Nixon

The Springfield News-Leader’s Chad Livengood had an interesting package over the weekend that focused on the groups who had poured campaign money into the successful gubernatorial bid of soon-to-be-ex Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon.

Two of the governor-elect’s biggest supporters were trial lawyers and unions — as expected for a Democratic candidate.

But Livengood also took note of some contributions that Nixon received from, you guessed it, journalists or executives with news organizations. (Click here for the story.)

Nixon received $4,330 from 25 contributions from news-related individuals from October 2007 to the Nov. 4 general election, by Livengood’s accounting.

Most of the bigger news-related donors were editors or publishers for various outstate papers. But also among the contributors were two area writers with former ties to the Post-Dispatch, although neither reported on politics or government. (They are former P-D freelance writer Esther Fenning of St. Charles and former writer/editor Sarah Casey Newman.) The donations were made after they no longer wrote for the paper.

Post-Dispatch editor Arnie Robbins is quoted extensively
in the article, and makes clear that no government/political writers are allowed to donate to candidates.

Missed in the article, and perhaps not applicable in Nixon’s campaign accounting, is a campaign-reporting practice that can make reporters look like they’re donating to a candidate — when they’re not.

Many campaigns, on a national and state level, charge news outlets a fee for certain expenses involved in covering their candidate. Democratic President-elect Barack Obama, for example, charged Missouri reporters for transportation costs if they traveled with his campaign during his campaign stops in the state.

The Missouri Republican Party charged news organizations a fee for the reporters who accompanied the party’s delegation to the presidential convention in St. Paul. That fee, separate from the hotel bills, covered bus transportation to and from various events, and some meals. The Democratic National Committee had a fee arrangement for its bus shuttle service, which often was the only way reporters could get to and from the convention hall.

Some campaign or political groups list those press payments as “contributions,” even though they are not. It depends on how the campaigns handle such payments in their accounting practices.

In 1992, for example, I was spending a day traveling with then-GOP gubernatorial favorite Bill Webster. Because there was no other way for me to get access to any food that day, I paid $6.30 for a hot dog and soft drink at his campaign picnic in the afternoon. (I have always made it a habit to pay for any such food I eat at campaign events.)

A few weeks later, his campaign report came out, and my payment was listed as a contribution.

I received an angry call from one of his rivals for the nomination, Roy Blunt (then secretary of state), who asked about why I had donated to Webster. When I explained, Blunt (who was aware that I always paid for what I ate or drank at campaign events) was shocked and a bit bemused. Blunt made no public statements about it.

I also gave a heads-up to my editors, who already were aware of the $6.30 expenditure, because the paper already had reimbursed me for it — but who were obviously stunned by how Webster handled it.

In more recent campaign reports by various candidates or parties, they usually label such press payments as such. BUT, most are still listed in the contribution column.

None of that may apply to the 25 media-related donors to Nixon. But in some cases, it might.