Kentucky

Judge Katie King and her father, mayoral candidate (and metro councilman) Jim King, were fined $15,000 each today (3/25/2010).  His violation was giving $130,000 to her campaign, and her violation was accepting it.  Although, the Kentucky Registry of Finance concluded the violations were "not knowing", the Kentucky Attorney General has referred the matter to Special Prosecutor Hart McGibben for investigation (and he has been sitting on this for months!). Justice delayed is justice denied.  McGibben needs to get off his duff and get us past this for  Judge Kings' sake and/or the voters.  Letting this hang over everyone's heads throughout the election is unfair to all concerned. The issues are just not that complicated.

This post follows my earlier post entitled More on the Katie King - Jim King Campaign Finance Story as Legislation Proposed to Clear up the mess  from January 25, 2010.  And if you wonder how much pain is being felt by this fine, then take a look at this post from January 17, 2010 -ELECTIONS: Jim King throws $760,000 of his own money into his mayor's campaign.   And, back on Nov. 17, 2010, we referenced a Page One post in Judicial Campaigns: "Jim King?s Campaign Finance Lawyers Respond" from PageOne

What some might not realize is that the "knowing"  is the difference between criminal conduct and bad legal advice from their attorneys and is typically not a defense to criminal violations. [CHAPTER 121 CAMPAIGN FINANCE REGULATION]

In any event, here is the Fox 41 story with a link to the newscast:

Jim, Katie King pay election finance fines

•   WATCH VIDEO:  Jim, Katie King pay election fines

Jim and Katie King settle their election finance case with the state.  Each has paid a $15,000 dollar fine.

But this does not end the investigations into Katie King's campaign for district judge two years ago.  The people who regulate campaign money in Kentucky, members of the Registry of Election Finance, approved the settlement with the Kings in Frankfort on Thursday.

It called for two $15,000 fines and ends the registry's probe, at least, into $135,000 Jim King gave his daughter Katie King for her successful run for Jefferson district judge in 2008.  The state limit for everyone -- family members included -- is $1,000 per person.

"A $15,000 fine for each allegation for a total of a $30,000 result, quite frankly, is one of the largest in recent years. So, again, I would say that speaks to the severity of the violation, if you will," said registry chairman Craig Dilger.

* * *

For those who might wonder about the acceptance of this conciliation agreement, it is noteworthy that the consequences of failing to agree would be a political nightmare for an officeholder or a candidate seeking re-election.  Imagine a sitting judge coming under the scrutiny of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Kentucky and at least five other retired or former justices about their campaign conduct?!!!  The damage to the public's perception, respect and confidence for the judiciary would be terrible. And coincidentally, this would be following the criminal conviction of a Senior Status Judge (Cletus Maricle) in another county on a totally unrelated matter  (Jury convicts all 8 defendants in Clay vote-buying case) but both incidents involve campaign irregularities involving members of our judiciary.

CAVEAT: Before going further, I confess I am NOT an elections or campaign finance lawyer.  Nor, am a civil liberties lawyer.  I practice personal injury and insurance law, plus continue to assist those in claims or actions involving the military (short of criminal law).  I offer this as an analysis of someone who campaigned for judge once back in 2002 but does not devote his practice to this subject.

Meanwhile, back to the failure to accept the conciliatory agreement would result in the Supreme Court's involvement in the resolution of the allegations:

For example,

If the alleged violator declines to accept the conciliation agreement or fails to respond within the time allowed, the registry shall submit a written request to the Chief Justice of the Kentucky Supreme Court to recommend not fewer than five (5) nor more than ten (10) retired or former justices or retired or former judges of the Court of Justice who are qualified and willing to conduct a hearing to determine if a violation has occurred.  KRS 121.140(4).

And if the KREF believed the violation was knowing (and per some individuals the statute is pretty clear that it is knowing and if clear enough for non-lawyers it should be pretty clear to those who went to law school and are licenses to practice law in the Commonwealth), then the matter is referred for criminal investigation:

If the registry concludes that there is probable cause to believe that the campaign finance law has been violated knowingly, it shall refer the violation to the Attorney General or the appropriate Commonwealth's or county attorney for prosecution. The Attorney General may request the registry's attorney or the appropriate county or Commonwealth's attorney to prosecute the matter and may request from the registry all evidence collected in its investigation. KRS 121.140(5).

Furthermore, the fact that the Kings received some obscure response to an email which was vague and ambiguous should be immaterial to the conclusion on the "knowing" violation as KRS 121.135(3) provides that "(3) No advisory opinion shall be issued by the registry or any of its employees except in accordance with the provisions of this section."  Since this same section provides that reliance upon an advisory opinion would not result in a punishment under the same section did not apply (since the Kings were in fact fined), then there is acknowledgement by all that there was no advisory opinion upon which they relied!  Translation - nothing official was forthcoming from the KREF prior to the conduct, and most attorneys would have know that an informal remark in an unofficial capacity is of little weight and legal efficacy. However, that misses the point.

More importantly, "It shall be no defense in any civil or criminal proceeding regarding a violation of any provision of this chapter or any administrative regulation promulgated by the registry for a person or committee to claim that he relied upon and acted in good faith based upon any provision or finding of an advisory opinion if the person or committee was not the person or committee involved in the specific transaction or activity with respect to which the advisory opinion was rendered."  KRS 121.135(4)(c).  Thus no opinion, no out.  And the opinion only applies to the person seeking it.

And, what are the consequences of a knowing violation of the campaign finance law (besides the criminal penalties)?  The election can be voided and the office declared vacant!!!

The nomination for, or election to, an office of any candidate or slate of candidates who knowingly violates any provision of KRS 121.150 to 121.220, or whose campaign treasurer knowingly violates any provision of KRS 121.150 to 121.220, with the knowledge of that candidate or slate of candidates, shall be void, and, upon a final judicial determination of guilt, the office shall be declared vacant and the officeholder shall forfeit all benefits which he would have been entitled to receive had he continued to serve, and the office or candidacy shall be filled as provided by law for the filling of a vacancy. An action to declare a vacancy under this subsection may be brought by the registry, the Attorney General, any candidate or slate of candidates for the office sought to be declared vacant, or any qualified voter.  KRS 121.990(4).

And what does KRS 121.150(6) provide about the contribution?

KRS 121.150   Campaign contribution and loan restrictions and expenditure limitations.

No candidate, slate of candidates, campaign committee, political issues committee, nor anyone acting on their behalf, shall accept a contribution of more than one thousand dollars ($1,000) from any person, permanent committee, or contributing organization in any one (1) election; except that no candidate for school board, his campaign committee, nor anyone acting on their behalf shall accept a contribution of more than one hundred dollars ($100) from any person or more than two hundred dollars ($200) from any permanent committee or contributing organization in any one (1) election. No person, permanent committee, or contributing organization shall contribute more than one thousand dollars ($1,000) to any one (1) candidate, campaign committee, political issues committee, nor anyone acting on their behalf, in any one (1) election; except that no person shall contribute more than one hundred dollars ($100) and no permanent committee or contributing organization shall contribute more than two hundred dollars ($200) to any one (1) school board candidate, his campaign committee, nor anyone acting on their behalf, in any one (1) election.

Although Craig Dilger in the newscast likes to make these rules sound complex, are they really that hard to figure out?  Not really.  And those reading this include a certified public account and a few lawyers.  

You will also note from the news cast that Dilger said that Jim King's contributions were out there for all to see.  Let's look at the KREF data base, and you will note that in the publicly filed documents there is no record of those contributions  in the amount of $145,000 from Jim King to Katie King as a family contribution:

JAMES (JIM) KING'S 2008 FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO KATIE KING AS REPORTED TO KREF [The combined contributions were almost overlooked in the search and may still be two different individuals since the names are different and the occupations different and the addresses different.]

The list of Katie King's contributions to her own campaigns are below the fold of this post and total $243,489.08 for 2008 and $10,000 (thus far) for 2010.  You will also note that the timing of a very large portion of those contributions were so late in the campaign cycle that they were not reported until after the election!  With the effect that the opponent did not even know the amount of money available to his opponent, AND he did not know where that money was coming from! 

And in the general election, the following dates and amounts from Katie King to Katie King were for  AFTER the election:

$40,000 on 11/6/08

$11,000 on 11/20/08

$10,000 on 12/04/09

$48,807.35 on 1/6/10 (for debt assumption)

$193,681.73 on 1/6/10 (for debt assumption)

Thus, these contributions were not out there for all to see, including the opponent.

However, McGibben's delay is not fair to either Katie King or the voters; not to mention the fact that the $130,000 (or actually $145,000 in total contributions by Jim King to Katie King) in illegal contributions may very well have been the key to Katie King defeating the sitting judge who was lawfully appointed by the governor and running to retain that seat.

Other bloggers throughout the state are scrutinizing this issue closely:

• JIM AND KATIE KING $30,000 IN FINES IS JUST THE BEGINNING by Ed Springston at My View Matters
  
  

• JIM KING CPA: WHO IS THE REAL KING?by Ed Springston at My View Matters

Some other posts here:

1. Kentucky Law Review: More on the Katie King - Jim King Campaign ...

   The news stories indicate that Jim King gave his daughter $145000 in the midst of her campaign to be used for her judicial campaign knowing she would put ...
   
   www.kentuckylawblog.com/.../more-on-the-katie-king-jim-king-campaign-finance-story-as-legislation-proposed-to-clear-up-the-mess.html - Cached

2. Kentucky Law Review: LOCAL JUDGES: "Blogger: Judge King went easy ...

   Nov 19, 2009 ... Ed Springston has fired another complaint involving Judge Katie King. This time it is based upon her conduct on the bench (as opposed to the ...
   
   www.kentuckylawblog.com/.../local-judges-blogger-judge-king-went-easy-on-accused-friend.html - Cached

3. Kentucky Law Review: More links to stories on the Judge King ...

   Sep 27, 2009 ... My earlier post (Judicial Elections - Stories on Judge Katie King's Campaign Finance Violations of the law) linked mostly to the series of ...
   
   www.kentuckylawblog.com/.../more-links-to-stories-on-the-judge-king-campaign-finance-violations.html - Cached - Similar

4. Kentucky Law Review: Judicial Elections - Stories on Judge Katie ...

   Sep 27, 2009 ... Here are some of the stories surrounding the Katie King campaign for ... His daughter, Katie King, narrowly won her Jefferson District Court ...
   
   www.kentuckylawblog.com/.../judicial-elections-stories-on-judge-katie-kings-campaign-finance-violations-of-the-law.html - Similar

5. Kentucky Law Review: Special Prosecutor Investigating the King ...

   Oct 7, 2009 ... A reader has reminded me where I had heard the name Hart Megibben in the news previously. Hart Megibeen was near the "heart" or should I say ...

2008 & 2010 CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS OF KATIE KING TO KATIE KING - JUDGE ELECTION: