ADVERTISEMENTS

Here are some of the stories surrounding the Katie King campaign for Jefferson District Court judge in 2009 and campaign finance violations arising from $145,000 in gifts from her father to his daughter.

September 26, 2009 - WLKY.com story - Board: Kings Violated Finance Law.  Click here for the video.

September 24, 2009: WLKY.com Election Board To Hear King Campaign Finance Case KREF Hears Case Friday Morning  SITE HAS VIDEO OF THIS STORY.

September 15, 2009: WLKY.com Report: Councilman, Daughter Violated Campaign Finance Laws - Video

May 19, 2009: Judge's Attorneys Request Extension In Campaign Finance Probe from WLKY.com

May 7, 2009: Judge Ordered To Provide Campaign Finance Evidence from WLKY.com

February 25, 2009: Activist Accuses Judge King Of Improper Campaign Finance from WLKY.com

November 5, 2008: King Defeats Holton In Controversial Race from WLKY.com

Courier Journal Editorial on the King Campaign Finance Affair - September 18, 2009

Editorial

A father's aid

At first blush, the large financial gifts banker/politician Jim King made to his daughter, which helped fund her judicial campaign last year, might be defensible. After all, Mr. King, a Metro councilman who is running for mayor, had sought advice from election finance officials and seemed to have a green light. Or did he?

His daughter, Katie King, narrowly won her Jefferson District Court race in November against appointed incumbent Judge David Holton. Shortly afterward, a local blogger, Ed Springston, filed a complaint with the Kentucky Registry on Election Finance, challenging the legality of the gifts, as well as a last-minute $209,000 loan made to the campaign by Mr. King's bank. (Meanwhile, Mr. Holton was reappointed Sept. 4 to a different district judgeship.)

Mr. King defends the $145,000 in gifts by explaining that he had gotten advice from the registry staff. ?Can a relative make an unconditional gift of cash in any amount to a candidate and then can the candidate contribute or loan some or all of that cash to their own campaign?? he asked in an e-mail.

The staffer replied that the registry ?does not regulate the private finances of a candidate.?

But the response, also in an e-mail, added: ?Bear in mind the appearance and perception that others may have,? and referred Mr. King to the Kentucky statutes governing campaign gifts.

In a preliminary finding, the registry concluded that the use of the gifts in the campaign broke the law, but because the violations appeared to be unknowing, they have been recommended for conciliation ? informal proceedings that can result in fines ? when the board takes up the case Sept. 25. They found no laws broken with the loan.

Mr. King immediately declared vindication, but a closer reading of the preliminary report, which The Courier-Journal obtained through Mr. Springston, indicates otherwise. It was ?incorrect and unwise? to rely on only the first portion of the advice from the registry instead of the whole message, the report says.

If Mr. King were a naïf , and if he were unsophisticated about seeking legal advice, we might agree with his decision to make the gifts based on only half of the advice from the registry. But he is a sophisticated and wealthy businessman, and if he didn't know about the laws ? or the perception of the gifts ? he should have.

Ms. King was running for a judgeship. She had a duty to make sure her fundraising was clean as a hound's tooth. As in other regards, she continues to come up lacking.

We are glad that the registry intends to deal with the case, but a light spanking with a feather duster seems inadequate, at best.

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.