WLKY’s Republican reporter, Andy Alcock (still got that Bush sticker on your Kia, Andy?), went on for several paragraphs about a Kentucky Registry of Election Finance finding in the Jim King/Katie King case. Then Andy reveals that KREF says violations were “unknowing.” Hello, buried doozy!

Andy didn’t bother reporting that the bank loans Katie received were deemed proper. Nor did he report that they were reviewed by the KREF, the state banking department and the Federal Reserve. Didn’t report that Councilman King’s $10,000 gift to Katie was also deemed proper, as it was under the federal limit for the gift tax. He merely revealed what Ed Springston fed him.

If King & King get fined, that’s on them. But the KREF itself says the violations were unknowing and were caused by KREF. In the Kentucky Registry of Election Finance’s own words:

“by an unauthorized email from the registry staff that was confusing at best”

So. Pretty sure you can bet KREF won’t be able to do anything else at this point. The Registry cooked its own goose.

Here’s what Jim King had to say:

“We believe this vindicates us. On the bank loan, it’s been reviewed by the Registry, the state banking department and the Federal Reserve and found to be completely proper. On the gifts, the “non-knowing” finding proves we followed the advice we received from the Registry staff by email and although that advice may have been unauthorized, confusing and flawed, we did all we could to do the right thing.”

Additionally, it’s odd for the media to go on such a barn-burning story without fully examining the document from the Registry. The document that declares the following at the bottom of each and every page:

Meaning the information is preliminary, as in, preceding or leading up to. Before. It’s silly for media outlets to proclaim guilt and for Ed Springston to fly off the bat declaring the Kings – no matter how stupid their behavior and willful campaign finance ignorance abounds – guilty.

You’ll want to peep the rest after the jump…

Then, just a few pages into the document from KREF, there’s a section that reads:

Based upon the record of this case and further investigation, the General Counsel has determined that there is no reason to believe that Kathryn R. King, candidate for District Judge, accepted a prohibited corporate contribution from King Southern Bank, a Kentucky corporation for which Ms. King’s father, James O. King, Jr., is President. Therefore, pursuant to 32 KAR 2:030, Section 4(3), the alleged violations of 150 of the Kentucky Constitution, KRS 121.025, KRS 121.035, and KRS 121.150(2) by King Southern Bank and Kathryn R. King, candidate for District Judge, should be dismissed.

Something being conveniently ignored by many media outlets.

But there’s something from the Registry that we must take issue with in the very next paragraph:

These violations by Mr. King and Ms. King do not appear to have been committed knowingly, as Mr. King received an unauthorized, informal e-mail opinion from a Registry administrator that was confusing at best. However, as this isolated e-mail does not in any way resemble, let alone constitute, an official advisory opinion of the Registry pursuant to KRS 121.135, Mr. King cannot reasonably claim that he was entitled to rely upon the e-mail as an enforcement position of the Registry or defense against any sanction provided by law or administrative regulation.

Really interesting. Because I can’t tell you the number of times Registry officials have told me things via telephone and email that I’ve then had to use on campaigns – like Bruce Lunsford’s 2007 gubernatorial bid. And I can’t tell you how many of those times I’ve asked for an official opinion and staff members have responded with something along the lines of, “Oh, we can’t do that, that takes too long, just use this email or make a written record of this phone call and you’ll be fine.” I’d bet money there are dozens upon dozens of others who can come forward with similar stories. So it’s doubtful the Registry’s sudden decision to ignore what its officials have to say will hold up in court.

All this said, it is ridiculous for this to have occurred in the first place. When you’ve got tons of family money, give your kids the damn money well in advance of a campaign. And when you’re running a witch hunt with a ghost lawyer (a Katie King Reject [™] who has turned bitter, no less) and a personal legal issue which would prevent you from pursuing something in court in the first place? A little honesty and transparency would help. Should never count your chickens before they hatch.

Thoughts?

Guess we’ll see what happens with KREF.  But this certainly doesn’t bode well for anyone involved.