Aldermanic President Lewis Reed was in Jefferson City yesterday asking the Missouri Ethics Commission to let him keep his over-the-limit campaign contributions.

From the Kansas City Star’s Prime Buzz blog:

Reed was elected president of the board in an election last April, but campaign finance reports show he continued to receive over-the-limit contributions after the election.

Records show Reed received several contributions over $1,500, including a $10,000 donation from City Centre LLC in St, Louis and three $5,000 donations from other groups.

In total, Reed accepted more than $27,000 in over-the-limit contributions. His campaign’s latest finance report shows just over $9,000 on hand…

Reed, who was accompanied by an attorney at the hearing today, declined to comment, and only reluctantly gave his name to a Star reporter.

A law removing limits on contributions went into effect Jan. 1 of last year, but was overturned by the Supreme Court in July. The Ethics Commission is holding hearings to allow candidates who believe returning the excessive funds would be a hardship to argue for keeping the money.

According to the Star, Republican State Senator Tom Dempsey also appeared before the Ethics Commission yesterday.

BREAKING EVEN: State Rep. Jamilah Nasheed raised almost $13,000 last quarter. But she also had almost $13,000 in expenditures (mostly returning over-limit contributions). Before the quarter, she had $16,569.58 in the bank. At the end of the quarter, she had $16,540.06.

BARELY ON THE BOARD: Don Calloway, candidate for state rep in north St. Louis County, raised less than $500 last quarter. And Committeeman Curtis Royston, candidate to replace State Rep. Connie Johnson, raised just $1,400.

MAYBE IF HE HADDA SPENT IT: Former Aldermanic President Jim Shrewsbury is still sitting on $40,000.

THE LAST-TERMERS: State Sen. Maida Coleman raised $1,750 (including $250 from software giant Microsoft and $650 from pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly). State Sen. Harry Kennedy raised $9,000, spent $2,000, and had $12,000 in the bank.

State Rep. Tom Villa, a possible candidate to replace Maida Coleman in the state senate, hasn’t raised much money for his effort (less than $4,000 in 9 months), but when you’re rich, you don’t have to.

Villa, whose family owns Villa Lighting Supply (in 2001, according to the St. Louis Business Journal, the company did $47.5 million in sales), has loaned his campaign committee $165,000, according to finance reports filed today.

The only two candidates that have formally announced so far that they are running for the open seat are state representatives Rodney Hubbard* and Robin Wright-Jones.

Coleman is currently St. Louis City’s only African-American senator. Both Hubbard and Jones are black. Villa is white. The racial dynamics of the race and the desire of black St. Louisans to keep some representation in the Missouri senate have made this a closely-watched race across the state.

*Hubbard is a client of A D French & Associates

Party’s Over! Campaign Limits Return

In July, a lawsuit brought by former state rep candidate James Trout resulted in the Missouri Supreme Court restoring limits on campaign contributions in Missouri.

Attorney General Jay Nixon, Democratic candidate for governor, has notified the Missouri Ethics Commission that he plans to return over-limit contributions to his campaign.

Attorney General candidate Chris Koster also notified the Commission that his campaign will also begin the process.

From the Nixon campaign:

“The campaign will return contributions received in excess of the newly reinstated limits in accordance with the Court’s ruling,” wrote campaign manager Ken Morley in a letter to the MEC. “We believe that if a candidate has sufficient cash on hand, then returning excess contributions in order to be compliant with the law is not a hardship. We therefore believe that circumstances do not exist under which a candidate for Governor could in good faith request, or that the Ethics Commission could conceivably grant, a hardship in this instance.”

From the Koster campaign:

“Today, Missourians for Koster notified the Missouri Ethics Commission that they intend to begin the process of returning contributions from individuals in excess of current contribution limits.”

State Rep. Margaret Donnelly, a candidate for Attorney General, is threatening legal action against the Missouri Ethics Commission over its plans to hold closed hearings to determine which campaigns would face “hardships” by being forced to return large campaign contributions.

“The people of Missouri are fed up with government behind closed doors,” said Donnelly. “If the Missouri Ethics Commission goes forward with its plans for closed hardship hearings, I will file suit and ask the courts to force them into compliance.”

The Missouri Ethics Commission notified candidates that they must respond to the commission by November 26 if they have returned or are planning to return over-the-limit contributions. Candidates wanting to keep over-the-limit contributions must respond by December 3. Donnelly returned over-the-limit contributions last quarter, leaving her campaign with considerably less cash on-hand than her Democratic opponents.

BARACK ME ALL NIGHT LONG - All the local Obama Girls will soon have a place to camp out at. We’ve learned that the Barack Obama for President campaign has come to Missouri. They are currently working out of a donated temporary office space — really a cubical — in a St. Louis business, but they are looking for more permanent digs. This comes just over four months before the Presidential Preference Primary Vote on Feburary 5, 2008.

IRONS BEHIND BARS? - If you were anywhere near a TV yesterday, you may have heard that former Vashon basketball coach Floyd Irons pleaded guilty to wire fraud and mail fraud Thursday. The charges are related to real estate purchases made in 2005 and 2006. Irons now faces 30 years in prison and one million dollars in fines. Sentencing is on November 29th. Swish!

ETHICS COMMISSION: ‘NEVERMIND’ - The Missouri Ethics Commission took back it’s decision ordering candidates to either justify or give back campaign contributions over a retroactively imposed limit. The initial decision was made on September 11, but Republicans filed suit claiming the commission violated open meeting laws. The commission voted to withdraw that decision yesterday, and will take up the issue in their October 4 meeting.

The Missouri Republican Party and State Rep. Shane Schoeller (R-Willard) filed a lawsuit yesterday against the Missouri Ethics Commission for violating of the Sunshine Law when the commission met earlier this month to discuss campaign finance contributions.

The lawsuit filed in Cole County Circuit Court alleges that the Ethics Commission violated the Sunshine Law on September 11 by holding a closed meeting to discuss matters that its notice, tentative agenda and approved agenda stated would be discussed in open meeting, by closing a meeting without valid legal reasons and by holding a closed session that was not limited to the matters that could be discussed in closed meeting. The lawsuit also says the commission and commissioners “knowingly” and “purposely” violated the Sunshine Law by discussing policy matters which should have been discussed openly with the public having an opportunity to comment.

The Missouri Republican Party is seeking a temporary restraining order followed by preliminary and permanent injunctions prohibiting the Ethics Commission and its Commissioners and its agents from implementing any decision made in connection with the meeting and is seeking a court order voiding all actions taken by the Ethics Commission at the meeting and any actions taken by staff of the Ethics Commission pursuant to directions received at that meeting.

“The Missouri Ethics Commission blatantly violated the Sunshine Law by meeting in secret and denying Missourians their right to be informed about a significant public policy decision that affects the lives of thousands of contributors and candidates. The MEC’s actions run contrary to the notion of open government and that is why Missouri Republicans have stepped up and filed this lawsuit,” said Jared Craighead, executive director of the Missouri Republican Party.

“The Ethics Commission’s violation of the Sunshine Law tarnishes a campaign finance system already damaged by Jay Nixon’s collusion to tank the defense of a new law that injected transparency into the system.”

After first saying she wouldn’t, U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill has bowed to the pressure and agreed to return contributions linked to Norman Hsu.

From the AP:

The Missouri Democrat said she made the decision over the weekend, as the cloud of suspicion has grown surrounding contributions from donors connected to Hsu.

McCaskill took no money directly from Hsu, but her staff has estimated that the senator received more than $18,000 from people reportedly associated with Hsu, including the family of William Paw of Daly City, Calif.

On Friday, McCaskill said she had no plans to return the money from Hsu-related donors because there was no evidence they had done anything wrong. But she pledged to give up any campaign money if it was discovered to be from illegal sources or from people accused of crimes.

Meanwhile, the Missouri Ethics Commission’s got everybody saying “Huh?”

From the Post-Dispatch:

The Missouri Ethics Commission voted unanimously today to tell candidates who had collected campaign contributions larger than the now-restored donation limits that they “may be in violation” of state law.

However, the six-member panel stopped short of ordering candidates to return their over-limit contributions, which in some cases amount to millions of dollars.

Instead, the commission said it plans to hold hearings for each candidate who seeks to keep his or her over-limit money by contending that giving it back would constitute an unfair hardship.

“May be in violation”? “Unfair hardship”? “Hearings”?

Huh?

In an opinion handed down today, the Missouri Supreme Court declined to order candidates and elected officials to return money raised during the brief time the state was without contribution limits.

In a 4-2 per curiam opinion that cannot be attributed to any particular judge, the Court held that its July 19, 2007, decision is fully retroactive as to James Trout and is fully prospective to all candidates and campaigns whose campaigns were concluded by July 19. The Court further held that, as to all other nonparty candidates whose campaigns were not concluded by July 19, the Court cannot make any bright-line rule of prospective or retrospective application on the record before the Court and, therefore, leaves such matters to the Missouri Ethics Commission, which is responsible for any enforcement action to require disgorgement of campaign contributions.

Click here to read the full opinion.