JEFFERSON CITY — Missouri politicians are cutting corners in the way they report spending campaign funds, and lax ethics laws allow them to do it.
Candidates’ campaign finance reports from the past year are often short on details about how they spent their money. Politicians shelled out hundreds of thousands of dollars on political consulting without describing the services purchased, even though state law requires more specificity.
Politicians also spent campaign money freely on food and entertainment. One senator spent $1,000 on a meal for a campaign worker. Another spent thousands on electronics, and one representative spent hundreds at a luxury hotel and on event tickets.
Vague terminology on the reports rarely raises eyebrows at the Missouri Ethics Commission, the body that collects and reviews campaign finance reports. The commission is short-staffed and lacks the resources to effectively review each expenditure reported by a candidate.
Compounding the problem, Missouri statutes are imprecise in delineating the requirements for how candidates should report their expenditures and what is a proper campaign expense.
Those questions are at the center of a case that will be considered by the Missouri Supreme Court this summer, when judges hear an appeal filed by former Sen. Robin Wright-Jones, D-St. Louis.
The Ethics Commission found that she spent thousands of dollars of campaign money for personal use, failed to report some contributions and expenses, and overcharged for travel costs. Among the items that the commission determined that she spent campaign funds on were clothes, groceries, dry cleaning, tickets and video games.
Wright-Jones appealed. Her attorney’s brief is due in court on June 19.
Vague laws
Candidates have leeway when it comes to spending their campaign money.
Missouri statutes allow candidates to spend money on anything related to the campaign, the duties of an officeholder, and anything associated with the duties of candidacy or political office. They also can spend money on entertaining constituents or other politicians.
Kurt Schaefer, a former Republican state senator from Columbia, frequently dined on his campaign’s dime last year. He spent $1,000 on "political gifts" at CC’s City Broiler in December, four months after he lost his primary bid for attorney general. The same night, he spent another $200 at 44 Stone Public House, a Columbia restaurant.
Entrees at CC’s City Broiler, an upscale Columbia steakhouse, range from $30 to $50. Its most popular dish, a filet with lobster tail, is $49.95.
Scott Dieckhaus, Schaefer’s campaign manager, said the expenses were appreciation dinners for one of Schaefer’s campaign workers.
Mike Parson, who was elected lieutenant governor in November, spent more than $700 in January for office mats. The rugs were from Logo Mat Central LLC, which creates customized welcome mats from an image submitted by the customer.
James Harris, a consultant for his campaign, said the expense saved his constituents from paying for office renovating.
"Candidates often use their campaign funds to try to save tax dollars," Harris said.
Parson spent an additional $8,474 of taxpayer money for office furniture, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
In December, House Speaker Todd Richardson, R-Poplar Bluff, listed nearly $2,000 for "inauguration gifts." David Willis, an aide to Richardson, said the money bought coffee mugs that were handed out at his January inauguration.
Caleb Jones, a former state representative from Columbia, has spent thousands on meals and entertainment. Jones, a Republican, ran unopposed in November for re-election as a representative. In January, he was appointed as Gov. Eric Greitens’ deputy chief of staff.
Jones spent $371 at The Venetian, a luxury Las Vegas hotel, in December 2015. In August, he spent $1,000 at Ernie Biggs, a dueling piano bar in Branson.
He has frequently used campaign money to dine at CC’s City Broiler, on one occasion spending more than $500.
Jones also paid Ameren Missouri and Kansas City Power and Light for tickets. He paid Ameren $531 for tickets in November, and he paid $665 to Kansas City Power and Light for tickets in October 2015.
Jones said he couldn’t remember what the tickets were for, but thought he reimbursed a lobbyist for a gift. That’s allowed, if he used the tickets in his capacity as a candidate or officeholder for some campaign or official purpose.
Candidates probably wouldn’t be spending as much money on dinners and other similar expenses if they were paying with their own money, said John Messmer, a political scientist at St. Louis Community College at Meramec.
Using campaign money that way "may be legal, but it’s not ethical," he said.
Messmer is a staunch opponent of lobbyist gifts. He has circulated petitions legislators can sign to refuse gifts from lobbyists.
"This is an issue that cuts across partisan and ideological lines," he said.
Lacking details
Candidates also paid thousands for campaign consulting last year, but sometimes it's impossible to tell what services they bought.
The six leaders of Missouri’s executive branch, in addition to state House and Senate majority and minority leaders and last year’s Columbia representatives, listed a total of more than $1 million for consulting in 2016.
Parson, State Treasurer Eric Schmitt and Schaefer each spent more than $200,000 on consulting services. All are Republicans.
Jones, who is now an adviser to the governor, listed more than $20,000 in expenses for consulting last year.
In July, Jones paid a total of $6,250 for consulting he categorized simply as "July consult." There is no further description of the services.
That vague wording is at odds with a Missouri statute, which mandates: "'consulting or consulting services, fees, or expense', or similar words, shall not be used to describe the purpose of a payment."
The statute dictates that the supplemental forms that accompany candidates' finance reports should specify any services provided by an independent contractor. Those services can include public opinion polling, research on issues or opposition background, print or broadcast media production and computer programming or data entry.
Jones said consulting refers mostly to jobs done by campaign workers, but consultants also kept his district informed about Jones' activities as a lawmaker.
"It varies, obviously, depending on what you do," he said. Jones said he plans to terminate his campaign committee in the coming months.
Schaefer listed a total of more than $220,000 for consulting expenses last year on filings with the Ethics Commission, with little specification about what consulting services were bought.
His reports frequently list "operational and strategic consulting" as expenditures, which Schaefer often paid to Palm Strategic Group, a Jefferson City company managed by Dieckhaus.
Dieckhaus, Schaefer’s campaign manager, and Jean Paul Bradshaw, his treasurer and a former U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Missouri, said the consultants researched Schaefer’s opponents, conducted polling or worked on advertisements. Some of the expenditures went toward searching for workers for Schaefer’s campaign.
When asked whether the reports should have been more specific to comply with state statutes and Missouri Ethics Commission rules, Bradshaw said: "They’ve taken reports without requesting additional information, so it was sufficient for their purposes."
Messmer said that candidates spend their campaign money freely simply because they can, and the Ethics commission doesn’t have the money or enough staff to properly enforce the rules.
"The reality is, they’re not given the support that they need to truly be effective," Messmer said.
Ethics Commission
The Ethics Commission collects candidates’ campaign finance reports periodically throughout the year. After the commission reviews them, the reports are posted online.
Two scenarios prompt the commission to investigate a campaign finance report said James Klahr, the commission’s executive director. The commission will investigate when someone files a complaint against a candidate. Complaints are occasionally filed when candidates do not correctly report contributions or expenditures.
If the commission notices discrepancies within a candidate’s report, it can open an audit, Klahr said. For example, the commission may audit a report if one committee has reported making a contribution to a second committee, and that campaign committee does not report it being received. Audits are generally reserved for committees that display a pattern of such discrepancies.
Formal audits are rare — only one or two dozen are done each year, said Betsy Byers, the commission's business services director. Three business services staffers regularly review the reports.
"There’s thousands of committees and we have three people who assist" in the reviews, she said.
Six people serve on the Ethics Commission, which is bipartisan. Members are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Senate and no more than three can be of the same political party. Klahr and 21 staff members assist the commissioners.
In 2013, more than 8,900 campaign finance reports were filed.
The Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit investigative news organization, rated Missouri a 'D' for ethics enforcement in 2015. The poor rating came in part because the legislature, the body the Ethics Commission oversees, determines the commission’s budget. The Center also criticized the commission because it is not required to release public reports about its investigations and audits.
Even if the commission does not audit a campaign finance report, it can still require candidates to explain expenditures. Missouri's campaign finance law requires candidates to keep records and receipts for three years after an election. If the Ethics Commission deems a report insufficient, the candidate must file an amended one.
"Almost always, the committees are very cooperative," Byers said.
Up to interpretation
Candidates must dispose of assets purchased for their campaign, such as electronics, when they terminate their candidate committee. It’s up to the candidates to follow through with that process and they must note it on their reports.
Sen. Jason Holsman, D-Kansas City, spent more than $4,700 on electronics last year, including a cellphone handset, a camera and a laptop.
Holsman, the Senate minority caucus chairman, was re-elected in November.
Holsman said the Ethics Commission has always left the disposal of the items up to him. If the value of the items has depreciated, he has gotten rid of them. He has also donated electronics purchased by the campaign to charity or to his staff. Sometimes, he has had the items appraised and has purchased them from the campaign with his own money.
Holsman paid $18,995 last September for a car — a 2009 hybrid GMC truck. Holsman used the car to visit donors outside his district and for other campaign activities throughout the state according to the Kansas City Star.
Jones, who spent $1,000 on an iPhone over the summer, said he plans to buy it from his campaign.
An iPhone 7 Plus with 256 gigabytes of memory, which is the latest model with the most amount of storage, costs $970 from AT&T.
Holsman said he keeps an online spreadsheet documenting his purchases. “If you’re going to do it the right way, you keep an asset ledger," he said.
For now, Holsman is keeping the computer and camera. He said he will use them for his next campaign, but that campaign will not be for the state Senate. He is term-limited.
Holsman said the rules about reporting expenditures are "pretty wide open." Holsman said he frequently consults with the Ethics Commission to ask questions about how he can spend his money.
"Every single thing I’ve ever done has been with permission," he said. "I'm one of the legislators who will have hour-long conversations with the Ethics Commission."
The commission publishes advisory opinions about how candidates should report their expenditures, though candidates often turn a deaf ear.
For example, the commission discourages candidates from listing a credit card company as the recipient of an expenditure. Instead, candidates should "list the required details of the actual expenditures made," the commission said in a 2007 opinion.
But Richardson, the House speaker, has charged more than $3,000 in expenses to Sears and Chase credit cards in the past year. The charges were for travel and lodging costs, but Richardson’s reports give no further explanation.
Willis said Richardson’s campaign committee didn’t know until about a month ago that listing credit card expenses was discouraged. His campaign is in the process of amending the reports.
"We have fixed that practice," Willis said.
The travel costs included trips for state Republican caucus events, Willis said.
Byers said the commission also discourages candidates from reimbursing themselves.
"We advise committees to limit their reimbursements, but we realize it’s not always practical," Byers said.
Parson spent about $26,000 reimbursing himself for mileage last year.
James Harris, a consultant on Parson’s campaign, attributed the cost to the candidate’s drives to campaign events around the state.
Requesting more
It’s hard to say whether candidates are using their campaign funds illegally. But if they are, it could slip past the Ethics Commission unnoticed.
Starting in January, local candidate committees, in addition to statewide committees, have been required to file campaign finance reports with the commission, further straining its staff.
That strain may soon be relieved. The legislature approved a $1.5 million budget for the Ethics Commission for the next fiscal year, up from $1.4 million. Klahr said that will allow the commission to add two staff members, who will help local filers and audit reports.
But fixing the problem will take more than money, Messmer said, stressing that lawmakers need to give the Ethics Commission more resources.
"More legislators need to talk about how the Ethics Commission needs to be strengthened," Messmer said. "People want this."
Supervising editor is Mark Horvit.