Voice For Liberty

Tag: Politics

  • Jeff Longwell out-of-town campaign contributions

    In a story filed at the Wichita Eagle online site, Wichita City Council Member Jeff Longwell stated “We often get contributions from a wide variety of sources, including out-of-town people.” (Sedgwick County Commissioner Karl Peterjohn questions out-of-state contributions to challenger Jeff Longwell, viewable at http://www.kansas.com/2012/08/01/2431332/sedgwick-county-commissioner-karl.html)

    Peterjohn had called attention to $3,250 in contributions received by Longwell from executives and family associated with Walbridge, a Michigan construction company. These contributions were received immediately before and after Longwell voted in favor of Walbridge and its local partner in a contract dispute.

    More information is at Michigan company involved in disputed Wichita airport contract contributes to Jeff Longwell and Wichita City Council can’t judge airport contract.

    Analysis of Longwell’s July 30, 2012 campaign finance report shows that the only contributions received from addresses outside Kansas are the Walbridge contributions from Michigan, which contradicts Longwell’s claim.

    Additionally, analysis of ten recent campaign finance reports filed by Longwell going back to 2007 found three contributions totaling $1,500 from California addresses.

  • From Michigan to Wichita’s Jeff Longwell: The campaign contributions

    Two weeks ago the Wichita Eagle editorialized that “appearance matters” on city contracts: “There will be an elephant in the Wichita City Council chambers today as Mayor Carl Brewer and the rest of the council formally consider Dondlinger and Sons’ long-shot final appeal of its loss of the contract to build the new airport terminal — the close ties of Brewer and other City Council members to Key Construction, including a letter Brewer wrote last year recommending Key to build the Cabela’s store in northeast Wichita.” (Eagle editorial: Appearance matters on city contracts, July 17, 2012)

    The Eagle probably didn’t know at that time what we learned this week: There was unusual interest in Michigan about the airport contract decision, and the campaign bank account of Wichita City Council Member Jeff Longwell benefited financially.

    On July 16 — the day before the Wichita City Council heard the appeal that resulted in Key Construction apparently winning the airport contract — John Rakolta, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Walbridge and his wife contributed $1,000 to Longwell’s campaign for Sedgwick county commissioner. Walbridge is a Michigan-based construction company that is partnering with Key Construction on the airport job. The contract is worth about $100 million.

    Then on July 20, three days after the council’s decision in favor of Key/Walbridge, other Walbridge executives contributed $2,250 to Longwell’s campaign. Key Construction and its executives contributed $6,500 to Longwell’s county commission campaign, and they’ve also been heavy contributors to Longwell’s other campaigns.

    It is wrong to accept thousands in contributions from those who benefit directly from your vote. In many states it is illegal. But not in Kansas.

    This is not the first time Jeff Longwell has placed the interests of his campaign contributors ahead of taxpayers. Last August the council, with Longwell’s vote, decided to award Key a no-bid contract to build the parking garage that is part of the Ambassador Hotel project. The no-bid cost of the garage was to be $6 million, according to a letter of intent. Later the city decided to place the contract for competitive bid. Key Construction won the bidding, but for a price $1.3 million less.

    What citizens need to know is that the Wichita City Council, including Longwell, was willing to spend an extra $1.3 million of taxpayer funds to reward a politically-connected construction firm that makes heavy campaign contributions to Longwell and other council members. Only one council member voted against this no-bid contract.

    Later that year when citizens exercised their constitutional right to challenge a taxpayer-funded giveaway to the special interests that fund his campaigns, Jeff Longwell said it was “disappointing,” and a “stunt.” He said that using this fundamental aspect of democracy causes citizens to “lose credibility.” (Wichita Eagle, September 14, 2011)

    After Wichita voters rejected this special tax deal, the Wall Street Journal in a column titled “A Wichita Shocker: You can beat city hall” wrote: “Local politicians like to get in bed with local business, and taxpayers are usually the losers. So three cheers for a voter revolt in Wichita, Kansas last week that shows such sweetheart deals can be defeated.” (Review & Outlook, March 6, 2012)

    It’s no wonder Longwell was disappointed when citizens petitioned their government. Voters soundly rejected the political cronyism and sweetheart deals that are Longwell’s legacy.

    It’s all part of Longwell’s disregard for citizens in favor of his campaign contributors. In 2008 the city council, with Longwell approving, made a $6 million no-interest and low-interest loan to movie theater owner Bill Warren. The contracts were not made available until just hours before the meeting where the loan was voted on. When a reporter asked about journalist and citizen access to these documents in a timely fashion, the reporter wrote “It’s unlikely many residents would read the full contract even if it had been made public earlier, Longwell said.” (Little time to review Warren loan terms, July 1, 2008 Wichita Eagle)

    Companies Bill Warren controls contributed at least $7,500 to Longwell’s current campaign.

    In 2011, when discussing signage policy at merchants that charge an extra community improvement district sales tax, Longwell said that including the specific add-on tax rate would be confusing to shoppers, because different CIDs may charge different add-on rates. Again, disregard for citizens.

    Jeff Longwell defends these giveaways by saying they create jobs. But Wichita economic development is failing. Our city is not doing well. We won’t create prosperity and jobs by over-spending on no-bid city contracts that provide out-size profits for Longwell’s political sponsors.

    Additionally, when it is apparent that a “pay-to-play” environment exists at Wichita City Hall, it creates a toxic and corrosive political and business environment. Companies are reluctant to expand into areas where they don’t have confidence in the integrity of local government. Will I find my company bidding against a company that made bigger campaign contributions than I did? If I don’t make the right campaign contributions, will I get my zoning approved? Will my building permits be slow-walked through the approval process? Will my projects face unwarranted and harsh inspections?

    Wichita and Kansas need pay-to-play laws to reign in the practices of Jeff Longwell, Carl Brewer, and other city council members. For the good of our city and state, we must end the “pay-to-play” system of votes for political campaign contributions.

  • Michigan company involved in disputed Wichita airport contract contributes to Jeff Longwell

    A campaign finance report filed by Wichita City Council Member Jeff Longwell contains contributions from executives associated with Walbridge, a Michigan construction company partnering with Key Construction to build the new Wichita airport terminal.

    Longwell is running for Sedgwick County Commission, District 3. He faces Karl Peterjohn in the August 7, 2012 Republican party primary.

    These contributions are of interest because on July 17, 2012, the Wichita City Council, sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity, made a decision in favor of Key and Walbridge that will cost some group of taxpayers or airport customers an extra $2.1 million. Five council members, including Longwell, voted in favor of this decision. Two members were opposed.

    These parties and dollar amounts appeared on Longwell’s campaign finance report filed on July 30, 2012:

    John Rakolta, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Walbridge, $500
    Terry Rakolta (apparent spouse of John Rakolta), $500
    Vincent J. Deangelis, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Walbridge, $500
    Ronald Hausman, Executive Vice President, Walbridge, $500
    Ester Hausman (apparent spouse of Ronald Hausman), $500
    Scott Penrod, Vice President, Walbridge, $250
    Randy Abdallah, Senior Vice President, Walbridge, $250
    Elizabeth Wasiniak, Walbridge, $250

    The total is $3,250. The first two contributions were made on July 16, 2012, and the rest on July 20, 2012, according to Longwell’s campaign finance report. The Wichita city council handled the Key/Walbridge contract at its July 17, 2012 meeting.

    Besides the Walbridge contributions, Key Construction and its executives contributed $6,500 to Longwell’s county commission campaign. Key and its executives have been heavy contributors to Longwell’s other campaigns, as well as to Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer and many other Wichita City Council members. Brewer and Key executives also travel together on fishing expeditions.

    Timeline

    February 24, 2012: Bids for new airport terminal opened. Dondlinger Hunt did not meet the federal Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) contract goal for participation at the time of bid opening, as required by the bid documents. Dondlinger supplies additional information.

    April 2, 2012: Wichita Airport Authority staff found Dondlinger Hunt bid insufficient to meet federal requirements.

    May 31, 2012: Director of Airports, acting as reconsideration official, affirmed that Dondlinger Hunt bid is non-responsive.

    June 22, 2012: Contract Compliance Officer for the City of Wichita also found Dondlinger Hunt bid to be non-responsive.

    July 3, 2012: Board of Bids found Dondlinger Hunt bid to be non-responsive.

    July 16, 2012: John Rakolta, Chairman and CEO of Walbridge, and Terry Rakolta contribute $1,000 to Jeff Longwell’s campaign.

    July 17, 2012: Wichita City Council on 5 to 2 vote found Dondlinger Hunt bid to be non-responsive. Key/Walbridge is presumptive contract winner.

    July 20, 2012: Other Walbridge executives contribute $2,250 to Jeff Longwell’s campaign.

    July 30, 2012: Campaign finance report filed.

  • Kansas traditional: the platform

    Will “traditional,” “reasonable,” “moderate” Kansan Republicans be defeated in the August 7, 2012 Kansas primary? Would that defeat be good or bad for Kansas?

    Kansas newspapers have featured an op-ed by H. Edward Flentje of the Hugo Wall School of Urban and Public Affairs at Wichita State University. (A referendum on Brownback, July 27 Winfield Courier.) His tone, as is that of many newspaper editorials appearing through the state, is that it is vital to preserve the “traditional” moderate Republican approach to Kansas government, as it is those who “believe government has a more affirmative role in assuring a high quality of life for Kansans.” The implication, made explicit later on, is that the rise of a conservative majority in the Kansas Senate would be bad.

    Here’s one area in which Flentje is incorrect. He characterizes the moderates as “Republican legislators who may exercise independent judgment on alliance issues.” He and others use the phrase “march in lockstep with [Kansas Governor Sam] Brownback” as criticism of conservative challengers, who they say will be merely puppets of Brownback, incapable of independent thought.

    But when we look at the record of “moderate Republican” legislators, we usually see them “marching in lockstep” with the Kansas National Education Association, labor unions — especially public employee unions, trial lawyers, and other assorted special interest groups.

    Following are the areas in which Flentje says Brownback wants legislators to “march in lockstep” and whether it would be good to maintain these policies that Flentje prefers.

    “Eliminating state income taxes and seeking higher sales and property taxes to address state obligations, consequently shifting the state tax burden to lower-income residents.” I’m not aware that conservatives are pressing for higher sales and property taxes. There has been some difference of opinion over ending the temporary statewide sales tax increase, and that may play out in the next legislative session. The best way we can address state spending — living up to the obligations Flentje alludes to — is to streamline Kansas government. But moderates oppose this. See Kansas reasonable: Government reform.

    The best way to pay for government services is to grow the economy and create jobs. But Kansas has performed poorly during the past decade under the reign of “traditional” moderate Republicans (and their coalition with Democrats) in the House and Senate. Just a few years ago, after a decade of moderate policies, Kansas was the only state to have a loss in private sector jobs over the past year.

    “Restraining state spending on public schools and shifting school funding to property taxes at the local level.” Moderates oppose one way we can save on schools: school choice through charter schools, vouchers, or scholarship tax credits. All these programs reduce the burden of school spending on both the state and school districts. Other than this, moderates “march in lockstep” with those who constantly call for more school spending, even to the point of suing the state’s taxpayers for more money. They join with the special interests who fight against accountability measures. They also fight against an honest assessment of the condition of public schools in Kansas, and when you look under the covers, it’s not the pretty picture that education bureaucrats paint. See Kansas reasonable: The education candidates.

    “Cutting funding for the arts and public broadcasting.” Those who seek money from government for arts are a special interest group. They make an economic case that government spending on the arts is good for the economy, but there’s no evidence that this form of government spending is different from any other. Instead, it takes tax money from people and forces them to spend it on things they may not want. Instead, government bureaucrats — listening to narrow special interest groups — decide how to spend money.

    “Shifting the funding of state universities to students and their families through higher tuition and fees.” What a novel idea! Expecting those who use a service to pay for it!

    “Challenging judicial independence and enacting measures that make state judges more susceptible to outside political influence.” Kansas judicial selection is highly politicized and undemocratic, with out-sized power concentrated in a special interest group: lawyers. Among the fifty states, Kansas is at the undemocratic extreme in the way we select judges, and moderates support this. See Kansas reasonable: Judicial selection.

    “Placing out-of-state, for-profit insurance companies in charge of managing aid to elderly, disabled and vulnerable residents.” Outsourcing is one way that governments can increase quality of service and reduce cost. There’s no reason to think that just because a service is presently provided by the state, that is the best way to provide it. In fact, waste and inefficiency are characteristic of government. Far from being a rip-off or waste of taxpayer monies, the profit motive — found only in the private sector — is a reliable motivator. The challenge of the state will be to make sure that companies profit when they provide good service, efficiently.

    “Spending more time finding ways to limit a woman’s access to abortion and targeting with legal action any group that supports such access.” My focus is primarily on issues of economic freedom. Others will have to weigh in on this issue.

    “Punishing party members who dare to cooperate with Democrats on legislation.” Both parties do this. Ask Senator Chris Steineger how the Kansas Democratic Party feels about those who don’t toe the party line.

    Whether the election is or is not a referendum on Kansas Governor Sam Brownback, Kansans need to reflect on the legacy of traditional Republican leadership and governance and realize this has not been the path to jobs and prosperity.

  • Kansas reasonable: Judicial selection

    Kansas Republicans who promote themselves as the “reasonable” candidates — “traditional” Republicans, they like to say — support a method of judicial selection in Kansas that is not democratic. In fact, Kansas is at the undemocratic extreme in judicial selection.

    Kansas University law professor Stephen J. Ware has extensively researched and written on the method of judicial selection in the United States. His paper The Bar’s Extraordinarily Powerful Role in Selecting the Kansas Supreme Court reports that in Kansas, a select group of lawyers has tremendous control over the nominating process for the Kansas Court of Appeals and Kansas Supreme Court. It’s a process that desperately needs reform, despite the effort that Kansas lawyers spend defending their elite privileges and powers in this regard. “Reasonable” Republicans enable them.

    Ware wrote this in a Lawrence Journal-World editorial:

    What makes the Kansas Supreme Court selection process unusual is not that it’s political, but that it gives so much political power to the bar (the state’s lawyers). Kansas is the only state that gives its bar majority control over the commission that nominates Supreme Court justices. It’s no surprise that members of the Kansas bar are happy with the current system because it gives them more power than the bar has in any of the other 49 states and allows them to exercise that power in secret, without any accountability to the public.

    In the conclusion to his paper, he summarized: “In supreme court selection, the bar has more power in Kansas than in any other state. This extraordinary bar power gives Kansas the most elitist and least democratic supreme court selection system in the country.”

    Defenders of the present system say it keeps politics out of judicial selection. But Ware has noted that nine of the last 11 people appointed to the Kansas Supreme Court belonged to the same political party as the governor who appointed them. It reminds me of a quote from William “Boss” Tweed, political boss of Tammany Hall, that summarizes our problem accurately and concisely: “I don’t care who does the electing so long as I do the nominating.”

    In February the Kansas Senate took a vote on agreeing to amendments to a bill that, if accepted and passed, would implement a system where the governor would appoint judges to the Court of Appeals, and then the Senate would confirm or reject the nominee. This is a system like the United States and many states use. A “Yea” vote was a vote in favor of this system. Here are the votes: Yeas: Abrams, Apple, Bruce, Donovan, Kelsey, Longbine, Love, Lynn, Masterson, Merrick, Olson, Ostmeyer, Petersen, Pilcher-Cook, Pyle, Taddiken, Wagle. Nays: Brungardt, Emler, Faust-Goudeau, Francisco, Haley, Hensley, Holland, Huntington, Kelly, King, Kultala, Marshall, McGinn, Morris, Owens, Reitz, A. Schmidt, V. Schmidt, Schodorf, Teichman, Umbarger, Vratil. Present and Passing: Steineger.

    Voters in Kansas ought to ask the “reasonable” Republicans who voted against a democratic method of judicial selection why they defend the self-serving position of a special interest group.

    Judicial selection among the statesJudicial selection among the states. Kansas is alone in giving the bar extreme power. From Kansas University School of Law Professor Stephen J. Ware.

  • Kansas Health Care Freedom legislation: The real story

    By Kansas Senator Mary Pilcher-Cook, R-Shawnee

    We need honesty and integrity in campaigns. It is crucial that Kansas citizens receive correct information about legislators’ voting records and not just rhetoric with platitudes. Kansas Senate President Steve Morris said he never supported the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. However, his actions and votes indicate he was not willing to protect Kansas citizens and their liberty against the controversial federal health care law.

    Over the course of three years, President Morris was continually asked to allow a vote on the Senate floor for a Kansas Health Care Freedom Amendment so Kansas citizens would be able to vote for it on the ballot this year and continue to act freely concerning their own health care decisions. State sovereignty as guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in our U.S. Constitution gives the primary duty to the state to protect the liberty of the people in regards to their health care. However, the legislation was repeatedly given roadblocks in the Senate and it was necessary to maneuver the measure around several Senate leadership-imposed barriers.

    Please review the votes from official Senate journals so you are not deceived by “Washington-DC style politics.” The accurate historical record with links to these journals is on www.kansashealthcarefreedom.com, which also explains the voting gymnastics that transpired over the years.

    In 2010, the proposed constitutional amendment was referred to two committees and a subcommittee (usually a bill is only referred to one committee by leadership). One committee passed it without a recommendation, and the second committee referred it to a subcommittee. In the final hours before adjournment, a motion was made to move the measure out of committee. President Morris voted against this motion. (Senate Journal April 28, 2910. A “Yea” vote was in favor of health care freedom. Yeas: Abrams, Apple, Barnett, Brownlee, Bruce, Colyer, Donovan, Huelskamp, Kelsey, Lynn, Marshall, Masterson, Ostmeyer, Petersen, Pilcher-Cook, Pyle, Schmidt D, Taddiken, Wagle. Nays: Brungardt, Emler, Faust-Goudeau, Francisco, Haley, Hensley, Holland, Huntington, Kelly, Kultala, Lee, McGinn, Morris, Owens, Reitz, Schmidt V, Schodorf, Steineger, Teichman, Umbarger, Vratil.)

    In the 2011 session, I amended the language of the Health Care Freedom Amendment into a prescription health care bill on the Senate floor as the “Kansas Health Care Freedom Act” — a law instead of a constitutional amendment. President Morris voted against the floor amendment. Only after the amendment was added and it was obvious the measure was going to pass is when “every” Republican in the Kansas Senate voted for it. (Senate Journal Mar 22, 2011. A “Yea” vote was in favor of health care freedom. Yeas: Abrams, Apple, Bruce, Huntington, Kelsey, King, Longbine, Love, Lynn, Marshall, Masterson, McGinn, Merrick, Olson, Ostmeyer, Petersen, Pilcher-Cook, Pyle, Schmidt V, Schodorf, Steineger, Taddiken, Teichman, Umbarger, Vratil, Wagle. Nays: Brungardt, Emler, Faust-Goudeau, Haley, Hensley, Kultala, Morris, Owens, Reitz, Schmidt A. Present and Passing: Francisco, Holland, Kelly. Absent or Not Voting: Donovan.)

    In the 2012 session, the Health Care Freedom Amendment was defeated in the Senate. Interestingly, seven senators who voted for final passage first voted to send the measure back to committee. (Senate Journal Feb. 23, 2012. A “Nay” vote is in favor of health care freedom. Yeas: Brungardt, Emler, Faust-Goudeau, Francisco, Haley, Hensley, Holland, Kelly, Kultala, Longbine, McGinn, Morris, Owens, Reitz, A. Schmidt, V. Schmidt, Teichman, Umbarger, Vratil. Nays: Abrams, Apple, Bruce, Donovan, Kelsey, King, Love, Lynn, Marshall, Masterson, Merrick, Olson, Ostmeyer, Petersen, Pilcher-Cook, Pyle, Schodorf, Steineger, Taddiken, Wagle. Present and Passing: Huntington.)

    As far as money being involved in politics, President Steve Morris is in charge of a Senate Leadership PAC that receives out-of-state money and spends massive amounts sending out nasty and false attacks on fellow Republicans who did not vote for President Morris to be in his leadership position. President Steve Morris voted against abolishing this PAC last session.

    When there are conflicting views, please get the facts and evaluate the votes. On Tuesday, August 7, be prepared to vote for the candidates who stand with integrity about their votes.

  • Wichita Eagle voter guide available

    For the voter guide for the November 2012 elections, click here.

    The Wichita Eagle voter guide is now available online.

    This guide may be used in two ways: you can enter your address, and the system will show you information about the candidates that will appear on your ballot. Or, you can browse all the races and candidates.

    The information in this guide is provided by the candidates (except for a brief description of each office), and there is no editorial comment. Some of this information will probably appear in a printed version of the newspaper, but not for contests like precinct committeeman and committeewoman.

    Access the voter guide by clicking on Wichita Eagle voter guide.

  • In Kansas, political signs are okay, despite covenants

    It’s common for neighborhoods to have restrictive covenants that prohibit homeowners from placing any signs in their yard, except for signs advertising homes for sale. But a 2008 Kansas law overrides these restrictive covenants to allow for the placement of small political yard signs starting 45 days before an election. Still, residents of covenant neighborhoods may want to observe their neighborhood’s restrictions, even though they are not valid under the law.

    The bill was the product of then-Senator Phil Journey of Haysville. The bill passed unanimously in both the Kansas House and Senate.

    According to the First Amendment Center, some 50 million people live in neighborhoods with homeowners associations. And laws like the 2008 Kansas law are not without controversy, despite the unanimous vote in the Kansas Legislature.

    While the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that governmental entities like cities can’t stop homeowners from displaying political yard signs, a homeowners association is not government. Instead, it is a group that people voluntarily enter.

    Generally, when prospective homeowners purchase a home in a neighborhood with restrictive covenants, they are asked to sign a document pledging to comply with the provisions in the covenants. If those covenants prohibit political yard signs, but a Kansas law says these covenants do not apply, what should a homeowner do?

    Practically: Should you display signs in your yard?

    While Kansas law makes it legal for those living in communities with covenants that prohibit political yard signs, residents may want to observe these convents. Here’s why: If neighbors are not aware of this new Kansas law and therefore still believe that the yard signs are not allowed in your neighborhood, they may think residents with signs in their yards are violating the covenants. By extension, this could reflect poorly on the candidates that are being promoted.

    The people who believe the covenants against yard signs are valid are misinformed, but they may vote. Whether to display yard signs in a covenant neighborhood is a judgment that each person will have to make for themselves.

    The Kansas statute

    K.S.A. 58-3820. Restrictive covenants; political yard signs; limitations. (a) On and after the effective date of this act, any provision of a restrictive covenant which prohibits the display of political yard signs, which are less than six square feet, during a period commencing 45 days before an election and ending two days after the election is hereby declared to be against public policy and such provision shall be void and unenforceable.

    (b) The provisions of this section shall apply to any restrictive covenant in existence on the effective date of this act.

    Or, as described in the 2008 Summary of Legislation: “The bill invalidates any provision of a restrictive covenant prohibiting the display of political yard signs, which are less than six square feet, 45 days before an election or two days after the election.”

  • Wichita fails ethics test

    Yesterday Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer and a majority of the Wichita City Council failed a test, showing that Wichita elected officials, except for one, aren’t interested in ethical behavior.

    The problem is worse than portrayed in a Wichita Eagle editorial, which commented on the appearance of the mayor’s and council’s action. In Wichita, we don’t have the mere appearance of a problem, we have an actual and real problem.

    The problem, in a nutshell, is that the mayor and all members of the city council except for Michael O’Donnell (district 4, south and southwest Wichita) don’t see that’s a problem for them to award no-bid contracts to campaign contributors. They also don’t see that it’s wrong to preside over a hearing in a quasi-judicial manner and award contracts to a campaign contributor. See For Wichita government, an ethics tipping point and Wichita City Council can’t judge airport contract.

    In some states and cities, the routine action of the mayor and council members would be illegal. It ought to be illegal in Kansas. There was no discussion from the council bench about this, and none in the executive session council members took.

    Coincidentally, a group spoke during the public agenda portion of Tuesday’s council meeting about their concern for what they say is the corrupting influence of campaign money in politics.

    None of the group stayed to observe the city council provide a lesson in how most of Wichita’s elected officials willfully ignore the issues the group is concerned with. From the bench Vice Mayor Janet Miller (district 6, north central Wichita) spoke approvingly of the group’s cause. But last year Miller voted for a no-bid contract to be awarded to her campaign contributors, and she voted in Tuesday’s airport contract hearing.

    The behavior of Mayor Brewer and most members of the council gives new urgency for the Kansas Legislature to pass pay-to-play laws, which generally prohibit officeholders from voting on matters that financially benefit their campaign contributors. We can call it “Carl’s Law.” See Wichita and Kansas need pay-to-play laws.

    An example of a pay-to-play law is a charter provision of the city of Santa Ana, in Orange County, California, which states: “A councilmember shall not participate in, nor use his or her official position to influence, a decision of the City Council if it is reasonably foreseeable that the decision will have a material financial effect, apart from its effect on the public generally or a significant portion thereof, on a recent major campaign contributor.”

    Kansas has no such law. Certainly Wichita does not, where pay-to-play is seen by many citizens as a way of life — the Wichita way.