GOP blogger decries fee office conspiracy theorists

GOP flak John Hancock, who recently entered the blogging world with The Pulse (you can find it on the links list on the right side of this page), parrots the party line today with another attack on critics of Governor Matt Blunt's license fee office operation:

Despite an avalanche of facts to the contrary, Missouri Democrats continue to cling to unfounded conspiracies relating to the state’s fee office system. However, while the black helicopters continue to circle over the MDP headquarters, AG Jay Nixon has recently taken to soliciting campaign donations from the very scourge of his fellow Democrats—fee offices. According to sources, Nixon recently sent a rambling doom-and-gloom filled fundraising memo to multiple fee offices soliciting their support for his gubernatorial candidacy. Nixon’s actions will almost certainly serve as a buzz-kill for those in the pro-Nixon conspiracy camp, but we’re sure they’ll concoct a new amusing theory to buttress their gaffe-prone candidate.

While I don't condone the idea of Jay Nixon sending fundraising memos to fee offices, if that is what happened, it is becoming increasingly clear that John Hancock's idea of dealing with legitimate stories involving Republican transgressions is to keep saying there is nothing to it and hope it goes away- and while you're at it, take a few cheap shots at those who are writing about those transgressions.

While I would be the last person to say that everything that has been claimed about the license fee office scandal has turned out to be true, there is definitely more than enough information to show that what was done, while it may have been legal (and that is still questionable), it was far from ethical.

Simply examine the May 13 Turner Report, or this post, also from May 13.

Hancock used the same tired approach in dealing with the Democratic party's charges that Rep. Carl Bearden:

Heck, the Democrats got coverage this week with a feeble attack on Rep. Carl Bearden’s data collection work for an association that amounted to "a little over $1,000." And while the Bearden non-issue somehow merited press attention, Nixon’s oversight of a foundation that has doled out millions to his allies remains largely ignored.

Apparently, Hancock sees no problems with legislators being on the payroll of special interests and then making decisions that benefit those special interests. I have no way of knowing how much Carl Bearden made from his work for the Missouri Health Care Association, but I do know that wasn't the only payment he received from the lobbying organization. As I noted in the May 29 Turner Report:

But there is more to Carl Bearden's relationship with the Missouri Health Care Association than is mentioned in the Democratic Party's news release.

An examination of campaign finance documents filed with the Missouri Ethics Commission indicates Bearden receives his pay from Missouri Health Care Association in more than one way.
In the first quarter disclosure form filed in April, Bearden received $100 from lobbyist Harvey Tettlebaum, whose clients include MHCA.

A total of $1,750 in contributions came from clients of powerhouse lobbyist William Gamble, who added Missouri Health Care Association to his client list in October 2006. Bearden's disclosure form shows $500 from the Emergency Medicine PAC, $750 from the Missouri Pharmacy PAC, and $500 from the Missouri Physician Assistant Committee, all Gamble clients.

Missouri Health Care Association's disclosure form, filed with the Ethics Commission, shows it contributed $650 to the Bearden campaign on March 1. No such contribution is shown on Bearden's campaign documents.

Another example of the organization's generosity to Bearden can be seen in the 30 days after the primary election report, filed Sept. 5, 2006. Bearden's contribution list included then-maximum $325 contributions from MHCA District 1, MHCA District 2, MHCA lobbyist Scott Swain, and MHCA Executive Director Jon Dolan.