Kander Returns Excess Contributions
In a couple recent threads, commenters were wondering whether Jason Kander was going to return contributions he had received in excess of the recently reinstated caps. I agreed that was a good and legitimate question, and promised that I would ask the next time I spoke with Jason. Turns out I didn't have to wait that long.
One of the benefits of having a good website is that it eases communication on issues like this. I looked at Jason's website this morning, and it provides all the information I wanted. On his issues page, he sets out his position quite clearly: "I support the current limits on campaign contributions. I also support the decision of the Ethics Commission to make the limits retroactive." On his news page, there's a quotation from an AP article, including Diana Kander's statement, "We're excited about the limits being reinstated," said Diana Kander, the candidate's wife and campaign treasurer. "We think it's better for the campaign process."
It's great to have a candidate out there letting you know where he stands.
Being a fair-minded, equal-time kind of person, I went to Amy Coffman's website to see if she had any similar pronouncements declaring her support of the campaign process. She doesn't.
Labels: 44th District, Jason Kander
posted by Dan at 9/19/2007 06:53:00 AM
33 Comments:
Nice try Dan.
I've always thought it odd when people heap excessive amounts of praise on someone for doing what most people agree is simply the right thing to do. Jason's decided he's going to obey the law -- Congratulations!
Kander could have applied for a hardship, like Koster and Blunt seem to be doing.
So, this leaves Kander with $13.26 in cash on hand, right?
So Jason decided he wouldn't claim some BS "hardship" in an attempt to keep the money. Again -- Congratulations!
nice try? we still don't know if Amy is pro choice. how about a single reason to vote for her? If all these people in her camp can't put their minds together to think of one positive thing to say about her, she should be a little worried.
Dan wasn't "heaping excessive amounts of praise" on Jason - he was living up to his promise to get an answer. Give the dude a break!
I have never heard of either one. You think I'll be seeing their ads on television?
Mainstream,
I think you mistook the can of worms for the can of whoopass.
Mainstream -
"Also, note I was married in the Catholic Church, cooked many meals for Father Finnerty, and even some of my best friends are Catholic."
You let your guard down and just gave several people the final piece of the puzzle. It's now glaringly obvious who you are, but since this seems to be your hobby, I won't expose you. Also, I cannot stand the Kanders and wouldn't want to give them the satisfaction of knowing who you are.
But now that your identity is known, at least to me, it's easy to tell that you're also unafraid of fibbing. ("I've never even met her before.")
This is kinda sad, you posting like this. Your friends want you to stop.
And if you decide to run for the 44th to split the male vote, do you plan to shave the beard?
Who ever you're thinking of, that's not me. I truly have never met Amy, and I'm not ready, at this time to support Amy.
I may, but I'm in no rush to make my decision just yet.
Dan -
Delete Mainstream's comment. Your employment is irrelevant to your support of Kander - you are not a lobbyist supporting a lobbyist. Mainstream's anti-Catholic intimidation is beyond acceptable discourse - I know you haven't edited comments, but you don't have to take that kind of shit.
Mainstream is scum. Seriously, I think he might be wasted right now - a few hours ago, he was joshing around about having the last word on this topic, now he launches this vitriolic, excuseless attack.
Delete it, Dan.
Delete it, Dan.
But delete it knowing that I posted it to make a point.
What is the difference between your relationship with your employer, and Cheryl's relationship with her employer?
And what is the difference between your relationship with Jason Kander, and Cheryl's relationship with Amy Coffman?
Dan,
I respect your insight, your thoughtfulness and your Democratic values. Your employer is irrelevant. I understand that people's employers may be a reason to be anonymous. I choose to post under my name and have taken more than my fair share of beatings.
It is too bad that mainstream seeks to destroy a perfectly good blog by slandering the Catholic church. Many of their values are those of the Democratic party (love your neighbor, feed the hungery). I hope no church every becomes the spokesperson for a party.
A post about returning excess contributions shouldn't serve as a reason to get a person in trouble at work. That is not the Democratic values I hold close.
Stephen, You make my point EXACTLY, and thank you.
If you knew my contributions to my parish and the way our children are being raised, you would have a different opinion of where I stand on Catholicism.
I agree with you wholeheartedly, a person's employer shouldn't usually enter into any equation.
If your employer is Coventry, what Coventry may do shouldn't necessarily taint their employees. I believe it was Dan who made the statement
"After at least two months of preparation for her campaign kick-off, she's kicking it off with a fundraiser sponsored by . . . a lobbyist for a health insurance company famous for denying coverage to dying cancer patients. Hmmm."
OK, Stephen, I'll spell it out for you even further (and for Dan as well) - I've put Dan in Cheryl's shoes. And I bet it doesn't feel too good.
You're being a bit dramatic, anon 4:13. Dan is a very active, public, and by and large a good democrat, and I doubt that he hides that fact at work. Given his job, it probably doesn't come up too often, either.
However, when you talk about it anon, you're making a value judgement. In your judgement, what Dan does for a living is good, and what Cheryl does isn't so good.
Therefore it's ok to be critical of Cheyl (and Amy) and not criticize Dan.
I disagree because we all have different values.
I believe the best thing to do is to just stay away from a "guilt by association" claims period - follow the Golden Rule.
Unless of course, criminial, civil laws and general codes of ethics have been violated.
I'm not a big blogger, but I am a fan of Dan and occasionally read with interest the discussions on his blog. I'm also a fan of Amy Coffman, and her treasurer, so I've followed with some interest the discussion that has taken up a lot of bandwidth on the site over the last few days about the race in the 44th District.
Admittedly, I was coming to the discussion from a particular perspective, but am frankly a little shocked at the tone of some of the posts and how the discussion quickly degenerated. I guess that's how free-flowing exchanges are supposed to go. In any event, here are a few thoughts on some of the issues I saw raised -- for what they're worth.
Amy is relatively new to the race. Her opponent has been running and raising money for months. Amy will have a website at www.amycoffman.com that will provide a great deal of information about her, and that will hopefully be of use to people who want to know more about her and what she will bring to the job. I expect that website will be up either contemporaneously with her kick-off event, or shortly thereafter. Amy will also be available throughout her campaign to people who might want to, you know, actually TALK to her to find out her position on issues of interest to them.
Amy is not some carpetbagger. She was born and raised here. She went to college in Alaska and spent some time there after she graduated, gaining valuable legislative and political experience working in the Alaska legislature and Democratic Party in a variety of capacities. Most recently, she put her experience to use in Missouri on behalf of Missouri seniors through her work at the Missouri State office of AARP. In that role, she has demonstrated a real ability to get things done in Jeff City -- a trait I believe she will take with her to the General Assembly.
She has been a dedicated volunteer for Amnesty International-USA, and American Field Service Intercultural Programs (AFS)
She is fiercely pro-choice.
She is supported by a number of top quality Democrats including -- yes -- Cheryl Dillard who -- yes --works for Coventry. I'm an attorney at Blackwell Sanders. I represent many companies and individuals, some of whose views and activities I would not want attributed to me personally. Cheryl Dillard is a good person and a true, blue, progressive Dem. She deserves better treatment than she's been getting here.
I'm glad Amy's opponent has indicated he intends to return the substantial amount of donations he's received that are in excess of the re-established limits. I also agree with the poster who said that this should be expected of any candidate.
I like Amy Coffman, and am proud to support her. I'm confident that in the days and months to come, I won't be the only one. . . .
No, dumbshit, you're wrong. Dan has, by and large, kept his full name off his blog, and I know for a fact that he does not discuss it with coworkers.
It's not a value judgment, though, now that you mention it, yeah, what Dan does is a little more worthy than lobbying for Coventry. But that's not the point - the point is that you are being a dick and putting a good guy's job at risk.
Cheryl's job depends on her sucking up to politicians. Dan's doesn't.
It's plenty ok to criticize Dan - I do it all the time. It's not ok to try to get him in trouble at work.
I just called Dan at work, and he didn't know about this yet. I won't quote him or put words in his mouth, but he's not nearly as casual about the seriousness of your assholishness as you are.
Maybe you're more stupid than evil, but it's hard to tell the difference today.
Dale,
Thank you for your post. When you say Amy is from here, do you mean she is from the 44th district? Kansas City? Did she go to high school around here? Just curious because I heard she was from Blue Springs.
A blogger takes some risk by just having a blog. That's a given. However, I don't believe it's fair game for a commenter to "expose him" or his employer even if said commenter believes it supports an argument. We're talking about real lives here, something I think we all sometimes fail to remember.
By the way, Mainstream, your name is..and your employer is?
Amy is pro-choice. Amy loses my vote. I'll remember her when I dont' for her. So sad
Travelingal,
This is all about Cheryl Dillard, and the remarks made by Dan about Cheryl.
These are the remarks at issue:
"After at least two months of preparation for her campaign kick-off, she's kicking it off with a fundraiser sponsored by . . . a lobbyist for a health insurance company famous for denying coverage to dying cancer patients. Hmmm."
Dan has been known well-before Primebuzz mentioned his name and blogger status 4 months ago. Dan posts on his blog telling his readers about a fundraiser he recently held for Jason; he's posted two posts that are unsolicited attacks on the opponent of his candidate.
Dan posts his full name on Blog CCP. Dan is very publicly engaged in CCP and Democratic party and other political activities. He's more active publicly than 99% of the rest of the residents of Kansas City.
And at least 5 people have noted to me about Dan's employer. His political activities and work activities are no secrets to anyone.
And Travelingal, your last statement underlines quite well my point: your employer has little or nothing to do with your character, or with politics and should be left out of political attacks.
That's the exact reason I exaggerated an attack on Dan's employer - in the same way it is unfair to characterize Cheryl's employer (and obviously by implication Cheryl, otherwise why bring it up?)as some one who "denies health care to dying cancer patients" - it is unfair to characterize Dan's employer and implicate Dan's with the supposed misdeeds of his employer.
The only thing being exposed here is that this type of behavior is just plain wrong.
I think Amy's from Blue Springs and graduated from high school there. Travelingal, if you're opposed to a pro-choice candidate, I guess you'll be staying home next August unless you plan on pulling a Republican ballot -- both candidates in the race are pro-choice. . . . so sad for you, I guess.
Congratulations Jason, it is very nice to see you made the sincere and monumental decision to comply with state Law. And with such speed! I must say, that high school in SHAWNEE MISSION. KANSAS must have really prepared you for the world.
Give us all a break.
Dan, can we have a local restaurant review or something? Anything?
Mainstream - wow. I had no idea you would do that. I won't delete your comments, because I think you're out of control, and I don't know what you would do next. Right now, I'll just drop my conversation with you. Can't reason with someone who is willing to do anything whatsoever to harm his opponent.
Dale - Thanks for visiting and commenting. According to the documents filed with the state, Amy has also been running for months now. Her failure to get a website up in those couple months surprises and disappoints me - I'd love to know more about her, and she really should have had something up before she started sending out invitations to her kickoff. She sent it to me - is it unreasonable to hope that she would give me a little bit of information about herself before she tries to get into my wallet? That said, it's a stumble, not a fatal fall off a cliff. Some of Amy's supporters seem to over-react to criticism - I know you have a more sophisticated and mature outlook.
I agree with you that Cheryl Dillard is a fine democrat, and I've already said so. Symbolically, though, it's dumb to have a lobbyist have her campaign kicked off by a Coventry lobbyist. There can't be any serious argument that it would have been a better choice to have someone else take that role.
And, to be clear, I'm not worried about where she went to high school.
Travelingal - thanks for the words of support. I know that my anonymity is a little tenuous, and anytime you go out on the internet you incur some risk that a wacko will go after you, but I have never, ever mentioned my work on this blog. My work has nothing to do with politics - I'm not a professional lobbyist who gets paid for my political involvement. It's not about who you work for, it's about trying to threaten someone's job.
Anonymous (MT) - thanks for the support, as well. I appreciate the call.
Many apologies to travelingal regarding my pro-choice comment -- it was meant for "thepaintman," not you. Guess I got all flummoxed from the heated conversation about where everyone works. . . .
Dan,
I do not believe in the politics of personal destruction.
You began all this by saying:
"After at least two months of preparation for her campaign kick-off, she's kicking it off with a fundraiser sponsored by . . . a lobbyist for a health insurance company famous for denying coverage to dying cancer patients. Hmmm."
That was an unprovoked attack on a very nice person.
I'm hopeful, and anticipate that these unsolicited, unwarranted attacks will come to an end, and we can move forward.
And I am even more hopeful I'm finished talking about it.
Nowhere on Jason's website does he or his wife say he is going to return the money.
Jason's friends in the Republican Party who share his need to keep ill-gotten contributions, such as Matt Blunt, have won a round in that the Ethics Commission has rejected their ruling due to the Blunt lawyers' complaints that the commission met in secret.
Amy's lobbyist friends like Andy Blunt are very excited tonight because they are going to be able to continue influencing politicians by buying them off.
Tillie and anonymi - Jason, unlike his foes in the Republican party, is returning the money - I'd bet that he already has. But don't take my word for it - the campaign reports are due in mid-October.
Mainstream - I used neither name nor employer, and I knew that her political activity would not be a problem for her employment. You were a whole lot less cautious. If you want to discuss this further, or get some further explanation of my reaction, email me offline.
All this over a website? Really? Dan has it ever occurred to you that since filing is oh I don't know, 5 months away, that the best candidate in the 44th has yet to be announced? Just because Jason can't keep his powder dry doesn't mean that there are more skilled politicians who will run and win this seat.
A website, while nice, means nothing to the 6000 voters who will decide this contest, not now, not 9 months from now. Other than Dale and Stephen, who actually make sense, the rest of you need some serious therapy.
Anon at 9:18..no problem.
Post a Comment
<< Home