Yesterday afternoon, government watchdog group Colorado Ethics Watch accused Rep. Steve King of double-billing for reimbursement for travel expenses, both to the state and to his own campaign account. The story developed quickly yesterday and initial hearings were held today, the Denver Post’s Jessica Fender updates:
Grand Junction Rep. Steve King, facing an ethics probe into whether he charged both the state and his campaign for travel expenses, reimbursed his campaign $1,025 in April and May, a legislative ethics panel heard this morning.
The repayment came long before a Denver watchdog group filed a complaint against King, R-Grand Junction, which Republican Rep. Mark Waller said casts a new light on the allegations of double dipping.
“It’s a payday loan from the campaign account,” Waller said. “He’s a rural legislator who makes $30,000 a year. He had car problems, and doesn’t have money to rent a car. He says, ‘Let me borrow from the campaign account.'”
It’s unclear whether borrowing from a campaign, asking the state for reimbursement and then repaying the campaign poses an ethical problem, several of the lawmakers on the panel said…
Frankly, we’re of two minds on this one and looking for guidance just like the legislators sitting in judgment: one the one hand, we don’t think this explanation is going to pass legal muster, though we’d say the quick repayment does probably count for something in terms of assessing any penalty. He knows he shouldn’t have done it, though, even if the rules were vague–this is a slippery slope to campaign accounts becoming personal revolving charge accounts and can never become regular practice. Also, “payday loans” charge interest, don’t they?
On the other hand, have you ever tried living on $30,000 a year? It’s a very significant hardship even when nothing unplanned happens like your car breaking down, and what King allegedly did doesn’t seem to quite rise to the level of, say, Joe Stengel billing per diem for nearly every day of the year, Hawaii vacation included. What say you?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Weekend Open Thread
BY: Chickenheed
IN: Weekend Open Thread
BY: 2Jung2Die
IN: Weekend Open Thread
BY: 2Jung2Die
IN: Weekend Open Thread
BY: harrydoby
IN: Weekend Open Thread
BY: Duke Cox
IN: Weekend Open Thread
BY: 2Jung2Die
IN: Weekend Open Thread
BY: Early Worm
IN: BREAKING: Restraining Order Stops Dave Williams Ouster Efforts Cold
BY: Duke Cox
IN: BREAKING: Restraining Order Stops Dave Williams Ouster Efforts Cold
BY: Duke Cox
IN: J.D. Vance Really, Really Not Going Over Well
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
He took the outlying legislator per diem AND billed the state for his intown expenses while on legislative business (utilities and IIRC, rent as well). This was before Stengel’s problem, and while Dean was Speaker.
There was a very heated Leg Council meeting about this in which Senate President Ray Powers got into a heated exchange with Dean over this issue.
Ray was really angry at what Dean had done and said so, and Dean responded that if he (Dean) was as rich as Powers he wouldn’t need to bill the state. This really pissed Powers of and he started shouting at Dean.
A very entertaining day.
a Broadmoor employee who makes only 24K a year would be justified in taking money out of the till if only they pay it back later. If King wasn’t spending so much money on tee-shirts and perfume, he might have enough money to do his job. And it appears that he did not “repay” the loan until he was exposed. Wish I had saved the link, but I remember King saying that he did not keep the receipts for his expenditures. If he had no idea about how much he “borrowed”, how would he know about how much he owed? Plus, on top of it all, King has a much high percentage of expenditures listed under the $19 limit than any other legislator.
“Three or four years from now, we’re not going to have a conversation about jobs and all of that kind of stuff.” -Scott McInnis
plus $18,000 per diem. Plus he had a nice fat contract from Tim Foster at Mesa State. Not to mention his other business teaching self-defense classes in the offseason.
He might ultimately regret the “loan” defense.
I’ll be writing about that tonight at JDB. Tune in.
To require “safety” plans and classes for schools and colleges. The bill this year doesn’t explicitly require schools to hire consultants to prepare their plans, but you know King will be bellied up to the trough looking for work. Conflict? You bet. But King wouldn’t recognize a conflict if one hit him in the nose.
we’ll see that Laura Bradford hired King to count all of her five donations the way she hired former Mesa County Republican “vice” chair, Duncan McArthur, at $500, to do it? Using campaign donations to help out broke fellow R’s is not unheard of in Mesa County.
“Three or four years from now, we’re not going to have a conversation about jobs and all of that kind of stuff.” -Scott McInnis
The horror!
Note to Pols: Some Coloradans scrape out a meagre existence on such a sum, and that’s without $2,000 a month car allowances!
Payday lenders do not charge interest. They charge fees. But under federal lending laws, they are required to calculate the cost of using their products in terms of annual percentage rate (APR).
These calculations can reach as high as 521% — that’s the annual rate for a $60 fee on a $300 loan for two weeks.
Because of a loophole opened in 2000 by Colorado lawmakers, payday lenders can operate above the usury limit that applies to banks and other lending institutions.
And because of that special exemption, Coloradans in low-wage jobs, on fixed incomes, struggling to get by are paying about $80 million in excessive fees each year.
Who funds Colorado Ethics Watch?
a serious, legitimate issue that should be investigated and resolved?
Yes. Regardless of who funds them.
I would like to know if he’s crooked or not.
I’m just sayin’, you know?
Unless I’m misunderstanding the facts, I’m not sure it is a legitimate issue.
Rep. King can pay for almost anything with campaign dollars, as long as it’s nominally related to his campaign or legislative office. And he can do whatever he wants to with his reimbursement check…including putting it into his campaign account.
But, that’s beside the point…Colorado Ethics Watch should disclose their donors if they truly want to be taken seriously as a group that supports “ethics”.
What he does with his campaign dollars is TOTALLY beside the point.
But the moment he signs off on a mileage voucher that swears to the taxpayers of the State of Colorado that his expenses aren’t being paid by another source, his ass is on the line.
It doesn’t matter who asks the question, or who funds them. It’s up to King to answer the question. His signature is his oath.
Hiking, the thread was on Rep. King, and whether the issue is legitimate for investigation is very much on point. And, indeed, it seems an investigation has begun.
And even if it is determined that Rep. King’s action was technically legal, or at least that no penalty or reprimand will be imposed, it certainly merits a discussion of the ethics or appropriateness of such action.
What is “beside the point” for this discussion, this thread, is CEW’s donors.
n/t
is questioning where CEW’s money comes from an ad hominem attack?
It’s a legit question.
You’re right, it goes to the motives of Ethics Watch. So what? Blame the messenger all you want, but in this case the complaint has legs and even King’s fellow Republicans have to admit there’s something fishy going on.
Anyway, Ethics Watch isn’t the one who first uncovered problems with King’s reimbursement history.
Although I am in favor of what they do I note what they DON’T do. In Lake County, when the BoCC was proven to have held secret meetings to plan an emergeny CEW called them out for it but told them how to clean it up without suffering public repercussion. This was before the state Ethics Commission began meeting and later they declined to look into it because of time issues. The Lake BoCC is and was 100% Dem and I believe that had a lot to do with CEW’s and Luis Toro’s response.