essentially forcing us all to accept that the only people who can hold office are those who can buy it.
This is how you buy elections and not what campaign finance was intended to do.
Unfortunately regardless of the critics I can not accept that. Nor should any other candidate or citizen who want a fair and equal chance of either voting or running for office on a level playing field.
I mean it really is quite easy to follow.
If you can "gift" an unlimited amount of money to a candidate say $50,000, who can then deposit the "gift" into their personal checking or savings account, and then they again transfer it to a campaign account, our election can be bought even easier than some believe they are now. Then why have campaign finance laws at all? Give the job to the person with the richest family member.
To do this while an active candidate would be a slap in the face to all of us. It is essentially an ego saying I can do it because I want and you cannot stop me. Is that fair and equal, or right?
I do not believe so.
The latest response from King's attorney's Snyder and Co? Instead of trying to argue the merits of the case and answer questions from the very beginning, so King could go ahead and announce his Mayoral candidacy that is still on hold because of this, they decided instead to say essentially I had no right to ask or be involved in any of this as I am receiving no harm from it. In short because I have no perceived "damages" that I essentially have no legal standing.
Get rid of the messenger and the message gets forgotten right?
Again avoiding the facts and hoping it will go away. Sounds like Pitino strategy doesn't it? What is it costing him today?
From my standpoint I asked the AG for an opinion regarding their claims as this is a unique case, and theirs was yet another response to try to get me out of this in my opinion, and I was wondering if perhaps they had any merit to the claim. Since I learn as I go here folks I used this as my basis for requesting an opinion:
15.025 Conditions to furnishing opinions.
The Attorney General, when requested in writing, under KRS 15.020, shall furnish such opinions subject to the following conditions:
(1) When questions of law of interest to the Commonwealth are submitted by a state department, agency, board or commission;
(2) When public questions of law are submitted by either house of the Legislature or by any member of the Legislature;
(3) When public questions of law pertaining to local government are submitted in writing by the proper public official of the county or other political subdivision of the Commonwealth;
(4) When, in the discretion of the Attorney General, the question presented is of such public interest that an Attorney General's opinion on the subject is deemed desirable and when provided for by regulation pursuant to the provisions of this section.
History: Created 1960 Ky. Acts ch. 68, Art. II, sec. 3.
As I interpret subsection 4 above I read it as saying that the AG has the discretion and CAN issue an opinion ruling on the charges made by Snyder and crew on behalf of King because it does go to the serious public interest concern of public trust in elected officials.
Jim King is an elected official. Katie King gained a campaign financial advantage because of this. Jim King obviously was trying to get the KREF on record as saying it was ok to essentially finance her campaign. Folks it does not get any more cut and dry than this and in my opinion should have AG involvement right now since the public interest is that of public trust in our elected officials.
I would say that the public trust in elections and our elected officials is indeed a serious public interest problem. In fact I believe that trust is an inherent basic right of We The People to expect from our elected officials. Does this provision not allow for us at all if we are not an elected official?
Of course Conway's office took the easy way out and made a decision in less than 10 minutes or so, (weird considering it takes months to decide whether Abramson for example can give the rent from Slugger Field to the Downtown Development Corp since he sits on the board of the DDC), essentially saying they are not getting involved.
His office Assistant General Tad Thomas ruled that according to the above KRS 15 statute that it does not appear I, or assumedly any citizen by proxy who wants to insure the public trust is not jeopardized, am entitled to an opinion ruling by the AG. So they are refusing to rule on it. And of course since this is an open investigation by the KREF they are refusing to get involved or say anything else.
Totally expected and no biggie. Just politics as usual.
Especially during a Senate race and this could cause backlash. Why would you get involved in a situation with a fellow party elected member who can funnel money to your campaign? I understand the game but this should have been cut and dry and ended long ago. I will not let it die now until it is exhausted including lawsuits if necessary. That is one reason why there is a paypal link on the site now for donations. If it gets that far then I will proceed one way or the other.
I may be missing something but the public trust is the most inherent thing a politician is empowered to uphold therefore it most certainly is of public interest when that trust is suspect.
Again it is a game of David versus Goliath.
Believe me it is not a situation I would want anyone else in which is why I do it. My name, my reputation are at stake for whatever little or great that may be. Win or lose we deserve answers.
If a private citizen such as myself cannot ask questions of the elected Attorney General of the State that asks for my vote, and by proxy is accountable to me and everyone else who elects them, then how do we gain accountability to We the People?
It is blatantly clear that most politicians would not instigate anything against fellow politicians, especially if they are of the same party for fear of losing the party faithful money donors and voters, so then what options are available to We The People? Again public trust.Of course being a former candidate, and a possible future one, this issue most certainly does concern me on a personal level and the issue of "damages" most certainly would apply. If, as a candidate, I can receive "gifted" money in any amount such as Katie King did and I circumvent the intent of campaign finance laws, then it could be argued that campaign finance laws were a paper thing with no real intent towards fairness in elections. This would fall under damages to each and every one of us.
This ruling wherever it leads sets precedent for future elections and could seriously undermine the election campaign process. It most certainly would apply to any past or future candidates for office.
While I will take the heat, criticism, and personal attacks, including the ill disguised threats of someone in the public actually knowing something personal about me, I will stand tall for any and all of us who deserve fairness in election campaign finances. Let them keep coming and let some keep carrying the water. Not my problem I do not care. My goal is and has always been to insure fairness for all. If the elected entrenched do not want to help us along that path then they must fall subject to the same things everyone of us do everyday.
We The People deserve it.
So get ready to start reading the attacks against me again, as I am sure they are forthcoming as usual, but remember one thing.
David did not back down from Goliath and neither will I.
Hell I have always been considered the longest shot on the board and I am still here.
Just saying. :-)