SOMETHING'S ROTTEN IN CAPE GIRARDEAU

Somebody in Cape has been lying. Or so it appears now that campaign finance reports due 30 days after this November's election have been filed.

Specifically, I am talking about those who led the Elect a Neighbor Committee, who, after failing to meet every campaign disclosure deadline before the election, finally made one on time. And what does it show? Somebody wasn't telling the truth.

Perhaps the most glaring discrepancy in what was said before the election and what has become apparent afterwards is the amount of money this group said it received and spent.

Time after time Larry Godfrey and Miki Gudermuth, two of the most outspoken members of the group (and whose homes are listed respectively on the report as the committee and treasurer's mailing addresses), said before the election that they did not expect to spend $1,000. This number is significant because it represents the level where certain campaign laws kick in.

Indeed, on Oct. 29, Larry Godfrey was quoted in the Southeast Missourian as saying that the group had not filed campaign reports because it had not reached the $1,000 threshold. "If you don't spend over $1,000, you don't need to file a statement," he said. "We haven't spent that much."

But Godfrey's group now reports that, in fact, it spent $1,590 on Oct. 26, two days before Godfrey spoke to the Southeast Missourian. Did Godfrey just not know about this expenditure? Or was he lying?

The campaign disclosure report is even more damning. It shows that a day after the Godfrey interview ran in the newspaper, the group spent $1,026 on newspaper ads and signs. The fact of the matter, though, is that the signs had been up in people's yards two to three weeks before, and the first of the newspaper ads had already run.

Maybe Godfrey just felt that because the committee wasn't actually going to pay for these things until a couple days later, he didn't need to refer to them when telling the public that they hadn't spent over $1,000 (although they had, and were planning to spend triple that amount).

Actually, it doesn't matter when the committee spent the money at this point. Even if these items (the signs and newspaper ads) weren't paid for until a day after the interview (or a day after the election), the law states that campaign disclosure reports must be filed if $1,000 is anticipated to be spent.

Clearly, Godfrey was either lying to the public, or, he didn't know what was really going on with his own committee.

Let me give Godfrey the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he wasn't lying. Maybe he didn't really know who was doing what in his committee. Maybe he didn't authorize the newspaper ads or signs. Maybe he didn't know how much his group was spending. Maybe he didn't know how much it was planning to spend. Maybe he didn't know where the money was coming from.

The problem with this is that if I give Larry Godfrey the benefit of the doubt, what Miki Gudermuth says about the whole thing doesn't make sense. After all, it was Miki Gudermuth who wrote a letter to the editor, printed Nov. 30, that said: "We (the committee leaders) were not innocent people who were being `used' to do the work of factions who want to undermine the present city council through a `power play struggle.' ... Anyone that helped us in our endeavor came at our request, because to fight with money, in this day and age of upper income rule, you must have money .... `We went to them.' We are not puppets on a string."

What Gudermuth, in effect, says in her letter is that "we" (the committee) were in control. "We went to them." We knew exactly what we were doing.

If that's the truth, then did she know that the committee had already spent over $1,000? She was its treasurer. Did she go to these monied people because she knew the committee was going to need even more (because it had already spent well over $1,000)? If the "we" she talks about had control, then isn't she, in effect, painting Godfrey a liar?

But this mish mash of truth doesn't stop here. Let's look even closer at the finances.

In her letter to the editor, Gudermuth writes: "When Curtis Smith filed charges (that the committee had violated campaign finance laws), we had not even reached $800 in in-kind or monetary contributions." This draws forth a new question. Should we the public believe Gudermuth in what she wrote in this letter? Or, should we believe what she wrote in the official campaign report, where she discloses that $1,590 was paid by the committee on Oct. 26 to Red Letter Communications for radio ads two days before Curtis Smith filed his charges.

So where is she wrong? In her letter to the editor or in the official finance report? Or both?

Actually, I'd like to give Gudermuth, Godfrey and the whole committee the benefit of the doubt. Maybe they didn't mean to lie, or didn't know they were lying, or maybe didn't understand what was going on around them. Maybe they didn't intend to spend over $1,000, they just accidentally did, and thank God benevolent Cape Girardean Jim Drury came to their rescue with a no-strings attached gift of $2,100 (four days before the election). Maybe Drury didn't tell them ahead of time that this money would be coming. Maybe Gudermuth, Godfrey and the committee just overspent $2,000 out of poor management. Maybe they just got so caught up in the cause that laws didn't matter anymore. Maybe that's how we should run city government (as this committee seems to recommend): To hell with the law!

Maybe.

Maybe not.

One thing is clear, though. Something's rotten in Cape Girardeau.