JEFFERSON CITY -Jay Nixon should immediately step down as the attorney for the Missouri Ethics Commission because he has the most to gain from a commission decision requiring that candidates return campaign contributions even though he never had approval to act on the commission’s behalf in the first place.

Nixon’s fundraising has been less than stellar and an Ethics Commission decision requiring the return of campaign contributions would help him substantially close the fundraising gap, which constitutes a serious conflict of interest between what is best for Missourians and what is best for Nixon’s political fortunes. Meanwhile, Missouri Ethics Commission Director Bob Connor has said that the commission never approved Nixon’s brief supporting the return of campaign contribution limits. According to a St. Louis Post-Dispatch story today: “Connor said that the commission â€˜never voted’ on a legal brief, submitted on behalf of the commission last month by Nixon’s staff, that asked the court to order candidates to return overlimit contributions.”

“Jay Nixon has the most to gain from an Ethics Commission ruling that requires contributions to be returned, a serious conflict of interest that requires his immediate removal as the attorney supposedly representing the commission,” said Paul Sloca, communications director for the Missouri Republican Party. “The fact that Nixon went renegade and submitted a brief to the Supreme Court on behalf of the Ethics Commission without their approval is further, stunning evidence of a conflict of interest.”

Nixon’s involvement in the campaign finance legislation case has been a conflict from the start. He openly opposed the legislation while it was debated by lawmakers and when it was later challenged in circuit court, he refused to appeal a decision overturning a contribution blackout period. The failure to appeal that decision ultimately led to a Missouri Supreme Court ruling to throw out the entire bill including much needed campaign finance reforms. Nixon later showed his true colors again by arguing that all unlimited contributions should be returned since that would benefit his campaign fundraising totals, which have lagged for months. Then there is the case of Nixon’s former chief of staff and campaign manager Chuck Hatfield, who represented the plaintiffs challenging the campaign finance reform legislation.

“From day one, it has been quite clear that Jay Nixon put politics before his duty as the state attorney general by acting in collusion with a trusted political adviser to strike down campaign finance reforms that he personally opposed,” Sloca said. “Nixon wants to return to a campaign finance system where he can extort campaign contributions from the targets of his investigations and funnel those contributions to his campaign through party committees because he hasn’t kept pace in spite of the fact that he has received $100,000 donations.”