Legislative leadership races draw big money, little scrutiny

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- The fruits of a successful campaign will be realized Wednesday by a handful of legislators chosen by their colleagues for leadership positions.

Their official duties begin when the session does. But the work in attaining their positions occurred during last fall's elections. And it came with a price.

In a behind-the-scenes campaign, a dozen hopeful legislative leaders raised more than $725,000 -- a significant part of which they donated to the election campaigns of fellow legislative candidates as a way of building support.

The money raised by would-be legislative leaders came on top of what they raised and spent for their own election campaigns.

But because of loopholes in state law, it is somewhat unclear who -- if anyone -- has the responsibility of ensuring the legislative leadership candidates complied with campaign finance laws.

Most candidates for "public office" file periodic campaign finance reports with the Missouri Ethics Commission.

Matter of definitions

But the confusion starts with the definition of "public office."

In 1995, Attorney General Jay Nixon's office issued an opinion interpreting the law to include the House speaker as a "public office" falling under campaign finance laws.

Later that year, the Ethics Commission further opined that speaker candidates' campaign finance reports should be filed with the House of Representatives -- not the Ethics Commission -- because the House served as the election authority for choosing the speaker.

Then in 1996, the Ethics Commission issued another opinion determining that the House speaker pro tem -- the second ranking House position -- was not a statewide office. So candidates were not required to form a separate committee or entitled to raise the larger amounts of money that speaker candidates could.

That opinion was based partly on a law that later was repealed. Regardless, candidates in this year's leadership races seemed unaware that the Ethic's Commission opinion existed.

For example, Republican House speaker pro tem nominee Rod Jetton accepted the same, larger size of contributions as Republican speaker nominee Catherine Hanaway and Democratic speaker candidate Mark Abel.

House Clerk Ted Wedel recently sent a letter to the Ethics Commission asserting the speaker pro tem position is a "state office" subject to higher contribution limits, because it is elected by the full House like the speaker. Wedel urged the commission to clarify its position.

Ethics Commission executive director Robert Connor acknowledged Friday the House's interpretation may be right, and he said he was rethinking the Ethics Commission's previous position.

But that's not the end of the confusion.

Requirements uncertain

Also uncertain are the campaign finance requirements for leadership positions chosen by political party caucuses, instead of the full legislative body. These include the majority and minority floor leaders and their assistants.

The House clerk's office has interpreted the law to mean those leadership candidates do not have to file campaign finance reports because they are not seeking a state office elected by the full chamber.

In fact, Republican Rep. Jason Crowell -- the next House majority floor leader -- said he thought the law prohibited him from forming a fund-raising committee for his particular leadership position.

In the Senate, however, Crowell's counterpart candidates took the opposite approach. They formed committees, raised money and filed finance reports.

Senate Secretary Terry Spieler said the Senate doesn't have a policy on whether reports should be filed -- the candidates simply took the initiative to do so.

But that led to more confusion.

Republican Sen. Michael Gibbons -- the next Senate majority floor leader -- accepted the same larger size of contributions that were received by Senate President Pro Tem Peter Kinder, who unlike Gibbons is elected by the full chamber, not a caucus.

Gibbons thought he could do so because his duties carry a statewide mission.

Who is to say if Gibbons was right or wrong? The Ethics Commission, which doesn't claim authority over party caucus elections? Or the Senate, which has no power to enforce campaign finance laws?

"That is a very viable question, and I can't give you the answer right now," said Connor, the ethics director, who adds that no one has filed an official complaint or requested an official opinion on the issue.

Given the lack of clear rules, candidates for legislative leadership positions are left to do about what they please -- or whatever they think seems right.

Jetton describes it as a system with "no rhyme or reason for how to turn in reports" or how to comply with the technicalities of the law.

The solution, of course, would be to clarify the rules. That could be accomplished through new Ethics Commission guidelines based on the existing law.

But it may ultimately take a change in law -- a situation that would let legislators set their own rules on campaigning for leadership positions.