JEFFERSON CITY - A legal memo filed with the Supreme Court seeking a return of campaign contributions has exposed Jay Nixon’s preference for putting his political interests ahead of his constitutional duty to defend state law. The memo also reveals Nixon’s underhanded attempt to exempt Claire McCaskill from having to return excess contributions she received to pay off a 2004 loan to herself.

Nixon’s memo seeks the return of most contributions made under a campaign finance reform law he was supposedly defending in court. Instead, Nixon failed to appeal a lower court decision spiking a narrow portion of the law which then led to the Supreme Court’s decision to strike a larger portion of the law designed to create transparency in the campaign finance system. Nixon publicly opposed the law and should have removed himself because of his conflicts and because his former chief of staff and confidant Chuck Hatfield was representing the plaintiff in the case.

Political science professor George Connor of Missouri State University diplomatically summed up the conflict today when he told the Kansas City Star: “I don’t know how to say it nicely — it looks bad. This is not to say there is collusion and corruption, but the appearance of collusion suggests that Attorney General Nixon should have stepped aside. There are just too many angles in which Nixon stands to benefit or lose.”

“Jay Nixon took a legal dive as part of an orchestrated conspiracy in which he pretended to represent Missourians while doing everything he could behind the scenes with friends like Chuck Hatfield to throw this case, and this latest travesty filed with the Supreme Court unequivocally proves that,” said Paul Sloca, communications director for the Missouri Republican Party. “Instead of having transparency in our campaign finance system, Nixon would have Missouri return to a system that allowed him to accept more than $19,000 in backdoor Ameren contributions while he was supposedly investigating the utility.”

While Nixon was looking after his political fortunes all along, footnote No. 3 in his Supreme Court memo also provides a loophole in which a debt service committee for old election campaigns like McCaskill’s would not be required to make refunds of contributions exceeding the limits. This brazen move is part on an ongoing saga in which McCaskill delayed paying back the $1.6 million she loaned herself in 2004, then successfully received permission to receive contributions under the state’s unlimited contributions law.

“Nixon would have Missourians believe that his position is based on fairness but if that is the case, then why in the world would Claire McCaskill be given special treatment through this sneaky little footnote? This is just another example of Nixon speaking out of both sides of his mouth,” Sloca said. “From Nixon’s conflicts and ethical lapses to the McCaskill loophole, this entire charade has exposed the depths of deceit Jay Nixon will dive to to gain political advantage at the expense of hard-working Missourians.”