One Year Later: Koster has returned one percent of contributions

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. – Just over one year ago, The New York Times got involved in Missouri politics, calling Attorney General Chris Koster out for being unethical due to campaign contributions being received by parties currently in litigation with the Attorney General’s Office (AGO).

Koster denied the allegations and quickly implemented an ethics policy for his campaign which has resulted in the refund of over $60,000 to donors and, according to the campaign, $40,000-plus more donations “simply returned.”

The campaign includes “Contribution Rules” in any situation in which the campaign may be seeking donations – ranging from mail, the website, or fundraising invitations.

11 refunds were reported in October 2015, totaling $29,830.

Seven refunds were reported in July 2015, totaling $27,760.02.

Three refunds were reported in April 2015, totaling $10,000. Two checks were for $3,333.33 and one was for $3,333.34 – a previous pledge from law partners where a conflict was found.

No refunds were reported in October 2015, the month that the New York Times’ story was published.

The 21 refunds total $67,590

The campaign has raised $7,391,848.67 this cycle with $5,019,644.67 currently on hand.

Missouri Rising, a local affiliate of DC-based Republican opposition research firm America Rising, posted an attack on Koster on their website and blasted it to media calling the Attorney General’s ethics changes “lip service” and pointing to then-Acting State Auditor John Watson’s audit of the policy.

“Apparently it takes more than a front page New York Times exposé for Attorney General Koster to learn his lesson,” said Jeff Bechdel of America Rising. “Despite paying lip service to ethics reforms, a year later it’s clear he’s still playing fast and loose with potential conflicts of interest. Attorney General Koster has displayed a consistent inability to follow through on his promises to Missourians, but that’s exactly what you’d expect from a known political opportunist.”

The firm points to a March 2015 audit of the AGO and the resulting ethics policy, saying Deputy State Auditor Harry Otto said it was unrealistic to expect a campaign to police the issue because only the attorney general’s office knows what it is investigating.

‘The campaign is relying upon donors to self-identify themselves as not having a conflict with the AG’s office,’ Otto said. ‘There’s no way a donor should or could know what’s being investigated.’“

But, the campaign told The Missouri Times that it isn’t just self-identification. Andrew Wahlen of the Koster campaign said the campaign double-checks donations against any activity in the AGO in the last 90 days.

The Rising attack was two-fold, also saying that Koster is yet to implement the policy, however, campaign finance reports show a history of over $60,000 being refunded to donors from the campaign account since the in-house policy was implemented.

“About a year ago, the attorney general implemented, without question, the most comprehensive and aggressive conflict-of-interest policy of any Democrat or Republican,” said Whalen. “It is, without a doubt, the only self-imposed policy in Missouri.”

Whalen shared that the policy is to handle campaign contributions and that it has been implemented “properly.”

“The attacks are desperate in an attempt to find something,” Whalen said. “I’m glad to stress that this is the most comprehensive and aggressive ethics policy in the nation by any attorney general or candidate in the state of Missouri.”