May 2008

May 29, 2008
(Distributed to Kansas newspapers May 26, 2008)

June 10: You can’t win if you don’t play

The most important—and overlooked by most of us—date in the 2008 state election cycle is getting close.

No, it’s not the results from the Aug. 5 primary election or even the Nov. 4 general election.

The most important date? It’s June 10, at noon, when Secretary of State Ron Thornburgh makes the formal announcement that filings are closed for the 2008 election cycle. And, as secretaries of state have said for years, at one minute after noon people can start filing for the elections of 2010. Nobody does, but secretaries of state like to say that anyway.

In the weeks leading up to June 10, political activists are busy trying to encourage members of their political party to file for office in the House or Senate or for the State Board of Education.

Senate Minority Leader Anthony Hensley, D-Topeka, likens the filing deadline to the Kansas Lottery: “You can’t win if you don’t play.”

The filing deadline plays out a couple ways that most don’t notice.

Incumbent members of the Legislature tend to make sure that their constituents get a little flyer in the mail touting accomplishments that he/she believes are important to the district—reason to leave well enough alone, to not find a challenger to the incumbent. It doesn’t often work but, then again, sometimes it does, and every election cycle dozens of members of the Legislature get a free ride…no opposition to reelection.

That no-opposition status turns out to be its own little test for incumbents, who merely need to stay out of prison through the election cycle to come back to Topeka for the winter. The test? It is to campaign anyway…attend the public forums and walk in the parades where they, toss candy to children and hand out brochures to their voting-age parents.

That’s showing appreciation and interest in voters who don’t really have a choice anyway. Voters, even those without a choice, don’t like to be ignored or taken for granted.

In recent years, we’ve also seen the last-minute switch, where an incumbent acts as if he/she is going to file on deadline day or maybe had already filed, and shows up at the Secretary of State’s office and either doesn’t file or withdraws from the race.

That usually happens when an incumbent has stealthily acted game for the race and has a friend file for the office, often to run unopposed. That switcheroo has worked in the past and it makes it difficult for the opposite political party—which may have decided that the incumbent would be either difficult or too expensive to try to defeat—to come up within minutes with a challenger who may have considered running but was daunted by the experience, the campaign war chest or the tenure of the non-filer.

So, what’s happening now? Party leaders are talking to their friends and their friends’ friends to see if they can find a potential candidate for every House and Senate and State Board of Education seat. 

It’s the time for party officials who have researched the voting records, the inclinations, the friends, the enemies and the local satisfaction of incumbents to make a good case to a challenger that this is the year to run for public office.

For Democrats in Kansas, there’s another factor. Yes, they’re Democrats, but often a friendly socially moderate Republican represents their district well. That means Democrats will be watching Republican filings to see whether beside the obvious pride of having their district represented by a party member there is the chance that an unfriendly Republican will win the GOP primary. Democrats need a credible opponent…if things go wrong (for Democrats) at the primary election.

Lots of angles to figure, lots of filings to be watched, lots of politics to be played out on June 10.

That’s why noon, Tuesday, June 10, is as big a day in politics as Wednesday and Saturday is to Lottery players. You can’t win if you don’t play…

May 22, 2008
(Distributed to Kansas newspapers May 19, 2008)

Sebelius: Saving Melvin from himself?

You hear a lot about legislative tactics—the scheming, the thinking-two-moves-ahead and “end game”—those phrases that legislative insiders bandy about so that they can show off their political groupie-ness.

While it makes interesting insiders’ talk, rarely does that gambit get presented so cleanly and clearly that most of us newspaper readers get the real story of what is happening.

A perfect example of that political strategy occurred last week when Gov. Kathleen Sebelius vetoed her third bill this legislative session that included a provision to override Secretary of Health and Environment Rod Bremby, who you remember in October nixed an application by Sunflower Electric to build two700-megawatt coal-fired power plants near Holcomb.

That veto? Expected, of course, even though the Legislature this time bundled that Sunflower provision with three relatively nifty economic development initiatives. The Legislature’s idea? To put so many generally nice things that the governor likes with the coal provision that she doesn’t like, and maybe, just maybe, she’d relent and go ahead and sign the bill…or maybe just ignore it. Ignoring the bill for 10 days means that it becomes law without her signature.

Sebelius could have just said that bill must have gotten lost in the pile of Vogue magazines in the corner or maybe mixed up with the newspapers that were in the recycling stack, and without a signature, it would become law. Reminded of the mistake, she could have talked about the eco-devo stuff, and said, darn, was that coal business in that bill, too?

She vetoed the bill, as expected.

But—and here’s the clever part—she did allow to become law without her signature a bill that would let people with some five-year old criminal convictions apply for a permit to carry a pistol under their jackets or maybe in their purses. Previous law said people with some criminal convictions couldn’t even apply to get a concealed-carry gun permit.

The Legislature, under pressure from the National Rifle Association, passed that bill that allows criminals who have been on their best behavior for five years to apply for and get those concealed-carry permits.

The governor’s only veto override in her six years in office was over guns. She vetoed the first concealed-carry bill and was promptly overridden by the Legislature in 2006.

Governors, and especially girl governors, don’t forget. So, without her signature, this gun bill becomes the law of the land.

Here’s what that did, for you legislative tactics groupies:
She allowed to become law a bill that would have brought legislators back in full force for sine die, the usually ceremonial last day of the Legislature on May 29. That gun bill passed the Senate 39-0 and the House 117-4. The NRA doesn’t take a veto lightly and probably could have brought back at least enough lawmakers to override the gun bill veto. And, being the NRA, it probably would have brought some extra ammo, too, to override Sebelius.

By allowing the gun bill to become law without her signature, the NRA got what it wants and won’t be packing the Statehouse on sine die day.

And…wouldn’t it have been easy for House Speaker Melvin Neufeld, R-Ingalls, to announce on sine die day, “while we’re here, let’s override that coal bill veto, and then we’ll override the gun bill veto.”

That could have happened, probably giving the coal bill its best chance at being passed. Now, Sebelius also might have—purely coincidentally, we assume—saved Neufeld from himself. The NRA doesn’t like being used as a pawn for other issues. It is, after all, the NRA.

That’s the clever tactic by Sebelius. Not letting the gun bill become the loaded pistol on the nightstand that might be used to shoot down her veto of the coal bill.

There you go, the behind-the-headlines lesson in political strategy and tactics. You can now consider yourself a political insider, which may or may not get you a refill at the local coffee shop…

May 15, 2008
(Distributed to Kansas newspapers May 12, 2008)

What happens to Kansas business…

It’s not quite as catchy as the “what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas” slogan, but it’s close: The Kansas equivalent might be “what happens to Kansas business stays in Kansas business.”

Huh?

Well, this was the year the Kansas Legislature decided to look through corporate income tax rules and see if there was a way to turn up a little extra cash for the state. The state is in tough budget times that look to get worse in the next year, and revenue from business…well, it can be raised, but lawmakers know they have to be careful how they do it.

This year? The governor is looking over a bill that raises corporate income taxes on mostly out-of-state firms by about $20 million by creating a new test for business transactions. Selling a factory in, say, Arizona, and telling Kansas “that’s not relevant to our business in Kansas” used to work for multistate corporations. Now, if that same out-of-state firm sold a factory in Kansas, sure, the state would tax the proceeds of the sale. But out-of-state, no deal…until this year, when Kansas changed a law to change its view of those business transactions.

Lawmakers also changed the rules that businesses used to their advantage by parking their money overnight in short-term investments (yes, you can invest money overnight, but you need millions of dollars for that investment). Kansas calls that “churning” and the result is that it makes business profits look lower than they are because even the small return in overnight interest gets diluted by the return of the invested money. It makes businesses look poorer than they are, costing the state about $2.5 million a year in lost business income tax.

Now, there’s some money on the table—about $22.5 million a year—and in tight economic times you might figure that the state would use that additional revenue for  schools or health care or highway projects or virtually anything that the state does that costs money.

This is where the “what happens in…” kicks in.

The money that was taken from businesses through higher taxes? It is staying in business through lower taxes. Centerpiece is a reduction of the state’s top corporate tax rate from 7.35 percent to 7.10 percent this year, 7.05 percent next year and the following year, and thereafter an even 7 percent.

hat’s if the governor signs the bill into law.

There’s a little spill-over, but basically the Legislature liked the idea of taking money from what are generally out-of-state corporations and lowering the tax rate on every in-state corporation that makes $50,000 or more a year in taxable income, when the higher 7-plus percent rate kicks in. (The basic Kansas corporate tax rate is 4 percent, but it gets a surcharge to the current 7.35 percent for amounts of income over $50,000.)

ow’d the business community like this year’s corporate income tax plan? Just fine, thank you.

Business, of course, would have preferred that none of its friends see taxes increase. But if lawmakers were determined to raise money from corporations, at least it was mostly from out-of-state corporations. And if the Legislature was going to spend that money it raised from out-of-state corporations, there’s no better place to spend it than in cutting tax rates for in-state corporations.

In a very practical matter, the additional $22.5 million in business income tax receipts never surfaced outside of tax committees where legislators could have diverted the money to non-business uses.

Racy Las Vegas likes it that people believe what happens there stays there. But Kansas business, while not very racy, likes it just as well that what happens to businesses in Kansas stays with businesses in Kansas.

May 8, 2008
(Distributed to Kansas newspapers May 5, 2008)

Will it change the political landscape?

A dramatic change in reporting of the financing of political campaigns has passed the Legislature and been sent to Gov. Kathleen Sebelius for her consideration.

It is practically a jumble of several bills that all dealt with the shadowy netherworld of financing of election campaigns and for the first time will eliminate what has become a notorious 11-day “blackout” period before primary and general elections during which contributions are made, money spent and influence generated during the time of the most furious campaigning.

Current campaign finance law calls for reports of who contributed what to whom and how it is spent, but that report is filed 11 days before the primary and general elections.

Eleven days is a lot of time.

That 11-day blackout period –during which contribution and spending information isn’t made public—creates essentially two campaigns for each election.

Here’s how it plays out for a candidate with a primary election, then a general election:

One primary campaign is for the friends, family, and people who don’t mind—or even want to go public—as a supporter of a candidate. Those contributions come in early and are reported 11 days before the primary election, if there is one.

But contributions made after that 11-days-before-the-primary don’t get reported publicly until 11 days before the general election. That means, for example, nobody knows who helped finance that last-few-days mailing and TV and radio and newspaper campaigning blitz that makes one candidate or another seem virtually invincible in the eyes of primary election voters.

The bill on its way to the governor will require campaigns to report daily during what has been that “blackout” period contributions of $300 or more and expenditures right up until Election Day. That means, for example, that campaigns will know that the opposition is lining up a giant mailing campaign or choking newspapers and TV channels with so many ads you won’t be able to tell what the new Fords look like.

It essentially eliminates that “second” round of fundraising and spending for each election, in which nobody knows for sure who is contributing to campaigns and what the money is being spent on until the election is over.

Why is that important?

If a voter happens to be a big fan of windmill-generated electricity, for example, and sees a giant contribution from, say, a coal company in the late days of a campaign, well, that voter must wonder whether that candidate is the one he/she wants elected.
Or, if you are pro-choice, or anti-abortion, you’d probably care about last-minute contributions from groups or individuals associated with one side or the other of that political issue.

It requires the simple presumption that political action committees, companies and individuals are smart enough to contribute to the campaigns of candidates who share their views. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but it’s probably something voters ought to have the information to consider. Oh, and that presumption? It’s correct.

The new reporting bill, if it becomes law, probably also puts the news media to a test of its own. It’s one thing to laud the change as earth-shaking new access to important public information, but it’s another to devote the time and resources to report that information to the public.

The new campaign finance reporting bill just might change the political landscape in Kansas…or, it might not…

May 1, 2008
(Distributed to Kansas newspapers April 28, 2008)

It’s just not done…

There are many things that “just aren’t done” by the Kansas Legislature.

One of them is spending money from the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement for things that aren’t for children.

Remember the master settlement agreement? It was the deal between the nation’s biggest tobacco companies and the states that exempts tobacco from state lawsuits for damages and costs to Medicaid programs caused by cigarette smoking.

The deal was simple. Tobacco companies agreed to pay more than $200 billion to states in return for not being sued. It also included some limits on advertising, sales to children and the like, but it is a settlement that generally is worth more than $50 million a year for Kansas.

And the Kansas Legislature in 1998 agreed to take that money each year and spend it as wisely as possible to improve the lives of children. Sure, teach them not to smoke, but basically to use the money for education, health care, socialization and such so that Kansas kids have the best possible chance to grow up strong, smart, healthy—just like all our parents hoped we would turn out.

This year, through a little side deal, Kansas wound up with about $16 million more in payments than expected. A windfall, and Kansas needs a windfall now with revenues dropping and nearly every item in the budget under extreme pressure.

Well, the House Appropriations Committee saw that $16 million, and while scrambling to complete its work on the final appropriations bill of the 2008 Legislature—the Omnibus appropriations bill—decided to use that $16 million for something that “just isn’t done.”  The House proposed using that unexpected windfall to help the state pay for health care services for Medicaid clients—essentially poor Kansans who need health care and can’t afford it.

Now, some of that Medicaid money is spent on children, of course, and from the $800 million or such that the state spends on health care for the poor, there’s no doubt that at least $15 million is spent on poor children.

But…there’s this “just isn’t done” business that the Senate believes in, and the Senate’s version of the Omnibus appropriations bill doesn’t use tobacco money for Medicaid; instead it devotes that extra money to expanded programs for children.

The money is just as tight in the Senate as it is in the House. But, like a parent who maybe foregoes something he or she would personally like in order to spend money on their children, the Senate Ways and Means Committee proposes using that money for children’s services and a souped-up Early Childhood Block Grant. The money will be used for grants to school districts, child-care centers, Head Start programs and community-based programs that provide research-based child development services.

The research-based part there is important. Good intentions, cute T-shirts, and/or a charming and well-connected board of directors don’t cut it. The programs have to be able to prove that they are actually helping the children get healthy, stay healthy, stay safe and grow up to be the sort of kids that Kansans want their kids to be.

So, that’s the scrap coming up for the windup of the Kansas Legislature this session. Money is, of course, money, but Kansas has a history of spending that particular cache of money on children. The House strays—though there’s an argument to be made there, of course—and the Senate sticks to a10-year old tradition.

And yes, there’s going to be a fight. So far, just the House Appropriations Committee has approved using the tobacco money for Medicaid and there’s no way to know whether the full House will defer to the committee’s judgment. And there’s no way to know whether the full Senate will defer to its Ways and Means Committee’s judgment to use the money for children’s programs.

The battle will determine whether there’s still one thing that “just isn’t done” here.