Subscribe to breaking news alerts
Kline fined $1,500 for violating campaign finance law
March 16, 2006
Advertisement
Topeka — Atty. Gen. Phill Kline today was fined $1,500 for violating the state campaign finance law.
The Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission fined Kline for sending out solicitations for campaign contributions for a fund-raiser in February that featured former U.S. attorney general John Ashcroft.
Some of the solicitations were mailed to lobbyists. State officeholders are prohibited from asking lobbyists, businesses, political action committees, political parties and unions for campaign contributions from Jan. 1 until the legislative session officially ends, which is usually in late May.
"The commission did their job," Kline said after the commission unanimously approved the fine following a 15-minute closed-door session.
Prior to the executive session, Kline said during a hearing that the solicitation was an "honest mistake" that was commited by a political consultant that handled invitations to the Ashcroft event.
"I would agree that the mailing was a violation of the law," he said.
Kline said once the error was realized his office self-reported the violation to the Ethics Commission.
Sabrina Standifer, chairwoman of the Ethics Commission, said the fact that Kline self-reported the violation probably was a factor in the amount of the fine. Kline had faced a maximum fine of $5,000.
Subscribe to breaking news alerts
Follow LJWorld on Twitter
More like this
- Kline fined $1,500 for campaign finance violation 4 comments / March 17, 2006
- Kline faces ethics probe 37 comments / February 20, 2006
- Ethics Commission investigating Kline mailing 28 comments / February 21, 2006
- Governor's campaign fined for ethics violation 11 comments / April 27, 2006
- Ethics Commission investigates legislators 3 comments / June 20, 2006
Top ads RSS
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- Nation has right to ask ‘why?’ November 21, 2009 · 51 comments
- Palin stirs feminist ambivalence November 21, 2009 · 20 comments
- Mangino's contract outlines probe November 21, 2009 · 68 comments
- KU's Wright didn't approach Perkins November 21, 2009 · 12 comments
- Blog: Acting (Some Days, Most Days, Frequently And Occasionally) President Dan Wildcat Is Off Campus This Week . November 19, 2009 · 18 comments
- Nothing to lose: Reeling KU huge underdog for a change November 21, 2009 · 26 comments
- Blog: Palin Book Could Be Your Cheapest Source For Winter Fuel November 20, 2009 · 80 comments
- Blog: We Noticed November 19, 2009 · 124 comments
- Mangino denies validity of former player allegations November 19, 2009 · 158 comments
- On the street: Will you miss ‘The Oprah Winfrey’ show? November 21, 2009 · 20 comments
- Four decades in crisis mode November 21, 2009
- Winter sports officially begin for city schools November 17, 2009
- The cowboy way: Williamstown church ministry draws unique following November 21, 2009
- Mangino's contract outlines probe November 21, 2009
- Americans save more but earn less as interest rates fall November 21, 2009
- Obesity activist crossing country to urge American Indians to embrace healthier diet November 20, 2009
- A sad story November 19, 2009
- Method, committee makeup key to KU chancellor search December 13, 2008
- Leaders offer tips for chancellor’s successful tenure November 21, 2009
- On target November 21, 2009
16 March 2006
at 4:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Harry_Manback (Anonymous) says…
Well, I think it's about time someone busts Phill Kline for a change, instead of the other way around.
16 March 2006
at 4:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
raubinpierce (Anonymous) says…
Yea… himself….. He reported the violation when they found that they had inadvertently sent it to some registered lobbyist. Guess it proves that he is a man of integrity.
—
Raubin Pierce
On the Other Hand
Noon till 3pm on 580 WIBW
raubin.pierce@morris.com
http://www.raubinandmegan.com
16 March 2006
at 4:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kansaskev61 (Anonymous) says…
Hey, he stepped up to the plate, showed integrity and self-reported the violation. Did Billy boy step up to the plate and admit he cigared his intern. Not until he could no longer deny it! “Honesty is believeing what you are saying and feeling. Integrity is making it happen”. I think that quote came from Peter Drucker, but don't quote me on that!
16 March 2006
at 5:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Harry_Manback (Anonymous) says…
Well, I guess I didn't see that part…ooops.
16 March 2006
at 6:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Baille (Anonymous) says…
Man of integrity? It is a sad day when doing the right thing is cause for celebration.
He took the correct course of action and complied with the law. It is kind of what he is supposed to do as a lawyer and as the AG. I think that about covers it. Nothing to get excited about.
It certainly doesn't change the fact that he is a poor AG who cares more about political grandstanding than developing legally sound policy positions. It doesn't change the fact that he has seemingly confused easily digestible bumper-sticker slogans with deliberate and measured thought on the issues.
Ah well.
16 March 2006
at 6:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
It is bad when a guy does the right thing and gets criticized for it. Actually, that about 'splains Kline's term as AG.
16 March 2006
at 7:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Wilbur_Nether (Anonymous) says…
I'm having a difficult time understanding how this situation had anything to do with Clinton's situation, kansaskev61. They seem to me to be two completely separate issues.
16 March 2006
at 7:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
Observer, try to distance yourself from your KU religious studies mindset. Things will, after time, become clear. Take baby steps.
16 March 2006
at 7:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ouroboros (Anonymous) says…
Neocons, Republicans, evangelicals, Reaganites, etc., etc., just don't have tolerance for those who disagree with them, and use Bill Clinton as the epitome of the 'ungodliness' of our culture. They use righteousness as their shield, and how can one argue! They have God on their side. “They” are right, and “everyone else” is wrong. So much for diversity…
16 March 2006
at 7:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
xenophonschild (Anonymous) says…
Bill Clinton is now “William the Great.” Compared to the cowboy lollipop we have now, Slick Willie looks pretty good by comparison. You fundie lovers, conservative Republicans, need to get on your knees and pray for forgiveness.
And Phill (that's Phill, with two ll's) is what Baille so succinctly described: a grandstanding panderer. Phill was censured by the ethics board for lawyers, twice, for stealing money from clients - how he managed to get elected is one of the great unexplored mysteries in the annals of Kansas politics - and then he found a state job for a nephew in the wake of that unfortunate's conviction for possession of marijuana. Perhaps many of you Phill fans have already forgotten that, only a few weeks ago, he tried mightily to have teenagers under 16 who grope each other declared sex criminals.
Oh yeah, let's get rid of this slimeball. And get rid of the trogs on the State Board of Education too.
16 March 2006
at 10:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Hawkarma (Anonymous) says…
Two words:
Paul Morrison
17 March 2006
at 12:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Well…let's see here..
Slick Willie KlinTon doesn't know what constitutes “sechsul relations”; tried to convice the American people that oral sex was not any form of sexual relations, , was cited for contempt of Congress. was disbarred by the Arkansas Bar Association, disbarred by the United States Supreme Court, lied to Congress and the American People….
Phil Kline found an error, reported it to the compenetent authority; accepted and paid the fine…..
Gee, I'm having some difficulty in finding “ethical problems” in what Kline did.
US campaign finance laws are so complex that it is virtually impossible for a candidatae to NOT be in vioplation at some point; at least in someone's eyes!
By the way, I am NOT a “religious conservative”, even though I understand that folks who profess any kind of moral fibre scare the daylihgts out of you.
Thanks.
Marion.
17 March 2006
at 5:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Baille (Anonymous) says…
Kline didn't act so ethical last year when his lack of legal acumen was being pointed out:
“Kline's initial responses were troubling. He admitted that he attached sealed court records to a brief he knew would be unsealed; that he did so knowingly because, in his sole estimation, he believed it to be necessary to further his arguments; that he held a press conference on this criminal matter merely because he determined that petitioners had painted his previous actions in an unflattering light; and that he later permitted his staff to provide electronic copies of the sealed transcript to anyone who requested them. In essence, Kline has told this court that he did what he did simply because he believed that he knew best how he should behave, regardless of what this court had ordered, and that his priorities should trump whatever priorities this court had set. Furthermore, although there is conflict between the parties on exactly what was said in the press conference, i.e. whether the actual content of the sealed documents was discussed, Kline's stated reason for holding the conference — to combat what he saw as unflattering earlier press coverage — does not appear to be among the permissible reasons for an attorney in his position to engage in extrajudicial statements under Kansas Rule of Professional Conduct 3.6 (2005 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 473). This too is troubling.”
17 March 2006
at 5:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
xenophonschild (Anonymous) says…
Yes, Bill Clinton is “William the Great,” not just for the gilded accomplishment of his eight years in office, but also for who and what he is now. Many of you forget he, successfully, prosecuted a war in Bosnia that ended a foul, murderous regime … without significant loss of American life or treasure. So what if dallied in the Oval Office; that was an improvement over having Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, and Don Rumsfeld fill the present occupant's head full of “delusions of grandeur” about how the Iraqis would welcome American troops the same way the French did in 1944.
We owe Baille a round of applause. He pulled the veil off good ol' Phill and exposed him for the grandstanding, self-indulgent twit he truly is. Good on you, Baille!
17 March 2006
at 6:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
xenophonschild (Anonymous) says…
God is an abstraction that controls matter. Anyone who is not angry at the “rightthinkers” who have decimated our country, ruined our financial health, ruined our standing overseas, and imperiled our future is not fully awake.
You heard it here first: conservative Republicans are very much like selfish children. They care only about themselves, any variable or nuance of anything that does not relate to them and what they want is immaterial … or “liberal” … or “ungodly.” Red-staters, conservatives, are a curse on our people, our society.
Thank god liberal Democrats exist to make things right.
17 March 2006
at 9:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Baille (Anonymous) says…
“God help all you angry, misguided liberals.”
Who is angry? The only angry people I hear are the neo-cons ranting and hollering on the radio.
“It must be hard.”
Wow. From Bill Clinton to this. Do we really need to go here? :)
17 March 2006
at 11:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ouroboros (Anonymous) says…
Rightthinker, I'm grateful for you, Rush, and your ilk. You help the world realize who is “angry and misguided.” I would only add “intolerant” to that.
17 March 2006
at 3:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
Baille did not source the quote. This, too, is troubling.
17 March 2006
at 3:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Baille (Anonymous) says…
It is the Supreme Court's opinion on the medical records issue and Kline's inquest.
You can;t do your own d*** Google search? I have to do everything? :)
Check it for yourself, Godot: http://www.kscourts.org/kscases/supct…
17 March 2006
at 4:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
Thanks.
17 March 2006
at 5:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Baille (Anonymous) says…
Welcome.
17 March 2006
at 6:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
Baille, again, thanks for linking to your source, the KS Supreme Court decision that ordered the abortion clinics to release the subpoenaed patient records to the court for review.
Your excerpt is an example of “pick and choose” documentation that can distort the truth. Here are the following, qualifying, and redemptive, remarks by Judge Anderson:
“At oral argument before this court, Kline's lawyer, a former four-term attorney general, wisely altered the tone of Kline's response. He characterized whatever mistakes Kline may have made as honest ones and said his client was acting in good faith. He also, as Kline eventually had done for himself in his written response, made a classic “no harm, no foul” argument: Any disclosure of sealed material did nothing to impair the orderly nature of this proceeding or the soundness of its eventual result; the attorney general and his staff did not release information harmful to personal privacy, prejudicial to the administration of justice, or detrimental to this court's performance of its duties.
We conclude that, despite the attorney general's initial defiant tone, he should not be held in contempt at this time. No prejudice has resulted from his conduct, a distinguishing feature of the cases cited to us by petitioners. See, e.g., United States v. Cutler, 58 F.3d 825, 837 (2d Cir. 1995) (criminal contempt; comments willful and likely to prejudice proceedings); United States v. Dubon-Otero, 98 F. Supp. 2d 187, 192 (D. Puerto Rico 2000) (inherent power to sanction counsel; behavior amounted to abuse of judicial process); In re Holley, 285 App. Div. 2d 216, 221, 729 N.Y.S.2d 128 (2001) (disciplinary case; public censure for disclosing sealed document to journalist).
This is a highly unusual case, the first in memory when this court has required public briefs and oral argument on a sealed record. Although we believe this directive was more challenging than confusing, and although the actions complained of here might well be characterized as criminal contempt in a different case, we are inclined to grant the attorney general the benefit of the doubt here. This is an unusually high-profile case attracting keen public interest throughout the state. We caution all parties to resist any impulse to further publicize their respective legal positions, which may imperil the privacy of the patients and the law enforcement objectives at the heart of this proceeding. ”
Kudos to Kline for pushing the envelope to see that crimes against children are uncovered and future ones prevented.
17 March 2006
at 9:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Baille (Anonymous) says…
Pushing the ethical envelope to continue his witchhunt? When the same result could have been reached without the drama and the spotlights? Whatever.
I didn't pick and choose anything, Godot. I quoted the unanimous Supreme Court opinion by Justice Breier. (Judge Anderson had nothing to do with it.) Her closing paragraph was not “redemptive.” It was: “You deliberately violated a court order. Repeatedly. You were an arrogant jerk about it. Stephan made a good point in that it didn't do any real harm. Don't do it again or we are going to nail you.” Oooooh. Redemption via criminal contempt. Just what we are looking for in a responsible AG.
By the way, Stephan was a Kansas AG for nigh on a century. He knows how the AG should handle himself, and knew how to save Kline's bacon. Too bad Kline's isn't more professional like Stephan.
And Ed Schulz? Is he the loudmouthed boor on 1320? God, he is like a Rush wannabe with a bad southern accent. But let's see: Agar, Foreman, Hannity, Rush, O'Reilly, Raubin and Megan, Boortz, and on and on and on and on. I think you neo-cons still have the progressives beat on loud, boorish, and shallow.
17 March 2006
at 10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
The Left becomes desperate when the Right adopts the tactics of the Left to win legal battles.
They are sooooooo verklempt when faced with someone who is willing to go to the mat to fight for the life of a child.
17 March 2006
at 10:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
Really, Baille, where did all that jazz about radio commentators come from? Please, find your center. Thumb to forefinger, deep inhale, exhale and hohmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Don't you just hate it when people listen to something other than NPR and read something other than the NYT, and when they ask for sources so that they can put inflammatory and misleading posts in context rather than let them go unchallenged?
18 March 2006
at 6:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Baille (Anonymous) says…
“Really, Baille, where did all that jazz about radio commentators come from?”
It was a response to Arminius who asked me if I had ever heard of Ed Schultz.
“Don't you just hate it when people listen to something other than NPR and read something other than the NYT, and when they ask for sources so that they can put inflammatory and misleading posts in context rather than let them go unchallenged?”
Not at all. My comments stand on their own. Most people who are involved in the continuing Kline conversation have read the opinion. Sorry you weren't familar with it, but I am glad to have helped you find it. I stand by what I said in both previous posts. Kline acted contemptuously and he did it not to “go for the mat for the life of a child” - after all he could have gotten all the same records without resort to the Supreme Court, but he chose to do it in the way that would get him the most press - he did it because people were making him look stupid. Shocker.
Moving on, rather than ask for sources, I would like to see you go out and find them yourself. The media coverage about this issue is pretty dead-on, and the Court's opinion is short and to the point. Kline has fallen down on other issues as well including Limon and his change to the enforcement of the mandated reporter laws. You will have to find those on your own.
18 March 2006
at 8:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
phillkline (Anonymous) says…
The following is a brief recitation of the facts relating the invesitation being public.
1) My office inititated the investigation, as all are done, with a lower court filing and my request that the investigation remain sealed.
2) The investigation continued sealed until the clinics, after losing a motion to quash the subpeonas, filed an original action with the Kansas Supreme Court. This is called a mandamus action and was under seal to comply with the lower court's order granting our motion to keep the investigation private.
3) With the mandamus action, the clinics filed a motion to make the investigation public.
4) I filed a response opposing making the investigation public. This is my general policy as doing such harms reputational interests and also jepardizes the investigation.
5) The Kansas Supreme Court granted the clinics motion and soon after the clinics held a news conference about the investigation.
6) I responded with our written brief one week later and made myself available to the media that day.
This is the manner in which this issue became public.
Sincerely,
Phill Kline
18 March 2006
at 10:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Baille (Anonymous) says…
Kline's initial responses were troubling. He admitted that he attached sealed court records to a brief he knew would be unsealed; that he did so knowingly because, in his sole estimation, he believed it to be necessary to further his arguments; that he held a press conference on this criminal matter merely because he determined that petitioners had painted his previous actions in an unflattering light; and that he later permitted his staff to provide electronic copies of the sealed transcript to anyone who requested them. In essence, Kline has told this court that he did what he did simply because he believed that he knew best how he should behave, regardless of what this court had ordered, and that his priorities should trump whatever priorities this court had set. Furthermore, although there is conflict between the parties on exactly what was said in the press conference, i.e. whether the actual content of the sealed documents was discussed, Kline's stated reason for holding the conference — to combat what he saw as unflattering earlier press coverage — does not appear to be among the permissible reasons for an attorney in his position to engage in extrajudicial statements under Kansas Rule of Professional Conduct 3.6 (2005 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 473). This too is troubling.
18 March 2006
at 10:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Baille (Anonymous) says…
Oh and Phill, not only did you intentionally violate a court order, you conducted the investigation in a way that unnecessarily revealed the names and private health information of medical patients to court officials as you pursued your inquisition. You could have established probable cause specific to each individual by using redacted records, and then getting the unredacted records upon a showing that such records would be relevant to a potential criminal case. Instead you chose the way that would get you press coverage. Bravo, Phill. Bravo.
“— to combat what he saw as unflattering earlier press coverage —”
That is the manner in which the AG nearly got dinged by the disciplinary committee.
:)
19 March 2006
at 5:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
Baille, you should try breaking your rants up into paragraphs. Think of a paragraph break as a deep, cleasing breath. It helps to clear the mind.
As I said earlier, “ohmmmmmmmmmmmm.”
19 March 2006
at 8:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Baille (Anonymous) says…
Rants? Whatever.
You are more interesting when you are discussing and/or arguing the issues. This junior high stuff is boring.