FOX41'S BILL LAMB: LEAVE MY FRIEND ALONE!

Sorry folks I just had to write this since I have received dozens of calls about it. It seems FOX41's Bill Lamb has done his normal POV and suggested we owe Jim King an apology for bringing to light his illegal campaign finance violations.

You can read it here: Family Contributions Should Be OK (1/19/10) - FOX41.com Louisville News Kentucky Indiana News Weather Sports

I truly do think some of Bill Lamb's POV segments are good and agree with him in many of them. This is not one of those times.

It seems to many, based on the calls I have received, that Lamb is allowing his friendship with King to overshadow his judgement in this matter. You can see yet one reason why I agree with them here: Louisville News and Politics: FOX41 CENSORING ITS NEWS?

Lamb starts out with this:

Current Kentucky law prohibits anyone other than a candidate from spending more than $1,000 in a state election. But it doesn't specifically address whether a candidate may receive much larger financial gifts from family members and then apply that money toward their campaign.

The law clearly prohibits ANYONE other than a candidate as I have outlined numerous times on this site. Jim King was not the candidate, and clearly qualifies as an anyone like you and I, so how much clearer does it need to get?

KRS 121.015(6) ‘Contribution’ means any: (a) payment, distribution, loan, deposit, 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…

The above clearly states that a gift of cash is a contribution period. It does not say except if it comes from a family member. The law is clear.

KRS 121.150(6) No candidate, slate of candidates, campaign committee, political issues committee, nor anyone acting on their behalf shall accept a contribution of more than $1,000…

This above of course clearly says a candidate cannot accept a contribution of more than $1,000.

It really is this simple. I have outlined why some like Larry Clark are trying to "change the law" that does not need changing. It is as simple as trying to save some butts: Louisville News and Politics: SHERYL SNYDER AND AMY CUBBAGE: LIES AND DECEPTION AT FROST, BROWN, AND TODD

In 2000 Snyder and Cubbage, according to sources, were PAID BY THE KREF in excess of $100,000 to draft HB750 referenced in the article above. This was OUR tax money paid to them.

Now why is this important? HB 750 did not pass thus negating any comments made by King, Snyder, or Cubbage in regards to this whole matter.

Another thing Bill Lamb mentioned in his POV strikes a nerve:

That ambiguity caused Metro Councilman Jim King a lot of headaches when he gave his daughter, Katie, a gift of $135,000 that she used in her judicial race, and he was subsequently fined.

The interesting thing in this statement?

Simply this.

King has not been fined yet. Though it has been reported that Snyder said they had reached an agreement on a fine, with no admission of guilt of course by King, there can be no fact in saying he was fined.

The KREF HAS NOT MET AND PRESENTED any proposed fine to the Board yet for approval.

So is this a done deal? What insider info does Lamb have from his friend Jim King that no one else has other than a Snyder statement? Does he have evidence of such a claim?

Sorry Bill but making this statement shows that insider info is alive and well or were you just stating what you believe. Either way you have now raised ethical questions in your POV.

Only one question from Lamb makes sense to me at this point and I agree with asking it:

Should the law prohibit the kind of contribution Mr. King made?

In my opinion it should. It should prohibit it because no one should be elected solely because they happen to be rich. If money can buy elections then why not just have candidates submit a 1040 and a financial statement and the one with the highest bank account automatically gets seated. Why go vote at all?

Is there a difference here in that example?

You decide but I certainly hope that Bill Lamb gets back to being what he used to be. Someone the community looked up to for fair and balanced POV's. The bias and abuse of power in this POV segment to seemingly help a friend is diminishing that ethical reputation we all know he had.

Just sayin'...........