Let’s address the Jim King elephant in the room. Everyone who reads this site knows I’ve held the hot iron to the feet of both Metro Councilman Jim King and his daughter, Judge Katie King, for over a year. And despite what a few loud critics have suggested, the two do not receive special treatment from any website in my network because King Southern Bank (which King owns) is an advertiser. And I’m not letting up on my criticism.

That said, I’ve been pressing Jim King for a while and have done quite a bit of investigation surrounding the claims that he and his daughter, Katie, violated campaign finance law last year. I wanted, I admit, nothing more than for it to be true. Wanted nothing more than to have yet another reason to dislike that crew. But ever so slowly, it became clear to me after tons of research and interviews that they didn’t violate Kentucky Registry of Election Finance guidelines.

That said, I want to specifically address a complaint filed by Ed Springston (rather, some anonymous attorney who has teamed up with him, we believe his initials could be DF and think he has a prominent daddy in Oldham County) that currently sits with the KREF. Springston claims, well, umpteen different things. Here’s the gist: he alleges that King Southern Bank went out of its way to support the King Family, that the bank gave Katie an illegal loan, that Jim King violated campaign finance law by giving his daughter money, yadda yadda yadda.

But here’s the thing: the KREF does not regulate private finances of candidates. This means that gifts to relatives, as has always been the case, are beyond the reach of KREF.

Some things you should know before we continue: In early 2008, Jim King gave his daughter, Katie, a $10,000 gift ($2,000 below the Federal Gift Tax limit on annual gifts at the time and well within what Katie has received as gifts in the past). Aaaaand… The bank loan Katie received ($30,000, I think?) was reviewed by the Federal Reserve and State Banking Department after complaints were filed. Both entities cleared King. Both entities also cleared all other loans involved. The KREF asked Banking for its opinion and the Kings were again given a clean bill of health. But Springston and his anonymous, incognito attorney who apparently has an axe to grind haven’t let up. (For the record: Banks can give candidates unsecured loans – so long as they’re in the normal course of business. I know tons of candidates who have received them.)

Back to KREF. I obtained an email exchange that took place between Jim King and two employees at the Registry: Jim Neal and Jan Hines.

Read the rest after the jump…

On July 17th-ish, Jim King sent the following email to Jim Neal at KREF:

Jim,

Can you tell me if there is a prohibition on a candidate receiving gifts from relatives and donating those funds to their campaign?

Jim

And on Friday, July 18th, the following response was sent to King:

From: Hines, Jan (KREF)
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 9:32 AM
To: **King’s email address**
Cc: Neal, Jim (KREF)
Subject: (blank)

Dear Mr. King:

Your question has been forwarded to me. Relatives are considered the same as any other contributor and have the $1,000 limit per election.

If you have any further questions, feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

Jan Hines
Administrative Specialist III

Later that afternoon, King replied:

From: Jim King
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 2:48 PM
To: Hines, Jan (KREF)
Cc: Neal, Jim (KREF)
Subject: RE: Unconditional gifts to candidates from relatives

Jan,

I realize relatives can’t make more than a $1,000 contribution to a campaign. My question is this:

Can a relative make an unconditional gift of cash in any amount to a candidate and then can that candidate contribute or loan some or all of that cash to their own campaign if they choose to do so?

Thanks.

Jim King

The following business day, Monday, Jan Hines responded to King’s question:

From: Hines, Jan (KREF)
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 9:42 AM
To: Jim King
Subject: RE: Unconditional gifts to candidates from relatives

Dear Mr. King:

The Registry does not regulate the private finances of a candidate. However, bear in mind the appearance and perception others may have.

To further explain, please look at this: http://www.lrc.ky.gov/KRS/121-00/CHAPTER.HTM Look at 121.150(6), (8), and (9).

If you have any further questions, feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

Jan Hines
Administrative Specialist III

As you can see, KREF told King that it doesn’t regulate the private finances of a candidate. The only thing KREF said beyond that was to be aware that others may think something negative about a rich guy giving his daddy’s girl some money (imagine that).

According to King, he sent the exchange with KREF to his attorney, asking if he was in the clear. His attorney’s response was that it was okay. After that, following the opinion received from the Registry, King gave his daughter, Katie, three unconditional gifts. All after July 21st.

Now, we’re not fans of Katie. Probably never will be. Even though she’s apparently impressing people as a judge in probate court. And I, personally, have never been easy on Jim King and have made him prove everything he’s ever said to me. Like the time I made him prove that he took a polygraph that exonerated him in relation to a homophobic mail piece.

But the email exchange above is pretty clear. The KREF says it doesn’t regulate the personal finances of candidates. The Registry only mentioned that King should care what other people think. That’s it. So we believe King will be vindicated by the KREF on the gifts he gave his daughter. If for some reason the KREF goes against its own advice, then get ready… because dozens upon dozens of opinions can and will be thrown under a bus and taken to court. It will mean everything the Registry has ever said via the telephone, email and in-person is null and void.

Jim King may have other problems. He may very well have other skeletons in his closet. And, no, this is not an endorsement of any potential candidacy for mayor. But this KREF ridiculousness is moot at this point.