Jay Nixon: Latest News
News Clips
- Nixon to Return Over-limit Contributions by End of Year: Calls on Blunt to do Same
JEFFERSON CITY, MO - On the deadline day for candidates to inform the Missouri Ethics Commission (MEC) of whether they plan to return over-limit contributions or attempt to claim a hardship, Attorney General Jay Nixon's campaign today announced that it would return excess contributions by December 31, 2007 and that those adjustments would be reflected on the regularly scheduled January 15, 2008 report. Nixon Campaign Manager Ken Morley sent a letter (attached and below) to the Missouri Ethics Commission earlier today informing them of the campaign's decision.
"The campaign will return contributions received in excess of the newly reinstated limits in accordance with the Court's ruling," wrote campaign manager Ken Morley in the letter. "We believe that if a candidate has sufficient cash on hand, then returning excess contributions in order to be compliant with the law is not a hardship. We therefore believe that circumstances do not exist under which a candidate for Governor could in good faith request, or that the Ethics Commission could conceivably grant, a hardship in this instance."
Nixon's campaign also called on Governor Blunt to state clearly that he too will return the millions in excess contributions and will not seek a hardship exemption.
"Matt Blunt has a clear choice: he can spend the next month inventing creative reasons to keep his special interest millions, or he can announce today that he is following our lead and returning over-limit donations," said Morley.
The campaign also expressed concern that the Ethics Commission plans to keep the hardship process secret. "If any candidate seeks to argue that returning contributions in excess of the limits somehow constitutes a hardship, the public deserves to know. Furthermore, in the unlikely event that the Commission determines to grant a hardship, the public deserves to know how the Commission arrived at its decision," wrote Morley.
November 26, 2007
Mr. Joseph A. Carroll
Director of Campaign Finance
Missouri Ethics Commission
P.O. Box 1254
Jefferson City, MO 65102Dear Mr. Carroll:
The people of Missouri, the Supreme Court, and now the Missouri Ethics Commission have all spoken. Campaign contribution limits are once again the law of the land. All who believe the 1st Amendment rights of wealthy special interests are no more important than the rights of regular Missourians should celebrate this development.
I am writing today to inform you that Nixon for Governor recognizes that the Supreme Court's ruling to reinstate contribution limits applies retroactively to January 1, 2007. The campaign will return contributions received in excess of the newly reinstated limits in accordance with the Court's ruling. These adjustments will be complete by December 31, 2007 and will be reflected on our regularly scheduled January 15, 2008 report.
We inform you of this decision without knowledge of whether other candidates seeking the same office or in the same class will also agree to comply with the newly reinstated contribution limits. In your letter of November 15 you outline a process by which a candidate could seek to claim that abiding by the newly reinstated contribution limits, and reimbursing excess contributions when necessary, constitutes a "hardship." It is our belief that if a candidate has sufficient cash on hand, then returning excess contributions in order to be compliant with the law is not a hardship.
We therefore believe that circumstances do not exist under which a candidate for Governor could in good faith request, or that the Ethics Commission could conceivably grant, a hardship in this instance.
It is possible, however, that not all candidates in our class will act in good faith and willingly comply with the new law. It is because of this that we are gravely concerned that the hardship process established in your November 15 letter is not open and transparent. If any candidate seeks to argue that returning contributions in excess of the limits somehow constitutes a hardship, the public deserves to know.
Furthermore, in the unlikely event that the Commission determines to grant a hardship, the public deserves to know how the Commission arrived at its decision. Because we believe this process should be open and transparent, it is our intent to make this communication public.
Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions.
Regards,
Ken Morley
Campaign Manager
Nixon for Governor - Health care stance a liability for Blunt
By Virginia Young and Jo Mannies
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCHNearly three years after cuts in Medicaid and an overhaul of the program, a majority of likely Missouri voters disapprove of Gov. Matt Blunt's handling of the state's health care system for the poor, according to a new poll.
That helps explain why the Republican governor trails his Democratic rival, Attorney General Jay Nixon, in a Research 2000 poll for the Post-Dispatch and KMOV-TV (Channel 4).
The survey of 800 likely Missouri voters, conducted last week, showed that 51 percent supported Nixon, compared with 42 percent for Blunt. The remaining 7 percent were undecided.
Nixon's edge exceeds the poll's margin of error of 3.5 percentage points for each individual number.
The election will be held in November 2008. Pollster Del Ali, head of Research 2000, said Blunt's handling of Medicaid is "kind of his albatross."
Of those polled, 57 percent said they opposed Blunt's approach to government-funded health care for the poor. Strong opposition from those identifying themselves as Democrats and independents overshadowed the slight majority of Republicans who said they supported the governor's handling of health care.
In 2005, Blunt and the state Legislature cut about 100,000 people from Missouri's Medicaid rolls. The governor said the program was growing too fast, jeopardizing funding for education and other priorities.
But, Ali said, "There's a lot of voter anger from these cuts."This year, Blunt created a new health care program for the poor, called MO HealthNet, that adds some services for women, disabled workers and children. He is also setting up a program called Insure Missouri to help the working poor buy insurance.
But Ali said it appears those programs have yet to catch on with voters.
"It's clear that voters don't think this is going to cover those who are poor and need help," he said.
How will the issue affect Blunt's re-election run against Nixon? Among those polled, 61 percent said that Blunt's handling of health care in Missouri will play an "important" or "very important" role in whom they support for governor.
One of the poll respondents, Phyllis Pearson, 63, of Oran in southeastern Missouri, said her two grandchildren lost coverage because of the Medicaid cuts. And the changes launched this year won't help Pearson's family.
"I was an avid campaigner for Matt Blunt," she said. "But we have just seen so much sadness that we will never vote for him again."
Health care appears to be a particularly powerful issue for female voters in Missouri.
Among the women polled, Medicaid nudged education funding as the top issue influencing their vote for governor. But likely male voters had sharply different priorities. Their top state issues in the poll: taxes and immigration.
IMMIGRATION
The poll signaled that the public's concern about illegal immigration — a particularly hot-button issue among Republicans — could help Blunt.
Among those polled, almost two-thirds said they favored Blunt's directive to the state Highway Patrol to check the residency or immigration status of people who are arrested or jailed. Nixon supports the policy.
In addition, 67 percent of those polled favor a proposed state constitutional amendment making English the official language for government proceedings.
Both Blunt and Nixon support the amendment. The Legislature has called for an election on it. It will be on the November ballot unless Blunt chooses an earlier election.
David Webber, associate professor of political science at the University of Missouri-Columbia, says the English-language proposal has the potential of driving up Republican voter turnout in the state.
About four of every five Republicans surveyed in the poll backed the English-only amendment, compared with about half of Democrats.
Both parties have increasingly pushed what Webber calls "strategic ballot measures" to motivate their supporters.
For Michael Jansen of Imperial, no other issue in the governor's race is more important than stopping illegal immigration.
Jansen, 60, recognizes that it falls to the federal government, not the states, to enforce immigration laws. But he believes federal officials have failed to take proper steps, and he looks to Blunt to step in instead.
&q