Sunday, October 16, 2005

Nodler September lobbyist report changed


Missouri Ethics Commission documents indicates Sen. Gary Nodler's gifts for September have been amended with the removal of $238.50 in meals, food and beverage from Southwestern Bell lobbyist David Klarich.
The gift from Klarich was among $478.50 Nodler was initially reported having received during September, which had put the senator on the brink of $1,000 total for 2005.
The reimbursement was filed with the Ethics Commission after a Turner Report post which showed that Nodler, in September alone, had more than doubled his gift total for the previous eight months.
With the reimbursement, Nodler's total dropped to $771.05, an amount which includes $11.20 in meals, food and beverage from David Hale, Missouri Hospital Association lobbyist. That declaration was not included in the original report.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Your report is not correct. Nodler made no reimbursement. Klarich corrected his report. The ammount Klarich had shown earlier was for a lunch for a Joint committee Nodler chairs, not for Nodler. Nodler made no corrections at all. Any changes were made by the lobbyists, The Senators do not file these reports at all. You should really try fact checking sometime before publishing, it would be a learning experience for you.

Randy said...

If that is the case (and you appear to be someone who has plenty of knowledge about this), than I stand corrected. And since I haven't seen any corrections on anything else I have printed, and I am sure you would tell me if I got something wrong, it would appear I have been pretty much right on the money about Senator Nodler and his cozy relationships with lobbyists and special interests. Thanks for reading.

Anonymous said...

Why not correct your incorrect headline?

Anonymous said...

You continue to refer to a reimbursement. Nodler made no reimbursement, neither did anyone else make a reimbursement.

Anonymous said...

Randy Randy Randy, such flagrant disregard for the truth. You make two references to a reimbursement when there was none. Why do you continue to just make stuff up?