Nixon’s Latest Courtroom Conflict
Posted by: John Hancock | 10:30am | Permalink

Missouri’s small business community has a voice in the pending legal challenge to 2005 pro-business workers comp reforms currently being argued before the Missouri Supreme Court. However, if the NFIB, Associated Industries of Missouri and the Associated Home Builders & Contractors had not gotten involved in the matter and buttressed the state’s defense, the case would have left Attorney General Jay Nixon, an ATLA member and 2005 reform opponent, to defend the reforms against some of his best buddies—the trial lawyers and labor unions who brought the suit.

This case is just the latest incident that illustrates the necessity for a serious ethics overhaul in the Attorney General’s office. Since 2005 alone, lawyers, firms and interest groups involved in the pending case—Nixon’s so-called opponents—have donated more than $75,000 to his campaign committee. Making matters even more unseemly is the fact DOLIR records show Nixon’s lawyer buddies on the case have combined to handle over 1,000 Second Injury Fund claims since 2005, and that doesn’t even include the millions of dollars in total payouts for claims filed by a number of the lawyers dating back to the beginning of Nixon’s tenure.

For Nixon, the case is just the latest in a long, long line of courtroom conflicts that have become all too common during his tenure as Attorney General. Fortunately, Missouri’s small business community is well-represented, not by Nixon, but by the groups that saw fit to buttress the state’s defense of the 2005 reforms.

Blunt To Appear On Lou Dobbs Show Tonight
Posted by: John Hancock | 3:40pm | Permalink

This just in via press release:

JEFFERSON CITY - Gov. Matt Blunt will be a guest on CNN’s Lou Dobbs Tonight with Lou Dobbs Thursday, November 29, during the second half of the show between 6:30 p.m. and 7 p.m. CDT.

This week Gov. Blunt added to his tough directives to fight illegal immigration by announcing he will seek legislation that bars the state from issuing Missouri driver licenses to illegal immigrants and imposing criminal penalties for those who assist illegals in obtaining driver licenses. Gov. Blunt will discuss his plan on Lou Dobbs tonight.

Liberals You Know vs. Liberals You Don’t
Posted by: John Hancock | 12:40pm | Permalink

This morning, the political world is abuzz over news that not one, but four, Democratic plants—a Hillary Clinton steering committee member, known supporters of Barack Obama and John Edwards and a union activist—were allowed by CNN to question Republican presidential contenders during last night’s YouTube debate.

I, for one, am disappointed that CNN would allow this to happen in one of the few debate formats in which Republicans should be, at least in theory, immune from the usual smattering of questions from liberal pundits. Instead, CNN’s screeners let not one, but four, “regular” people present questions without any disclosure that they were either working for or openly supporting Democratic candidates and causes. I’d much rather watch Republicans spar with Chris Matthews, a liberal I know, than watch a supposedly ordinary guy present a question drafted by Hillary Clinton’s message team.

As for the Democrats behind this, who can blame them for taking advantage of the porous screening by the pushovers at CNN? At least three campaigns successfully blitzed CNN, and their efforts are now the talk of the town. Fortunately, Republicans, who are becoming increasingly aware of the necessity of independent research and vetting, have widened the net from one plant to four. If only CNN would do its job so others would not have to do it for them.

From A Pulse Reader In The St. Louis Area...
Posted by: John Hancock | 9:50am | Permalink

Separated at birth? Nixon witch hunt member Chet Pleban and Will Ferrell’s Ron Burgundy of “Anchorman” fame.
(see post below for more information on Pleban)

Nixon’s Circus Adds A Ring
Posted by: John Hancock | 4:45pm | Permalink

Around the time the MRP outed the third and final member of Jay Nixon’s Smear-Matt-Blunt committee as a Democrat, another committee member succumbed to scrutiny over his ties to Democrats and jumped ship. Rather than throw in the towel on his embarrassing and politically engineered witch hunt, Nixon made arguably his worst decision since he tried to defend his illegal use of his state vehicle a few weeks back.

Earlier today, Nixon named Chet Pleban, a stereotypical big city criminal defense lawyer, to the vacated committee spot. Apparently, Pleban has time to fit a partisan witch hunt into a busy schedule that has recently included representing sex offenders who live near schools, defending a former U.S. Attorney charged with committing sex crimes, challenging capital punishment in Missouri via his defense of a convicted killer, defending a former St. Louis area fire chief accused of stealing $200,000 in public money and disparaging a state legislative effort to permit law abiding citizens to protect themselves in their own homes against Pleban’s prospective clientele. On top of all that, Pleban, like Nixon, has never seen a camera he didn’t like and has a knack for becoming embroiled in political controversies. If Nixon was hoping his replacement pick would somehow stem the tide of scrutiny his unraveling witch hunt has endured, he is sorely mistaken.

Judge Nostradamus
Posted by: John Hancock | 12:45pm | Permalink

In 1999, then-Cole County Judge Thomas Brown was in the midst of overseeing the contentious Blue Cross conversion case that played a role in the eventual creation of the Missouri Foundation for Health (MFH) by Attorney General Jay Nixon. After years of litigation, Nixon was on the verge of getting the green light to create the MFH, and just one person stood in his way—Judge Brown.

In March, Brown put a temporary kybosh on Nixon’s plan when he announced he would not approve an agreement, because it granted Nixon too much authority over the proposed foundation. Brown argued Nixon’s involvement would present a conflict-of-interest and asserted, “He needs to be out of the process.”¹ Any doubts regarding the legitimacy of Brown’s concerns ended when word spread that he was contemplating the creation of a court-directed foundation as an alternative to Nixon’s contested plan. In a short-lived effort to placate Brown’s conflict of interest concerns, Nixon even offered to remove himself from overseeing certain aspects of the foundation.²

After months of gridlock, things boiled over when Brown reiterated a list of longstanding concerns and rejected a settlement agreement. Brown’s rejection prompted Nixon to seek a legal avenue to bypass Brown. In December 1999, the Missouri Supreme Court gave Nixon an early Christmas present when it permitted him to bypass Brown, which effectively cleared the path for the creation of the MFH.³

The rest is history. Nixon created the foundation for the intended purpose of serving uninsured Missourians, burdened the board and advisory “watchdog” committee with Democratic donors, activists, labor bosses and trial lawyers, and then watched on as they approved the allocation of millions of dollars in grants to pro-abortion groups, Democratic front groups, liberal think tanks and organizations that openly serve illegal immigrants. And just this week, Missouri Pulse released e-mails that illustrate Nixon’s ongoing and unseemly chokehold on the foundation.

In 1999, Judge Brown saw this coming and red-flagged the potential for a conflict of interest. Anyone know what he’s got to say about the upcoming Mizzou-Oklahoma game?

_______
¹ P-D, 3/21/1999
² P-D, 3/24/1999
³ AP, 12/10/1999

A First For Nixon?
Posted by: John Hancock | 6:40pm | Permalink

The CDT’s Politics Blog reports that Missouri NEA pawn Jay Nixon has publicly refused to accept donations from conservative education reformer Rex Sinquefield in the event donations are offered. Nixon’s sanctimonious and utterly hypocritical grandstanding may very well be the first known instance in his two decades in elected office that he has refused a donation.

While Nixon self-righteously refuses to accept hypothetical support from Sinquefield for purely political reasons, nobody is certain why he has accepted so much support from so many truly controversial sources over the years. Among the entities and individuals Nixon has proudly accepted donations and support from—often during ongoing litigation or an investigation:

• Ameren; while investigating the Taum Sauk disaster

• Other utilities and corporations included in his Consumer Complaint database

• Big Tobacco

• Trial lawyers he hired to fight Big Tobacco/fleece Missouri taxpayers

• Trial lawyers who continue to bring dozens, and in some instances hundreds, of claims before the nearly insolvent Second Injury Fund overseen by Nixon

• Did I mention he takes lots and lots—wheel barrels full of money—from trial lawyers?

• Insurance executive: hosted a fundraiser for Nixon during suit; remarks by judge: “Won’t that be fine if that comes out in the public that the attorney general’s meeting with the head of Blue Cross in the middle of litigation talking to him about raising funds for his political campaign and talking about how we’ll settle your case for you. That’s awful.” (P-D, March 24, 1999)

• Every Tom, Dick and Harry involved with the notorious Nixon family sewage plant—“one of the worst in the state” according to environmental regulators

• Casinos: “[Nixon] displays an incredible myopia in that he accepts campaign contributions from casinos and officials of casinos. As the state's top law enforcement officer, he has no business taking money from casino interests, legal or not.” (Rich Hood, KC Star, October 23, 1996)

• Nursing homes over which he has legal oversight

• Wacko environmentalist and anti-defense groups

• PACs of Sens. Ted Kennedy and Harry Reid

• Labor unions accused of fleecing taxpayers and racial discrimination

• Developers seeking MHDC business

• Opposing lawyer/Top adviser Charles Hatfield during pending state campaign finance suit

• Missouri Foundation for Health appointees and CEO

• His own staff (Wouldn’t have noted it had he not pledged to bar such donations)

• Don Henley (for those who can’t stand the Eagles)

Tic-Toc-Tic-Toc
Posted by: John Hancock | 1:00pm | Permalink

With recent polling data disclosing a November nosedive for Hillary Clinton in Iowa and against potential Republican nominees, pundits are pondering when she will unleash the hounds of war and go negative. In his latest NY Post column, former Clinton consigliere Dick Morris recants the Clintonian history of negative campaigning dating back to Bill’s days as Arkansas governor and outlines how he believes Hillary may go nuclear on Obama. If Morris is correct, Obama, who is anything but battle tested, may soon realize the utility of Clinton’s team of private investigators.

Nixon’s Posse
Posted by: John Hancock | 9:25am | Permalink

Yesterday, it was reported, via the MRP, that another member of Jay Nixon’s Smear-Matt-Blunt committee has Democratic ties. Out of the three committee members handpicked by Nixon one has identified himself as a Democrat and another has ties to Craig Hosmer, Nixon’s campaign treasurer, and is reported to have an axe to grind with Blunt.

Aside from the fact that 2/3 of Nixon’s posse has Democratic ties, Nixon handpicked them and directs them. Without a semblance of independence, who knows which of Nixon’s trial lawyer buddies with a vested interest in the outcome of any "investigation" are in the loop? And what about Nixon’s campaign team? Will they also be in the loop? Such questions are relevant considering Nixon’s penchant for ethical lapses and his general disregard for rules, laws, etc. Even if Nixon was not running against Blunt, the composition of this politically engineered committee and its lack of independence from Nixon make it a farce and give credence to claims that Nixon is conducting a witch hunt.

Blunt Tackles Driver’s License Issue
Posted by: John Hancock | 5:30pm | Permalink

With more and more voters turning to state leaders to combat illegal immigration, Governor Matt Blunt has announced he will support state legislation to prohibit illegal immigrants from obtaining driver’s licenses. The announcement is the latest component in Blunt’s burgeoning plan to combat illegal immigration in Missouri.

While Blunt has taken the driver’s license issue head on, his likely 2008 opponent, Attorney General Jay Nixon, has remained silent and for good reason. In 2002, Nixon stood on the sidelines following reports that an illegal immigrant had been working in the office of then-Governor Bob Holden, and Holden’s staffers had assisted the immigrant’s daughter in an effort to obtain a driver’s license.

As if Nixon’s inaction in 2002 isn’t bad enough, he has long supported allowing illegal immigrants access to various taxpayer funded services (see pg. 9 of survey), and he created and oversees a foundation that has awarded $875,000 to a St. Louis clinic that once estimated 2/3 of its patients were undocumented immigrants. Despite Nixon’s support for a do-nothing approach on illegal immigration, Missouri Pulse fully expects him to forsake consistency and get behind Blunt’s latest proposal.

UPDATE on 11/27 @ 6:30am:  Late yesterday, Nixon piggybacked on Blunt's plan and announced he also opposed the issuance of driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.  Nixon's announcement marked his first known utterance on the issue in nearly 15 years as Attorney General.  However, he couldn't leave well-enough alone and deemed Blunt's plan a "political stunt."  

Correspondence Illustrates Nixon Clout With Foundation
Posted by: John Hancock | 10:05am | Permalink

Since April, Missouri Pulse has scrutinized the diversion of millions of dollars in grants from the stated purpose of the Missouri Foundation for Health (MFH), which was created by and is overseen by Attorney General Jay Nixon for the purpose of serving uninsured Missourians. Highlighted diversions include millions in grants to liberal and Democratic front groups such as the Missouri Budget Project, GRO, a Pro-Vote offshoot, the NEA and Jobs with Justice to name a few. And lest we forget the $500,000 awarded to pro-abortion groups such as Planned Parenthood and NARAL and $875,000 to a St. Louis clinic that once estimated 2/3 of its patients were undocumented immigrants.

Unsurprisingly, Nixon’s heavy handed and politically charged oversight has been grating on some at the MFH. Nixon exerts significant authority via appointments to the so-called “watchdog” committee that oversees grant awards and appoints board members. He also has clout over MFH bylaws.

A February 2004 P-D story indicated the development of a “power struggle” between the MFH and Nixon over a contested board election. By early 2006, word had spread that some at the MFH were lobbying an intransigent Nixon for greater “independence” over concerns stemming from his gubernatorial bid and the controversial nature of certain grants later highlighted by this site. More recently, word has spread that Nixon may relent and grant the MFH greater “independence” from his oversight this December on the heels of ongoing scrutiny of the foundation, but it seems “independence” would be impossible and ill-advised considering the MFH’s present composition of numerous Nixon appointees and Democrat donors.

To illustrate just how much control Nixon continues to wield over the MFH, Missouri Pulse is pleased to present a timeline and PDFs (4/3/07 memo to Nixon and subsequent e-mail strain) of some rather interesting correspondence between MFH CEO James Kimmey, Nixon and Nixon’s deputy chief of staff Doug Nelson.

Considering Nixon’s recent interest in launching investigations, this site recommends he drop any and all plans to grant the MFH the “independence” to operate freely with a board and advisory committee comprised of numerous Nixon appointees and Democrat donors. Nixon should also immediately cease his office’s unseemly political coordination with the MFH on state time, and he should either invite legislative scrutiny or set up a selection process through which an outside party would sever his present MFH oversight and plot a course so the foundation may fully realize its intended purpose to serve uninsured Missourians in either a bipartisan or nonpartisan fashion.

MFH-Nixon Correspondence Timeline, 4/3/2007-11/5/2007

4/3: In a letter to Nixon, Kimmey requested “accelerating your [Nixon’s] decision-making” re: increased “independence” for the MFH. Kimmey noted the subject had been breached “on several occasions” with Nixon and voiced concern that Nixon’s gubernatorial bid would result in scrutiny of the MFH. Kimmey’s political analysis of the situation: “It appears that the situation we anticipated is now imminent. The web site Missouri-Pulse.com (sic), with which I am sure you are familiar, is carrying a teaser concerning support of public interest groups by ‘an unexpected public source that is tightly linked to a prominent elected official. We believe that this is the opening salvo in an attempt [to] use the Foundation and your relationship to it as a pawn in the 08 campaign. In our view, that would be harmful to the Foundation, its grantees and the campaign.”

5/1 @ 7:47am: Kimmey e-mailed top Nixon deputy Doug Nelson re: a Pulse post on the MFH’s grant allocations to the Missouri Budget Project. Kimmey: “Just in case you haven’t seen it. This is precisely what the Board has been and is concerned about, and will only get worse. Any word on our request for a speeded up timetable?”

5/2 @ 4:12pm: A couple hours after the Pulse disclosed MFH grants to Planned Parenthood and NARAL, Kimmey e-mailed Nelson re: the blog post and to alert Nixon’s press staff that the P-D’s Mannies had contacted the Missouri Budget Project with questions re: MFH grants.

5/2 @ 4:34pm: In another e-mail to Nelson, Kimmey informed him of a call he received from Mannies. Money collusion quote: “I stressed as Jay does that we had never received pressure or suggestions concerning grantmaking from the AG …” Kimmey believed Mannies “will criticize the Republicans for raising the issue”, but the story could have legs “downstream.” Kimmey closed e-mail with an exclamatory: “Help!”

5/8 @ 5:06pm: Kimmey e-mailed Nelson re: concerns about legislation that sought to remove Nixon’s oversight of the MFH. Kimmey also referenced a Pulse post that referred to the MFH as the “AG’s ‘slush fund.’” Kimmey closing, “We need action.”

5/14 @ 9:30am: In an e-mail to Nelson, Kimmey mistakenly rebuffed Pulse scrutiny by assuming the site has “miniscule” readership. (Tell that to the thousands of readers who visit each week!) Kimmey went on to voice concern that Rep. Carl Bearden might take the MFH to task via legislative fiat, but the board would not succumb to legislative compromises that would require the MFH to stop funding controversial grantees.

Kimmey said the board would discuss political concerns during a 5/17 meeting, and he sought clarification from Nelson to tackle “hard questions” from board members. Among his requested clarifications: 1) Nixon’s awareness of Pulse blogging, 2) Nixon’s plan to authorize changes in his “relationship” with the MFH in December, 3) Nixon’s decision to wait to on such changes until it would not seem to be done in reaction to Pulse scrutiny and 4) united MFH and Nixon opposition to legislative efforts to check Nixon’s MFH authority. Kimmey closed by asserting he wanted to be on the same page as Nixon re: messaging as the P-D was taking a growing interest in the issue.

5/18 @ 3:59pm: Kimmey informed Nelson of board discussion re: blogging and legislative issues, the possible retention of special counsel to challenge legislative challenges and he directed attention to Bearden’s call for constituents to contact the MFH re: controversial grants.

6/5 @ 3:56pm: Kimmey griped to Nelson that the MFH continued to take “unwarranted hits” from the Pulse, and he noted his concern re: a Tony Messenger blog post that suggested the story should “break out of the blogosphere.” Kimmey: “I find it increasingly difficult to understand how this whole matter can be considered anything but a direct attack on the AG. . . . Our concern for the credibility of the Foundation continues.” Kimmey closed by asking if any progress was being made re: a “solution.”

7/9 @ 12:39pm: In a mass e-mail to MFH members and unnamed Attorney General staffers, Kimmey gave a detailed report of Sunshined documents reviewed by members of Public Pulse Research staff earlier that morning.

11/1 @ 12:00pm: Kimmey sent Nelson a copy of an MRP release announcing the launch of a radio ad that took Nixon to task for his oversight of the MFH.

Steyn Talks Thanksgiving
Posted by: John Hancock | 10:50am | Permalink

Missouri Pulse wishes everyone a Happy Thanksgiving. And, yes, that means the best of wishes to Jay Nixon, Claire McCaskill and all others this site has differed with in recent months. The only possible exclusion would be Kansas’ football team—at least not until they are given a good drubbing by Mizzou.

(Psssst, Jay, now would be a great time to take this site’s advice and have that long overdue talk with your dad about that embattled family sewage plant that threatens to undermine your enviro record. Make sure to do it after Thanksgiving dinner though, so you don’t gross everyone out.)

In closing, be sure to check out the Thanksgiving column from the always entertaining Mark Steyn, who somehow manages to hammer home plenty of reasons to be thankful via a comparative European history lesson.

A Match Made In...
Posted by: John Hancock | 10:00am | Permalink

Many on both sides of the aisle have long wondered what exactly happened to the Missouri Democratic Party. Since losing the legislature and the Governor’s Mansion, there has been no direction, no vision and no agenda from the once proud party that formerly ran the political gamut in Missouri.

If you want to know where the party and its leaders stand on relevant issues, your best bet is to identify where Governor Matt Blunt and Republican legislative leaders stand and put the Democrats down as across-the-board opponents of whatever positions the Republicans hold. It’s knee-jerk, reactionary and thoughtless, and that sums up the present state of things at the MDP. The party is more interested in producing a childish anti-Blunt video game—yes, a video game—than tackling the issues of the day, or better yet, extricating itself from the political rut it has been stuck in for years.

Things have gotten so bad for state Democrats that Attorney General Jay Nixon, long considered a pariah and a political lightweight within his own party, has secured a foothold. Aside from the ample baggage that accompanies a career politician like Nixon, he has a 20-year record that offers nothing in the way of a direction, vision or an agenda—attributes that continue to elude the party’s grasp. While Nixon may lack leadership, his political style will mesh well with the current crew at the MDP.

Nixon’s career has been marked by two competitive statewide campaigns—his first bid for Attorney General in 1992 and his failed U.S. Senate bid in 1998. In both contests, Nixon employed cutthroat tactics that often backfired in an effort to compensate for his glaring lack of substance and vision.

The 1992 contest for Attorney General was considered by many to be one of the nastiest statewide contests in state history. During that campaign, Nixon falsely accused his Republican opponent of being a “deadbeat dad”¹, he pulled an ad after being accused of forging newspaper headlines², and he was repeatedly criticized for flinging “hyped-up” charges of ethical impropriety with “careless abandon.”³ In a November column, the P-D’s Bill McClellan asserted, “By the end of the campaign, most voters probably felt both candidates belonged in jail.”⁴

Six years later, Roll Call magazine political analyst Stu Rothenberg deemed Nixon the “most disappointing Senate candidate in 1998.” Rothenberg wrote that Nixon “should have given Sen. Kit Bond a real race but suffered from so many self-inflicted wounds that he should be embarrassed by his effort.”⁵ Those “self-inflicted wounds” included the fabrication of a quote from a union official⁶, false campaign finance charges⁷, false voting record charges⁸, and the release of an attack ad that traditionally Democratic African-American leaders deemed “racist” and equated with the infamous Willie Horton ad.⁹

All things considered, it seems the Nixon/MDP union is a match made in heaven for those who support the perpetuation of the present “No Vision, No Problem” mantra at the party. However, if you’re one of the many state Democrats still waiting for your party to get back on the right track and outline a direction, vision and agenda for the state; well, you’re going to need to wait a lot longer.

_______
¹ P-D, 10/21/1992
² P-D, 10/29/1992
³ P-D, 10/23/1992
⁴ McClellan, P-D, 11/4/1992
⁵ Roll Call, 12/21/1998
⁶ KC Star, 3/13/1998
⁷ P-D, 6/5/1998
⁸ KC Star, 6/13/1998
⁹ AP, 10/8/1998

NAACP No Show
Posted by: John Hancock | 3:10pm | Permalink

Not many Democrats have taken the kind of heat Jay Nixon has received from the African-American community over the years for his views on certain issues. That said, more than a few eyebrows were raised when Nixon was a no-show at a recent NAACP dinner in St. Louis attended by Governor Matt Blunt.

A smattering of NAACP critiques of Nixon during his last competitive election:

NAACP’s William Taylor, P-D, 9/11/1997: NAACP attorney William L. Taylor said Nixon’s [busing] proposal “is a carbon copy of the tactics used by Southern states in the 1950s - avoid desegregation by building new black schools or fixing up old ones. In fact, it is worse because Nixon’s proposal would displace more than 13,000 black children whose parents have voluntarily chosen to send their children to desegregated schools.”

Then-St. Louis NAACP president Charles Mischeaux, P-D, 10/31/1997: “It is time to return to action via the picket lines, to demonstrate that the black vote cannot be taken for granted by either party, Democrat or Republican,” local NAACP president Charles Mischeaux said at a news conference at the group’s headquarters at 625 North Euclid Avenue. “The NAACP is opposing Mr. Nixon because it honestly believes his views on integration and desegregation of the state’s school systems are detrimental to African-Americans.”

The New York Times, 7/13/1998: Some prominent members of the Missouri chapter of the NAACP have picketed Mr. Nixon at campaign appearances, ignoring his promises to be a strong advocate for working people and families. One chapter official called him the “reincarnation” of former Gov. George C. Wallace of Alabama; another announced, “I’m backing Bond.”

Former NAACP St. Louis chapter president James DeClue, P-D, 10/4/1998: “He [Nixon] has no real feeling, no heart for the conditions in our community,” said the Rev. James F. DeClue, former president of the St. Louis chapter of the NAACP.

NAACP leader calls Nixon ad “racist”, AP, 10/9/1998: A group of black civil rights leaders is demanding that Jay Nixon pull his attack ad claiming that Sen. Christopher Bond, R-Mo., commuted the sentences of a number of convicted murderers during his terms as governor. . . . “It’s racist even though there is a white man in it,” said Charles Mischeaux, president of the St. Louis Chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. “It’s still the same old racist ad.”

Bush Nomination Could Make It Tough On “Hometown Girl”
Posted by: John Hancock | 8:30am | Permalink

Nearly three months after Sen. Claire McCaskill scuttled the candidacy of one of three finalists in the running to replace retiring U.S. District Judge Dean Whipple, President Bush has announced his nomination to fill the seat.

Lebanon’s Greg Kays, the presiding judge for the 26th Judicial Circuit that covers Camden, Laclede, Miller and Moniteau and Morgan counties, was nominated by Bush and already has the backing of Sen. Kit Bond. McCaskill, who claims to hail from Lebanon along with a handful of other towns across the state, has yet to commit to Kays’ nomination but is said to be under quite a bit of pressure to support him. If McCaskill wants to add true bipartisan flavor to her first year in the Senate, she should get behind Kays’ nomination and push it with her Democratic colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee who have been under fire of late for bottling up and scuttling qualified judicial nominees like Kays.

Nixon’s Rhetorical Overextension On Crime Rates
Posted by: John Hancock | 6:15pm | Permalink

Today, St. Louis officials are in pushback mode after the yearly Morgan Quitno/CQ Press numbers ranked the city the second most dangerous in America. One gent who has been largely immune from questions about the city’s ongoing crime problem is Attorney General Jay Nixon, who considers himself the state’s top law enforcement official.

Since his first campaign for Attorney General in 1992, Nixon has been blathering incessantly about crime rate reduction in Missouri. However, during his time as Attorney General, St. Louis has gone from being the second most dangerous city in America during his first year in office to being …the second most dangerous city in America now. Nixon has sermonized on the necessity of “putting the general back in Attorney General” for nearly 15 years, but how does he explain his lack of progress in St. Louis?

While Nixon’s allies would conveniently seek to dismiss this relevant question as falling outside the scope of his jurisdiction, his rhetorical overextension makes it his business. Hopefully, the current roster of Attorney General hopefuls vying to replace Nixon will either 1) seriously seek to tackle St. Louis’ crime problems or 2) will not mislead the public with the same crime reduction hyperbole that has plagued Nixon’s tenure in office.

CONSUMER FRAUD ALERT: Consumers Should Avoid Nixon’s Rip Off
Posted by: John Hancock | 9:50am | Permalink

With Christmas still more than a month away, Attorney General Jay Nixon is already pumping up his rip-off recall site as the place to check on the latest toy recalls. Rather than relying on Nixon’s fabricated cut-and-paste site, Missouri consumers can get real-time info from the federal recall clearinghouse Nixon continues to blatantly rip info from—www.recalls.gov.

Basically, Nixon is siphoning info from the federal recall clearinghouse and presenting it as his own on his official state site. It would be like Hershey’s finding out a thief was stealing their chocolate, repackaging it and selling it as their own. Why trust a bootlegged site fabricated by a publicity hound like Nixon when you can get real time info from the people who actually monitor toys and other products for a living? This Christmas, don’t bother with Nixon’s silly rip-off site; get the real deal at www.recalls.gov.

More Baggage Than Samsonite
Posted by: John Hancock | 1:30pm | Permalink

Throughout Jay Nixon’s tenure as Attorney General, he has been repeatedly roughed up and embarrassed for failing to enforce the Sunshine Law. On Nixon’s watch, reports of local and state officials flouting the law have often resulted in him declining to take substantive action. Even Nixon, who now desperately seeks to be perceived as Mr. Sunshine as he campaigns for higher office, has violated the law with impunity.

Not surprisingly, Nixon’s lack of interest in the Sunshine Law changed in 2005 after Republicans assumed occupancy of the Governor’s Mansion. It was around that time that Nixon decided to find, dust off and actually read a copy of the Sunshine Law so he could brandish it, not as a good government tool, but as a self-promotional and political weapon. Somehow, Nixon has managed to pontificate on his zealous pursuit of Blunt-only enforcement actions while simultaneously perpetuating his 15-year record of looking the other way on non-Blunt-related enforcement actions brought to his attention by concerned officials and citizens.

A chronology of a few of Mr. Sunshine’s high-profile foibles during his tenure as Attorney General:

1995 - Nixon forgets open meeting law existed.  “[Nixon] acknowledged in court documents that his office might have wrongly relied on a Missouri Supreme Court case when it advised the Gaming Commission that the state’s open meetings law did not require it to deliberate in public on Capitol Queen & Casino’s license application. The Supreme Court case was decided in 1951; Missouri’s open meetings law was enacted in 1973.” (Margolies, KC Business Journal, July 28, 1995)

1998 – Present – Will Nixon ever release all documentation regarding his hiring of trial lawyer donors to handle the controversial tobacco litigation? The lawyers walked away with $111 million for 5 months of work, yet Nixon continues to stonewall the release of all info pertaining to their hiring and work.

1999 – Auditor McCaskill issued a Sunshine Law-related audit that clearly showed local officials neither feared Nixon’s enforcement authority nor knew much about the law. From the audit: “Our office determined that 102 of 214 political subdivisions in our sample were not aware of their responsibilities to respond to requests for information from the general public, or they denied requests for reasons not acceptable under the Sunshine Law.” (State audit #99-104, released November 6, 1999)

2000 – Nixon lets St. Louis area officials, donor off the hook. An Olivette resident blew the whistle on Sunshine Law violations that involved city officials’ handling of a proposed strip mall development. THF Realty, a Nixon donor, was behind the development. How Nixon’s office botched the case:

Nixon’s office concluded violations were “serious and ongoing”, yet hinged taking action on the outcome of a local election. After the development failed at the polls, Nixon dropped the case. After [lawyer Chris] Osborn filed the complaint, he thought he had a strong case. The state lawyer who handles Sunshine Law complaints told him and other citizens who felt locked out of the development deal that the open meeting problems were “serious and ongoing.” … [Nixon asst.] Klahr also told the Post-Dispatch in January that the allegations that Olivette violated the open meetings law “can be acted upon, but we would like to make sure we have all our information - all our ducks in a row.” So Klahr waited until after February’s referendum that would determine if developers could build the strip mall. If the voters dumped the proposal, then the attorney general’s office would not take the rare step of encouraging the county prosecutor - or Osborn - to sue the city and try to get a judge to overturn decisions made behind closed doors, Klahr said. On Feb. 8, Olivette voters rejected the development proposal. Klahr said the attorney general’s office would not take any further action on the open meetings allegations. “Had the vote come out a different way, maybe we would have had to take some different direction,” Klahr said. (P-D, April 10, 2000)

Olivette officials’ response to Nixon’s inaction: The city’s public relations firm issued a news release claiming vindication that the attorney general cleared the city of any wrongdoing. “It is always important for the city to conduct business in the open, and we have always complied with the letter and the spirit of the Sunshine Law,” said Olivette City Manager Tim Pickering. “If there was a violation, wouldn’t (the attorney general) be doing something?” (P-D, April 10, 2000)

Whistleblower’s response to Nixon’s inaction: [Nixon’s] inaction infuriated Osborn. . . . He accuses Nixon’s office of covering up an illegal activity, but the office said it did its job. (P-D, April 10, 2000)

Nixon added insult to the whistleblower’s injury when he refused to hand over all contents of the case. [Osborn] didn’t get far when he tried to figure out the attorney general’s logic. When he asked for the file on the case, Nixon’s staff sent back a copy of an insignificant memo, a dozen pages of council agendas -- and about 500 pages of documents Osborn had sent them in support of his complaint. What’s more, they sent him a $87.90 bill to cover copying fees plus shipping charges. . . . The office refused to give Osborn what he really wanted: Klahr’s notes on the case and correspondence between state attorneys who considered the prospects of taking action against the city. (Riverfront Times, June 14, 2000)

February 2001 - The CDT’s Waters criticized Nixon for his general failure to enforce the Sunshine Law. Moreover, public prosecutors never do their duty as outlined in the law, leaving enforcement entirely up to private individuals and companies who are willing to underwrite the heavy cost of suing a government agency able to defend itself with public funds. . . . Even more effective would be routine enforcement by the attorney general. If this were done, the law would be respected much more widely. It would not take that many actions to alert and instruct public officials throughout the state. Alas, despite entreaties, attorney general Jay Nixon has taken no such action. These suits should a regular part of his office agenda. . . . Not only is such effective enforcement of the state Sunshine Law important for maintaining good government, it would be excellent public relations for Nixon as well. (Waters, CDT, February 20, 2001)

March 2001 – A case study on Nixon’s lack of interest in Sunshine Law enforcement courtesy of former Clark official Ken Storla. Covered by the CDT’s Messenger.

April 2001 - McCaskill released another audit on Sunshine Law compliance. This one pertained to state agencies, and it clearly showed agencies were not concerned about Nixon coming after them.

• “Inadequate Sunshine Law policies exist for more than half the state agencies, boards and commissions, which can lead to non-compliance.”

• “About 44 percent of the governmental entities surveyed either did not respond, responded untimely or improperly denied a request. Of the 9 percent that did not respond at all, many entity officials said the request never arrived even though we had a signed receipt from the mailing.”

• “Audit tests showed that 55 percent of the entities surveyed responded within the 3-day requirement of the Sunshine Law. Of those that did not respond on time, the longest delay was 43 business days, while the majority of the other untimely responders were one to three days late.” (State Audit #2001-33, Released April 17, 2001)

June 2002 – Nixon approves convening a closed door meeting in violation of the Sunshine Law. State officials failed to properly notify the public about a meeting regarding Missouri’s attempts to sell bonds against its share of a national tobacco settlement, officials acknowledged Wednesday. But officials said the meeting was exempt from certain provisions of the state’s open records and meetings law. Lt. Gov. Joe Maxwell confirmed Wednesday that a meeting of the Tobacco Settlement Financing Authority was held Tuesday without the 24-hour notice required under the state’s Sunshine Law. Maxwell, with the support of Attorney General Jay Nixon, pointed to a Sunshine Law provision allowing an exception to the public notice requirements when there is “good cause.” (AP, June 12, 2002)

KC Star blasted Nixon for violating the Sunshine Law and shielding a potential $600 million bond sale from public scrutiny. Missouri officials are off to a bad start as they prepare to sell some of the state’s future tobacco settlement money to balance the budget. They failed to let the public know about an important meeting where they discussed issuing bonds and hiring a financial adviser. . . . So the public and the news media didn’t know the meeting was occurring. For anyone else, the lack of notice is a violation of the open meetings law. But these state officials seem to think they don’t have to follow the law. . . . Nixon, a member of the authority, defended the action saying the law allows exceptions to the notice requirement if there is “good cause.” This wasn’t a case of good cause. It was a case of expediency. It shouldn’t have happened. State lawmakers created the financing authority to oversee sale of bonds against the state’s tobacco settlement money. The sale could bring in as much as $600 million. It is an important event that should have public scrutiny. (KC Star editorial, June 17, 2002)

CDT’s Messenger penned a letter to Nixon in opposition to his actions.

October 2002 – Nixon’s staff attended a closed door MEC meeting during which a decision was made to open certain commission records to the public. The Ethics Commission’s vote to open the records took place during a meeting that was closed to the public. Chuck Hatfield, chief of staff to Attorney General Jay Nixon, said staff from Nixon’s office were present for several hours of discussion about the case. “The Attorney General’s office was there to provide advice, but we’ve declined to say what that advice was,” Hatfield said. (AP, October 17, 2002)

2002 – 2003 – In February 2002, State Sen. Loudon called on Nixon to issue an opinion in a Creve Coeur dispute over the status of a government consultant’s documents. In October, Nixon denied Loudon’s request due to pending litigation. In July 2003, after the litigation was resolved, Loudon again made a request of Nixon, but Nixon argued the issue was no longer urgent. Loudon requested an opinion in February 2002. That October, he received a reply saying an opinion would not be provided because of pending litigation. Which litigation was the obstruction was not specified, but Loudon presumed it to be libel and defamation suits filed in May 2002 by Annette Mandel, then the mayor of Creve Coeur, against Rhoades, Bryant and Robert O’Connor, former president of the Creve Coeur Chamber of Commerce. The litigation was resolved this February when the dismissal of Mandel’s suits by a St. Louis County circuit court judge was upheld by the Court of Appeals, leaving the way clear for an opinion on the documents. But no response was forthcoming. Loudon wrote a second letter last month to seek a response. Scott Holste, public-information officer for Nixon, said that the state didn’t feel the same urgency. (P-D, August 14, 2003)

NOTE: The Creve Coeur mayor involved in the 2002 litigation is a prominent Democratic donor, whose husband’s law firm and lawyers have donated nearly $15,000 to Nixon since 2005 alone. (MEC)

In September 2003, the Missouri Press Association entered the fray and pressured Nixon to get involved. Nixon had been dragging his feet since February 2002. In February 2002, Loudon requested an opinion from Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon about whether communications between public officials and consultants stored at a consultant’s office should be available for public scrutiny under FOI requests. When the attorney general’s office delayed offering an opinion, Loudon told Nixon in a letter last July that “deeming communications between city officials and consultants as private or in any way inaccessible has set a dangerous precedent for Creve Coeur and for all other municipalities throughout Missouri.” Now attorneys for the Missouri Press Association have echoed Loudon’s concerns. In a letter to the attorney general’s office, Jean Maneke, the attorney for the press association, says that “if a public governmental body contracts with a private entity to prepare materials for the public governmental body, then those records are property of the public governmental body. Therefore those records are not privately held for purposes of the Sunshine law; they are simply in the custody of an agent for the principal.” Offering to work with any lawyer on the attorney general’s staff, Maneke concludes, “It is a shell game for a public body to place public records in the hands of a third party and then disavow any right of the public to access those records.” (P-D, September 11, 2003)

After nearly two years of inaction, Nixon finally issued an opinion. A Creve Coeur woman who tried for two years to get municipal documents from a consultant’s office has won a victory with an attorney general’s opinion that public documents stored at an agent’s office must be made available under a Sunshine Law request. (P-D, November 17, 2003)

2003 – The former Clark official, who criticized Nixon for failing to address Sunshine Law problems in his town in 2001, predicted Nixon would take little, if any, action against violators in Randolph County. Storla: “They’ll just blow it off. That’s typical of Jay Nixon.” I met Storla in March 2001 when I wrote about his attempt to get the city [of Clark] to follow the state’s Open Meetings and Records Law. He had a good case, but he couldn’t get any help from the office of Attorney General Jay Nixon. It’s more than an ironic coincidence, Storla notes, that Nixon is now investigating Sunshine Law violations by the Randolph County Commission in relation to decisions about the county’s new justice center. He doesn’t expect his old nemesis to do much about it though. “They’ll just blow it off,” Storla says of the attorney general’s office. “That’s typical of Jay Nixon.” (Messenger, CDT, August 17, 2003)

Months later, the CDT’s Messenger took Nixon to task for failing to take substantive action against Randolph County Commission violators. Let’s hold our noses, open our eyes and take a look at what happened in Randolph County. Meetings weren’t properly posted. Minutes weren’t kept. Decisions were made without public votes, and documentation on the building of the [justice] center was haphazard at best. A citizens’ investigation and one by the state auditor already uncovered all those facts after it became clear the commission was spending money it didn’t have. Nixon said he would investigate. So what did this champion of the Sunshine Law do? He helped the commissioners craft a resolution that says they will follow the law - the same law the state already requires them to follow. While Nixon has plenty of time to set up a sham Web site to allow him to sue e-mail spam violators, he has shown no willingness to take action on behalf of real citizens. Shame on him. (CDT, October 19, 2003)

December 2004 - Boonville “Damn the Sunshine Law” fiasco and Columbia City Council

The publisher of the Boonville Daily News criticized Nixon for settling on a mere $100 fine for a city official who blatantly violated the Sunshine Law. A Boonville newspaper publisher reacted angrily today to a settlement between Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon and Boonville city officials who violated the state’s Open Records and Meetings Law. “I don’t know what I expected, but that’s only a slap on the hand,” Boonville Daily News Publisher Scott Jackson said of the settlement terms approved last night by the Boonville City Council. The agreement says that Mayor Danielle Blanck and seven people on the eight-member city council violated the open records law … by conducting a round-robin phone vote on Oct. 2. According to the settlement agreement, Blanck and the council members must provide a public record of the conversations and decisions made during the phone calls and are enjoined from future Sunshine Law violations. . . . Blanck, who was also sued separately in the lawsuit, must pay a $100 civil penalty for organizing the phone vote. . . . Jackson wonders whether the mayor and city council will learn from it. “I don’t know,” he said. “But with this fine, I think most will laugh it off.” … Blanck continued to deny allegations by city council member Dan Brewer, who claimed that Blanck said “Damn the Sunshine Law” when he told her during the phone vote that her poll of council members could violate the law. (CDT, December 7, 2004)

A Boonville official criticized Nixon’s settlement and chalked it up to politics. Brewer said his city learned a “hard lesson” from their mistake, but he considered the civil penalty against Blanck too small to serve as a deterrent to such acts again. “What the” penalty “says to me is that Jay Nixon filed the lawsuit because he was out for re-election,” he said. “When the election was over, he just lost interest.” (CDT, December 7, 2004)

That same month, the CDT’s Messenger criticized Nixon for showing little interest in allegations of Sunshine Law violations committed by the Columbia City Council. Meanwhile, government officials throughout the state have confirmation of what they already knew. In Missouri, it’s open season for the Sunshine Law. Fire when ready. Columbia officials already knew that. When local residents served up a Sunshine Law violation on a platter in a column I wrote in October, Nixon quietly sent employees to Columbia to investigate. They asked a few questions and went back to the comfort of the capital city. I asked about their investigation into Columbia City Council violations, and a spokesman said it’s still under review. I asked Columbia City Manager Ray Beck about it, and he said he didn’t know the attorney general was looking into it. The fact is that Columbia officials have a good reputation concerning the Sunshine Law. That’s what allows them to continue to discuss city business at their pre-council dinners with no published agenda and no prying eyes from the public. That’s why Nixon, at the most, will issue them a warning and send a notice about not holding meetings via e-mail. (Messenger, CDT, December 9, 2004)

May 2005 - The Riverfront Times reported Nixon advised the St. Louis Metro Police Department how it could avoid releasing info regarding Sunshine requests. The St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department has a new policy concerning public records: Let the sun shine on some. The stance came to light this past week, when the Riverfront Times was denied access to sections of police reports that previously had been available under Missouri’s open records statute. . . . What prompted the sudden change of protocol? “This is due to a recent mediation in which the Attorney General’s Office, the Post-Dispatch and the Police Department participated and which included disputes as to exactly what should be included when an incident report is produced,” wrote Shaw. That came as news to Post-Dispatch editor Ellen Soeteber, who expressed shock upon being informed that the police department’s new policy was the result of a “mediation” with the office of Attorney General Jay Nixon. (Riverfront Times, May 4, 2005)

The department’s counsel said Nixon advised that it was giving away more info than required. A media lawyer countered Nixon’s advice. … Shaw consulted the Attorney General’s Office for guidance. “Their opinion was that we’ve been giving out way more stuff than we had to,” Shaw reports. “As a result we were incurring a lot of additional charges, reading the narratives and redacting the narratives. Their opinion is that that information is not required under the Sunshine Law, which makes our lives a whole lot easier.” Mark Sableman, a media lawyer at Thompson Coburn in St. Louis, believes the Attorney General’s Office is getting this one wrong. “Obviously the point of the Sunshine Law is to make public records available to the public,” says Sableman. “It has nothing to do with how easy or difficult it is for the officials to comply.” (Riverfront Times, May 4, 2005)

December 2005 - Nixon refused to pursue complaints by MU curators regarding alleged Sunshine Law violations. Complaints by three University of Missouri curators that their colleagues may have violated the state’s open records law involve “an internal dispute” that doesn’t require a broader investigation, the state attorney general’s office said Tuesday. Curators Doug Russell, David Wasinger and John Carnahan III opposed the process that culminated in a $21,000 annual pay raise and two-year contract extension for University of Missouri system President Elson Floyd. The changes were approved Dec. 16 and announced three days later. The three newest curators … raised questions about the board of curators’ failure to immediately report an earlier contract amendment signed by Floyd and board President Tom Atkins on Feb. 2. . . . The three new curators say the contract amendment should have been disclosed within three days, but there’s no record of such a disclosure. (AP, December 27, 2005)

CDT’s Messenger criticized Nixon’s inaction. Over the years, I’ve chided the state’s top law enforcement official for being all bark and no bite when it comes to the Sunshine Law, and here again he’s proved me right. Three curators allege their fellow policy-makers violated the Sunshine Law, and what does Nixon do? He backs down from a battle he wants nothing to do with. . . . A lawyer from Nixon’s office said this case wasn’t worthy of a lawsuit because proving the violation was willful is troublesome. There is no public body in the state that more willfully flaunts its ability to ignore the Sunshine Law, and until Missouri has an attorney general who takes the law ser