Voice For Liberty

Category: United States government

  • In Wichita, more tax increment financing

    In Wichita, more tax increment financing

    The Wichita city council will consider expanding an existing TIF, or tax increment financing district.

    Tomorrow the Wichita City Council will consider expanding the boundaries of an existing tax increment financing district in downtown Wichita. 1

    According to city documents for this agenda item,

    Expanding the District would allow the Developer to capture the additional increment generated by the increased value of the Ice House building for pay-as-you-go reimbursement of eligible TIF expenses within the TIF district. The Developer would also be reimbursed for the TIF eligible costs related to redevelopment of the Ice House building.

    Further:

    The project includes up to $317,170 in infrastructure improvements that would be TIF eligible. The Developer proposes that tax increment financing be used to pay for eligible redevelopment project costs on a “pay-as-you-go” basis, for site preparation and infrastructure improvements.

    This may be confusing, so here it is in a nutshell: The city will be diverting up to $317,170 in future property tax paid by the developer. Instead of these taxes going to pay for operations of the city, county, and school district, these taxes will be given back to the developer.

    Usually, economic development incentives such as tax increment financing, or TIF, are justified because they create jobs. For this building, according to Wichita Eagle reporting from August, the two tenants that will occupy most of the space are existing companies that are moving from other parts of Wichita.

    In addition, Gary Oborney, Manager of Union Station, LLC and Ice House, LLC, the company that is receiving the benefit of tax increment financing, has made these recent campaign contributions, according to campaign finance reports filed in July:

    On March 18, 2019, $250 to Wichita Mayor Jeff Longwell.

    On July 2, 2019, $250 to Wichita City Council Member Bryan Frye (district 5,west and northwest Wichita).

    On June 22, 2019, $250 to Wichita City Council Member Jeff Blubaugh (district 4, south and southwest Wichita).

    Of note, all three are seeking reelection this year.

    There is nothing illegal regarding these campaign contributions based on Wichita and Kansas law. Some jurisdictions, however, have laws known as pay-to-play. These laws may prohibit political campaign contributions by those who seek government contracts, prohibit officeholders from voting on laws that will benefit their campaign donors, or the laws may impose special disclosure requirements.

    In general, these laws prohibit government officials from enriching their campaign contributors. That seems like a simple concept that makes sense.

    While there is no such law in Wichita, wouldn’t citizens appreciate officials acknowledging the campaign support they have received from people with business before the council?

    For more information on pay-to-play laws, see:

    Craig Holman, Ph.D., Public Citizen; and Kyung rok Wi, Democracy Law Project at Penn Law. Pay-to-Play Restrictions on Campaign Contributions from Government Contractors, 2016. Available at https://www.citizen.org/wp-content/uploads/pay-to-play_state_summary_report.pdf

    Weeks, Bob. Is graft a problem in Wichita? Includes excerpt from and link to History and Constitutionality of Pay-to-Play Campaign Finance Restrictions in America. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/is-graft-a-problem-in-wichita/.

    Perkins Coie. Summary of State Pay-To-Play Regulations. Available at https://www.perkinscoie.com/images/content/2/1/v2/21769/wp-10-05-pay-to-play.pdf.

    —
    Notes

    1. City of Wichita City Council Agenda for October 8, 2019. Agenda Item No. V-1, Public Hearings Considering an Expansion of the Union Station Tax Increment Financing District and Considering a Development Agreement for the Union Station Project Area 3 Plan (District I) ↩
  • From Pachyderm: United States Representative Ron Estes

    From Pachyderm: United States Representative Ron Estes

    From the Wichita Pachyderm Club this week: United States Representative Ron Estes. This audio presentation or podcast was recorded on August 23, 2019.

    Shownotes

    • Representative Ron Estes Congressional Office: estes.house.gov
    • Map of Kansas district 4 from U.S. Census Bureau

  • The overcriminalization in the charges against Michael O’Donnell

    The overcriminalization in the charges against Michael O’Donnell

    The indictment against Sedgwick County Commissioner Michael O’Donnell smells of overcriminalization.

    Former Wichita City Council Member, former Kansas Senator, and present Sedgwick County Commissioner Michael O’Donnell has been charged with a series of serious crimes — serious, at least, in the potential penalties he faces.

    First, I know Michael O’Donnell, and although I have been critical of some of his votes in the Kansas Senate and many while a member of the Sedgwick County Commission, I still consider him a friend, and I hope he considers me the same. I have worked on some of his campaigns, sometimes as a volunteer, and sometimes for pay.

    In the indictment, counts one through five accuse O’Donnell of wire fraud, because five campaign finance reports filed with the Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission contained allegedly false and fraudulent information, that being that O’Donnell allegedly converted campaign funds to his personal use. And, the email service used to file the reports routed the data through other states on its way to Topeka. This is described as a scheme to “defraud the State of Kansas, the County of Sedgwick, Kansas, and the citizens thereof.” 1

    Counts six through ten accuse O’Donnell of bank fraud, because the banks involved are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

    Counts eleven and twelve allege money laundering based on the above activity.

    Overcriminalization

    O’Donnell is being charged with multiple criminal offenses for the same acts. He allegedly converted campaign funds to personal use. That is against the law, and if done more than once, there can be multiple counts. But how this is done (the means of transmission of reports to KGEC) and what type of banks were used (FDIC insured banks) really don’t have anything to do with the underlying bad acts and should not result in additional crimes, at least in this case.

    For example, if O’Donnell had used an internet service that sent email with the transmission remaining at all times within the borders of Kansas, then one of the elements of the first five counts would not apply, that he “transmitted by means of wire communications in interstate commerce.” Or, if he had delivered the reports personally, interstate commerce might not apply.

    This is the issue of criminal intent. If the allegations in the indictment are true, O’Donnell committed a crime by improperly spending campaign funds and falsely reporting that. The indictment presents evidence of criminal intent in doing these things. But it is unlikely he intended to commit a crime involving interstate commerce. He probably did not know that Google would route his Gmail communications across state lines.

    In a similar vein, because the banks involved are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, counts six through ten accuse O’Donnell of bank fraud. But it’s unlikely O’Donnell intended to defraud the banks. The checks he wrote didn’t bounce; there were sufficient funds in the accounts. So it’s very difficult to see how the transactions alleged in the indictment posed any threat to the banks, or by extension, to the federal government through FDIC insurance. Further, if O’Donnell had used state-chartered banks, the second five counts might not apply.

    If we want to have campaign finance laws, that’s one thing. If people violate those laws, then charge them with that. But this piling on of charges is a characteristic of overcriminalization, where people are charged with multiple crimes for the same underlying criminal act.

    Could the piling on of charges be a bargaining chip to use in future negotiations concerning things O’Donnell may know? In a recent op-ed, prominent attorney Alan Dershowitz quoted a federal judge regarding squeezing a potential witness: “This vernacular is to ‘sing,’ is what prosecutors use. What you got to be careful of is, they may not only sing, they may compose.” 2

    Dershowitz continued:

    I have been using this “compose” metaphor for decades and I am gratified that a judge borrowed it to express an important civil liberties concern. Every experienced criminal lawyer has seen this phenomenon at work. I have seen it used by prosecutors who threaten wives, parents, siblings and, in one case, the innocent son of a potential witness who was about to graduate law school. Most judges, many of whom were former prosecutors, have also seen it. But few have the courage to expose it publicly, as Ellis has done.

    Defenders of Mueller’s tactic argue that the threatened witnesses and their relatives are generally guilty of some crime, or else they wouldn’t be vulnerable to the prosecutor’s threats. This may be true, but the crimes they are threatened to be charged with are often highly technical, elastic charges that are brought only as leverage. They are dropped as soon as the witness cooperates.

    Is this what is happening to Michael O’Donnell? Will the piling on of multiple felony charges carrying multi-year prison terms be dropped if O’Donnell cooperates in criminal prosecutions against other people?

    If anything, these alleged acts might constitute fraud committed against campaign donors. It’s difficult to see how the average person would care how candidates spend their campaign funds. Citizens may be concerned with who gives and how much they give, and if a candidate converts these campaign contributions to personal use, it opens the door to corruption. But the people really harmed are the donors who gave funds expecting to help O’Donnell win an election, not pay his personal expenses. (Unless the donors gave with such an understanding in place, and that is not legal.)

    As an aside, O’Donnell’s political opponents ought not to be so concerned, although currently they are overjoyed at his situation. If a candidate converts funds to personal use — away from campaign activity like advertisements, mailings, and yard signs — that seems to make the candidate less likely to win. Candidates and their supporters should hope their opponents spend campaign funds unwisely.

    —
    Notes

    1. United States Attorney’s office for the District of Kansas. Federal Fraud Charges Filed Against County Commissioner O’Donnell. Available at https://www.justice.gov/usao-ks/pr/federal-fraud-charges-filed-against-county-commissioner-o-donnell. Also see the indictment, available here. ↩
    2. Alan Dershowitz. Federal judge rightly rebukes Mueller for questionable tactics. The Hill, May 7, 2018. Available at http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/386508-federal-judge-rightly-rebukes-mueller-for-questionable-tactics. ↩

  • Jim DeMint on Convention of States

    Here is Senator Jim DeMint speaking on the topic Convention of States at the Wichita Pachyderm Club. View below, or click here to view at YouTube.

  • Congressman Ron Estes at Park City

    Congressman Ron Estes at Park City

    United States Representative Ron Estes speaking at the Park City Chamber of Commerce. Recorded August 30, 2017.

  • Judge Melgren defends Constitutional protections

    Judge Melgren defends Constitutional protections

    By Karl Peterjohn

    While it has become increasingly common for members of the U.S. Supreme Court to make news by public comments, particularly during their summer recess, Wichita Pachyderm Club members had the opportunity for Kansas federal district Judge Eric F. Melgren to quote from his judicial colleagues in a way of defending the Constitution’s concept of the separation of powers. Judge Melgren cited various appellate court rulings, particularly as they related to the largely little known Chevron decision, that damages that constitutional protection at his July 21 speech in Wichita.

    Judge Melgren, a former member of this club before his selection as the U.S. attorney for Kansas that was followed by his 2008 elevation to a federal district court post, began by discussing this governmental paradox, “those who favor (government) efficiency, or inefficient, representative government,” and he quoted from three appellate decisions as well as several of Madison’s Federalist papers to make this point.

    The founders feared tyrannical government and worried about this new government having too much power. That is the reason for the three separate branches where Congress writes the law, the executive branch administers the law, and the judiciary interprets it. This system of checks and balances make government very inefficient, and Melgren cited Madison’s Federalist 47.

    Judge Melgren followed by quoting Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s opinion in the Department of Transportation v. American Railroads case on this point. Our progressive law has now put the power of taking a general federal statute and having a federal agency basically write the rules and regulations that are then administered by the bureaucracy, and if a dispute arises, is then settled in the agencies own administrative law courts. Congress, often the executive, and unless extensive litigation occurs, the courts are all bypassed. The Chevron decision pushed these legal disputes away from the courts and back to bureaucratic resolutions.

    This creates an environment where the bureaucracy has assumed much of the law making powers, administers the law, and then has their own administrative courts to interpret it.

    In theory, the bureaucracy is part of the executive branch and reports to the president. However, as U.S. attorney Melgren was reminded by his staff that they would be there after he had left that office. This also applies to the rest of the federal government’s bureaucracy.

    To amplify upon this situation Melgren quoted from then federal appeals court judge Gorsuch in an immigration case that turned on the legal question of which conflicting rules from the government applied. The U.S. Supreme Court’s little known but legally controversial Chevron decision took this issue away from the federal courts and gave it to the professional bureaucracy. Gorsuch’s opinion was part of this 10th circuit (federal appellate court) case involving the U.S. justice department in 2016.

    Then President Obama’s rule making authority was at issue, that created this legal problem in the realm of federal administrative law making. This was also a problem in Thomas’ opinion in the railroad case.

    Justice Thomas warned about this dangerous trend. This amplified the warning Gorsuch bemoans in the weakening of the separation of powers in his appellate case. Thomas warned that too often we abrogated and allowed the power to make laws by administrative fiat. It might help make, as is often suggested, “make the trains run on time,” although Judge Melgren expressed serious doubts on this point there was no doubt about the cost to our Constitution, and the individual liberty it is supposed to protect.

    Judge Melgren spoke about the Chevron decision’s impact where the courts must defer to administrative agencies. “Apply the law as it is, and not how they wish it to be,” citing Gorsuch’s opinion, this means that the separation of powers is being totally undermined by the Chevron edict. The solution is: legislation. Law writing is arduous and difficult, but this is not a bug in the system, but this difficulty is a constitutional protection.

    This shift in power under Chevron would astonish the founders if they could see our current system as seen by the growth in the federal government in general. Judge Melgren pointed out that within the lifetime of some of the Pachyderm Club members the number of judges in the federal court system in Kansas had expanded from one in 1940 to six today, and that excludes a number of senior federal judges who have officially “retired,” but still on occasion hear about 1/3 of the total number of cases in the three federal courthouses (Wichita, Topeka, and K.C.) in Kansas. Melgren mentioned his late colleague Judge Brown, who was an appointee of President Kennedy and was still hearing cases while over 100 years old. Judge Brown passed away at the age of 104.

    Melgren readily acknowledged that the separation of powers was not absolute. The federal court system underneath the supreme court is created by congress. The close to 1,000 federal district and appellate judges operate nationally within an organization structure created by Congress.

    Melgren’s last case he quoted was from Kansas Supreme Court Justice Caleb Stegall’s opinion in the selection of district court judges, Sullivan v. Kansas. Stegall’s separation of powers argument cited Madison’s Federalist 51 concerning the concentration of power in any one government agency.

    Stegall applied the warnings over the separation of powers and the direction that state law has taken going back to Kansas Supreme Court cases granting additional administrative power going back to a 1976 ruling that involved the complexity created by the separation of powers. The separation of powers was a critical constitutional concept that is a key to protecting our liberties from government expansion.

    This cautionary litany of judicial rulings quoted by Judge Melgren served as a legal foundation concerning our Constitution and the separation of powers legal structure. The Chevron decision that weakens our liberty, and expands government’s powers, places a roadblock in the effort to preserve, protect and defend our liberty with this important constitutional protection of the separation of powers today.

    Video of this speech is available on YouTube. Click here.

  • From Pachyderm: Congressman Mike Pompeo

    From Pachyderm: Congressman Mike Pompeo

    Voice for Liberty radio logo square 02 155x116From the Wichita Pachyderm Club: Congressman Mike Pompeo delivered an update on the issues of the day and answered questions. Over 100 Pachyderm Club members and guests attended. This audio presentation was recorded on October 21, 2016.

    Congressman Mike Pompeo at the Wichita Pachyderm Club.
    Congressman Mike Pompeo at the Wichita Pachyderm Club.
  • Debate: The National Debt

    Debate: The National Debt

    Max Skidmore and Bob Weeks in the beautiful ballroom at Emporia State University.
    Max Skidmore and Bob Weeks in the beautiful ballroom at Emporia State University.
    This is an audio recording of a debate on the theme “Should the U.S. implement austerity measures due to the national debt?” The event was sponsored by Up To Us, a nationwide campus competition in which students create thought-provoking, fun campaigns to raise awareness about a critical issue affecting their future — the long-term national debt. This event took place at Emporia State University on February 15, 2016. Participants were Bob Weeks of Voice for Liberty at wichitaliberty.org and Professor Max Skidmore of University of Missouri, Kansas City. Michael Smith of ESU was the faculty coordinator, and Rob Catlett of ESU was the moderator.

    Partners in Up To Us include:
    Peter G. Peterson Foundation. The Peter G. Peterson Foundation is a nonprofit organization whose mission is to increase public awareness of the nature and urgency of key fiscal challenges threatening America’s future and to accelerate action on them.

    Clinton Global Initiative University. Building on the successful model of the Clinton Global Initiative, which brings together world leaders to take action on global challenges, the Clinton Global Initiative University (CGI U) was launched to engage the next generation of leaders on college campuses around the world.

    Net Impact. Net Impact is the leading nonprofit that inspires a new generation to work within and beyond business for a sustainable future. Net Impact empowers student and professional leaders to act locally through a vibrant chapter network and connect globally online and through Net Impact’s flagship conference.

  • Congressman Mike Pompeo update

    Congressman Mike Pompeo update

    Congressman Mike Pompeo, fourth district of Kansas, offered his perspective on recent happenings in Europe, the Middle East and Washington, D.C., at a luncheon gathering of the Wichita Pachyderm Club November 20, 2015. View below, or click here to view in high definition at YouTube. Videography by Paul Soutar.