Richards May Have Violated Campaign Finance Law
A WHAS 11 News investigation has found that House Speaker Jody Richards may have broken the law by paying debts from his 2003 gubernatorial campaign with money from his House reelection account. Richards says he's done nothing wrong and he may be right.
Here's the link to my story.
Mark Nickolas managed Richards' 2003 campaign for governor. According to Nickolas, he and another campaign worker, Matt Glazer, agreed to forego their salaries for May 2003 so Richards' campaign would have more money for TV ads. Richards promised to pay both of them later. According to Nickolas, Richards did pay him back, with money out of Richards House campaign account. Kentucky Registry of Election Finance records show Nickolas was getting paid $9500/mo. as campaign manager. Richards' House committee gave him two checks totalling $11,300 in June 2003 and February 2004. Nickolas says that's the exact amount of salary and expenses he was owed by the gubernatorial campaign. Glazer was paid $4000 in September 2003, the exact amount he would have made in May working for Richards' gubernatorial campaign if he hadn't agreed to forego his pay.
Richards says he never promised to repay Nickolas or Glazer. And he has a solid defense for paying them out of his House account. Richards and Nickolas agree that Nickolas did some consulting work for Richards 2004 House campaign, producing a 4 page memo and talking with Richards about issues and possible legislation. Richards says Glazer helped him organize his Warren County house district. When asked if that consulting work was actually worth more than a month's worth of running an entire gubernatorial campaign, Riichards says he didn't question the billing from Nickolas. Nickolas says it was all a way to repay the debt Richards owed him and make it look legal. He says he won't judge whether there were any violations of Kentucky campaign finance laws. Richards says there wasn't. I couldn't find Glazer for comment.
Comments
I guess Jody now learns that if you get in bed with dogs you come out with fleas.
Posted by: nickolassux | February 8, 2008 7:10 PM
Nice work. How in the h@#$ do you find this stuff? What's up with Nickolas? That dude scares me a little...
Posted by: Rose | February 8, 2008 8:33 PM
My question is why do you care or why do you think we care?
Something like this cheapens your good reporting, it makes you sound like you have an ax to grind or just never got out of the fifth grade.
Considering all we have to do in the world with kids and work and world events for you to take the time to dig such a trivial point up and thrust it at us every 20 minutes in power rotation makes you look bad. It's grow up time. Buck up son.
Posted by: William | February 9, 2008 9:24 AM
William, good to hear you consider obeying the law to be "trivial." If you are that busy "with kids and work and world events" you probably don't have time to be commenting on a blog.
Posted by: flubby | February 9, 2008 2:39 PM
Is there a statue of limitations that could make this issue moot? This was 5 years ago.
Posted by: Anonymous | February 10, 2008 6:53 AM
"He says he won't judge whether there were any violations of Kentucky campaign finance laws."
I'm not sure why this sentence is part of the story. Any help?
Posted by: David Adams | February 10, 2008 8:42 PM