Ethics group: Blunt ad OK

Complaints said Blunt used federal funds
for political purposes.
Tuesday, November 16, 2004 | 12:00 a.m. CST; updated 5:34 p.m. CDT, Monday, July 21, 2008

JEFFERSON CITY — The state Ethics Commission has cleared Gov.-elect Matt Blunt of allegations that he used government money for political purposes by running pro-voting newspaper ads featuring his smiling face.

A Blunt spokesman, learning of the decision Monday, said: “That’s great! That’s excellent news!”

Blunt, as secretary of state, spent about $48,000 in federal funds to place the advertisements in 295 daily and weekly newspapers across the state shortly before the Aug. 3 party primary elections, in which Blunt was a Republican candidate for governor.

The ads included Blunt’s black and white photo, a drawing of an American eagle with wings spread wide. Blunt’s spokesman, Spence Jackson, designed the ad and has defended the inclusion of Blunt’s name and photo as a way to personalize the ad’s civic message.

“We always knew we were acting within the spirit of the Help America Vote Act in producing those informative public service announcements,” Jackson said Monday. “That complaint was just one in a series of politically motivated complaints designed to embarrass the secretary of state in an election year.”

The federal Help America Vote Act, enacted following problems during the 2000 election, provides states money that, among other things, can be used for voter education efforts.

Four of Blunt’s lesser-known opponents in the Republican gubernatorial primary filed ethics complaints, as did a supporter of state Auditor Claire McCaskill, the Democratic gubernatorial candidate who defeated Gov. Bob Holden in the August primary but lost to Blunt in the Nov. 2 general election.

McCaskill supporter Steven Reed alleged in his complaint that the advertisement “amounted to a publicly-paid campaign ad” for Blunt and that Blunt had used the federal money “as a personal political slush fund.” The other complaints made similar allegations.

In a short Nov. 9 letter to Blunt, the Ethics Commission said it had voted five days earlier to dismiss the complaints.

“The commission determined that the secretary of state’s office did not use taxpayer funds to support a candidate,” the letter said.

Reed expressed frustration both about the outcome and the fact that the commission waited to decide the case until after the general election.

“I really think they should have ruled against them, and I’ll always believe that,” Reed said. “They should have reprimanded him at least.”

Like what you see here? Become a member.

Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.