Jake, I really don’t think this is about where Jay Nixon gets his bagels.

If the shoe were on the other foot, the usual lefty suspects would be in here accusing Blunt of trying to conceal what he’s paying for, while speculating on the types of goods and services it may be.

You know it, and so do I.

Disclosure of each separate charge (dated as of the date of the charge) is what the MEC has been teaching for years in its fundamental campaign reporting seminars. Nixon’s campaign is really behind the curve on this one.

Many vendors take credit cards, including many print media outlets (including the Post Dispatch) and even some consultants. Just listing the credit card payment conceals the nature of the expenditures and also delays it by a report or two. While I question why a campaign would have to disclose its confidential strategy by listing these expenses, that requirement has been the law for as long as campaign disclosure has been required in present form, so the playing field is level.

The law is actually even stricter. A campaign is obligated to disclose an expenditure at the time it has been contracted, not the time of payment (even by credit card). The unpaid expenditure is listed as a cost “incurred”, and the eventual payment is merely a paydown of debt.

The MEC is right on the money with this one. The disclosure of expenditures would be absolutely meaningless had they ruled the other way - you can pay for almost anything on a credit card these days, from campaign signs to drinks on the east side. Shame on Nixon for hiding behind credit card bills. Not only should be know better, but we should expect better.

Hesitantly I offer the following to be considered although it somewhat seems to be defening Jay Nixon - something I have no intention of doing especially when he has done such a poor job of defending me as a citizen of the state of Missouri - but here goes.

The RSMo 130.041.1(4)(d) only requires “The full name and mailing address of each person to whom an expenditure of money or any other thing of value in the amount of more than one hundred dollars has been made, contracted for or incurred,…” It has been reported that Nixon has turned in all credit card payments satisfying the letter of the law requirement that “…each person to whom an expenditure of money…”. The Ethics Commission has provided an opinion that I believe addresses the intent of the law but not the letter of the law.

Nixon was placed in a position to obey the ruling of the Ethics Commission - the legislature needs to fix the wording to make it very clear and to avoid any future claims that the letter of the law was met while the intent was not.

Not the case, jasonb - using a credit card to pay for something constitutes “an expenditure of money” just as much as if you handed them a twenty dollar bill. You’re confusing money with currency, they aren’t the same thing.

Understand what your are saying Nick but I still believe the statute would lend itself to the interpretation above. My main point is the legislature should rectify any doubt.

Maybe that is something Koster can get the legislature to fix when he is AG!

Koster - Nixon - Blunt - Harris - Donnelly - Harris - Gibbons — They ALL served in the legislature, and not one of them addressed the issue when they had the chance.

Jason, I’ve always appreciated your comments as a quasi-insider, but you’ve blown it, here.

There is a difference between law and administrative rule. The law is set up as a guideline, the rules can take it a step further, and usually does.

Oracle - Apparently Blunt didn’t think it was an issue - he properly disclosed under the current law. Now that Nixon has made it an issue, the legislature may need to act. It’s like they say, the law exists to regulate bad people. Good people don’t need laws to force them to be good.