Many of the so-called campaign reforms that will go into effect if Governor Matt Blunt signs HB1900 were included in Senate Bill 1254, which was co-sponsored by nearly the entire Senate, including Gary Nodler, R-Joplin, Jack Goodman, R-Mount Vernon, Delbert Scott, R-Lowry City, and Norma Champion, R-Springfield.
Nodler, in particular, did not stint in his praise of the Senate bill. In a news release dated March 13, Nodler wrote, "Senate Bill 1254, which I am co-sponsoring, is considering to be the most significant reform to the Missouri system of campaign-finance ethics. Under the legislation, we will bring accountability and transparency to the campaign contribution process so the public can easily follow the trail of campaign money."
It would seem then, that one of the prime targets of the Senate bill and the currently pending House bill, is Sen. Nodler himself.
In his recent examination of Nodler's campaign records, Joplin Globe investigative reporter Max McCoy wrote:
"More than $20,000 in contributions - about 9 percent of Nodler's total - came from individuals for whom no occupation or employer information was listed in reports to the Missouri Ethics Commission, a computer-aided data analysis by the Globe found."
A computer-aided data analysis by The Turner Report (well, I did it while I was sitting at the computer) indicates Nodler has received at least 24 campaign contributions from registered lobbyists and only three of those were listed as lobbyists on the disclosure forms filed with the Missouri Ethics Commission.
In fact, 11 of those contributions, totaling $2,250, listed no employer whatsoever. Others were listed by the name of the company, none of which, as you might guess, have the term lobby in the title, while others were dressed up in such euphemisms as "consultant," "business," or "governmental consultant."
In the period between January 2002 and August 2005, Nodler never listed any lobbyist as a lobbyist. All three who were listed as lobbyists were listed in the October 2005 quaterly report, which even though I am sure it is just a coincidence came after The Turner Report began writing about Nodler's campaign contributions from lobbyists and how none of them were listed as such.
In all, lobbyists have contributed at least $5,875 to Nodler's campaigns. And that figure does not include money which has been guided to his campaign through the shell committees that the new legislation is supposed to end. It also does not include money from special interests that is arranged through the good graces of these lobbyists and others whose names are not on any campaign contribution check.
Among the lobbyists who contributed to the Elect Nodler Committee were:
Sept. 5, 2001- John Winburn, listed as consultant, lobbyist for Altria, Bell South, Pfizer, Apple, $550
March 26, 2002- Tony Feather, lobbyist for Advocates for School Choice, AT&T, listed by his firm, Feather, Larsen and Synhorst, $575
March 29, 2002- Lance Beshore, officer and lobbyist for Leggett & Platt, listed as Leggett & Platt, $575
Oct. 22, 2002- J. Scott Marrs, lobbyist for Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce, city of Springfield, listed as governmental consultant, $150
Aug. 13, 2003- Gary Burton, lobbyist for city of Joplin, Isle of Capri casinos, Missouri Cable Telecommunications Association, Missouri Council of School Administrators, no employment listed, $150
Aug. 13, 2003- Kyna Iman, lobbyist for Missouri Southern State University, no employment listed, $150
Aug. 13, 2003- Stephen Murray, lobbyist for Aquila, no employment listed, $150
Aug. 28, 2003- Lance Beshore, lobbyist for Leggett & Platt, no employment listed
Sept. 9, 2003- David Klarich, lobbyist for AT&T, MOHELA, no employment listed, $200
Aug. 3, 2004- Sharon Beshore, wife of Lance Beshore, lobbyist for Leggett & Platt, no employment listed, $600
Aug. 10, 2004- Iman, no employment listed, $175
Aug 11, 2004- The Swain Group, a lobbying firm working for Missouri Energy Group and Verizon, listed by company name, $175
April 25, 2005- Marrs, no employment listed, $150
April 25, 2005- Burch & Associates, lobbying firm run by former State Representative Jerry Burch, lobbyist for Branson Area Chamber of Commerce, Missouri State University, $250
April 25, 2005- Iman, no employment listed, $150
April 25, 2005- Douglas Burnett, lobbyist for Association of Missouri Electric Cooperatives, no employment listed, $100
April 26, 2005- Mark Rhoads, lobbyist for AT&T, Blue Cross Blue Shield, no employment listed, $600
April 26, 2005- Gary Sharpe, lobbyist for Missouri Association of Elementary School Principals, Missouri Association of School Administrators, Missouri Council of School Administrators, no employment listed, $150
April 26, 2005- Penman & Winton Consulting Group, Inc., listed under business name, $250
June 17, 2005- William E. Shoehigh, lobbyist for Microsoft, Apollo Group (which donated $500 to Nodler), listed simply as "business," $100
Aug. 5, 2005- Gerald Grimaldi, lobbyist for Truman Medical Center, listed as Truman Medical Center, $100
Aug. 8, 2005- Roy Cagle, lobbyist for Missouri Finance Institute, listed as lobbyist, $250
Aug. 8, 2005- J. Scott Marrs, listed as governmental consultant, $300
Aug. 10, 2005- James Farrell, lobbyist for a number of St. Louis interests, listed as lobbyist, $175
Aug. 10, 2005- Iman, listed as lobbyist, $175
***
Nodler concluded his March 13 news release by writing, "Political campaigns should be conducted appropriately, responsibly and ethically to reflect the integrity of the candidate."
I couldn't have said it any better myself.
10 comments:
Randy, You must have it wrong, your suggestion that Nodler received only $5875 of the quarter of a million his campaign took in came from lobbyists makes Nodler appear way too pure, that can't be your point that 98% of his money didn’t come from lobbyists. It also appears that less than 2% came from these party committees and one of those is the 32nd district committee that exists for his district, the other is the 129th legislative district committee which is also in the 32nd district. These are the only 2 contributions I see from party committees and there doesn't seem to be any basis to support your claim that any of that money came from lobbyists. You seem to have made the point that Nodler practices what he preaches, not the opposite.
You are attempting to deflect the attention from the real point. It is hard to believe that it is an accident that all of those registered lobbyists did not have a place of employment listed. Also, seven out of every eight lobbyists were not listed as such. Apparently, someone thought it might not look good for a candidate to receive money from lobbyists, but was perfectly willing to accept the money.
Randy, What on earth are you doing? You make Nodler look like the cleanest politician in Missouri. As for you answer to the first comment you seem to be the one trying to avoid the point, lobbyists are not a significant source of funds to Nodler, you have proven it!
These comments just show Randy's ignorance. Lance Beshore for instance, while he registers as a lobbyist that is not his occupation. He is an executive for Leggett & Platt. To list lobbyist as his primary occupation would be incorrect. The same is true for Gary Sharpe. Mr. Sharpe is an association executive that registers as a lobbyist to comply with the law, but that is not his principal occupation. It is clear the Randy Turner doesn’t understand the law. This is another case of Turner trying to create an issue form his own ignorance.
I am fully aware of those things. I also firmly believe Missourians should be told when registered lobbyists are contributing to political campaigns. As for the one who says I have proven that Nodler is the cleanest politician around, I might add those are the contributions that came from the lobbyists themselves; they are not the contributions that have been arranged through the lobbyists, some of which I have pointed out in earlier posts.
Also remember, that these contributions are the ones that actually went directly into the Elect Nodler Committee funds. They do not include contributions that were laundered through the 32nd District Committee, the Nodler Leadership PAC, the 129th District Legislative Committee and others, all of which have either Tom Flanigan, a member of the Myers family, or both as treasurers.
Of course, that does not even include the money that is funneled into the local campaign coffers through the state committee and through legislative committees from other areas of the state.
All the General Assembly had to do was to eliminate these loopholes and keep the campaign contribution limits intact. Instead, they made things far easier on their bookkeepers and opened the door to hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions in campaign contributions.
What my post proved was that Senator Nodler said one thing in his news release, when he talked about openness in campaign contributions and knowing where they came from, and quite another when it came to his own disclosure forms.
What your post shows is that you are a chauvinist. You refer to Mrs. Beshore as the wife of a lobbyist, when you know that she is a woman of independent means deeply involved in state affairs particularly the arts. You also know that her husband’s primary occupation is as Vice-President of Leggett & Platt, not a lobbyist. It is like referring to Joann Woodward as the wife of salad dressing salesman Paul Newman, rather than as Academy award winning actress. The point is that you take things out of context and distort them and do so in a way that insults women!
Again, all I notice are people taking minor parts of my post and trying to distract readers from the main point. Fortunately, my readers are too intelligent to fall for this tactic, which I might add has been used unsuccessfully nearly every time I have made any post about Gary Nodler.
Randy, You start you posts trying to make a point, you call it “the main Point” when in reality it is just a point you are trying to make. When errors and inconsistencies are pointed out, you call them distractions instead of corrections. Time and again you show contempt for the truth when it is inconsistent with your "main point” This is the very kind of writing that has made you unemployable as a legitimate journalist
You have yet to show any errors or inconsistencies. You have only made minor points and have done absolutely nothing to disprove anything that I was saying. I also notice that your three comments were all made through the "anonymouse" service, meaning that not only are you not signing your name (which is perfectly all right), but you are even cloaking your computer. What a show of courage! Why not at least use a pen name of some kind or are you trying to make it look as if there is a groundswell of righteous indignation about my post?
You still have not addressed the main point. If Senator Nodler saw nothing wrong with accepting lobbyists' campaign contributions, why did it take him until August 2005 to actually identify a contributor as a lobbyist. You try to avoid the issue by bringing up the handful of people who could legitimately write down occupations other than lobbyist. How about all of the others who are full-time lobbyists and who have no occupation listed. That is not coincidence.
What damned difference does it make anyway? It looks like we are stuck with that cripple kicking jerk another four years anyway.
Post a Comment