Missouri Ethics Commission
P.O. Box 1370
Jefferson City, Missouri 65102
Re: Ethics Complaint against Matt 'Runt' Blunt, Missouri Secretary of State and
Competing Republican Candidate for Governor concerning RuntBlunt's misuse of
taxpayer funding to support his personal primary campaign.
Dear Missouri Ethics Commission:
. . . . This is the second time I am making a complaint to this Missouri 'Ethics' Commission concerning Missouri Secretary of State
Matt 'Runt' Blunt (hereafter RuntBlunt) abusing his office as Chief Election Official as a means of pursuing his own selfish
and corrupt interests in running for governor of Missouri. Before, RuntBlunt abused his office by denying me my rightful
nickname of 'Mad Dog,' a nickname that this Commission endorsed, and by choosing to censor my web page and the web
pages of other Republican candidates. The Director of Compliance, Michael C. Reid, made the ill-advised decision that this
misconduct fell out of the jurisdiction of this Commission on June 29, 2004. The only cautionary result from my complaint
is that it probably scared the self-serving sanctimonious little moron and his lackeys into putting up Jeff Killian's campaign
web page so that if I sued RuntBlunt then his lackey spokes-liar Spence Jackson could claim that he put up one Republican
opponent's web page. At the very least, you should have made a personal call to RuntBlunt telling RuntBlunt that I'd be
howling mad and out for his pelt if RuntBlunt didn't behave himself. As it was, I ended up suing RuntBlunt in a federal
district court in Springfield, Missouri on July 21, 2004. The case is Martin 'Mad Dog' Lindstedt, Republican Candidate
for Governor of Missouri vs. Matt 'Runt' Blunt, Secretary of State & Chief Election Official of Missouri, and Rival
Republican Candidate for Governor of Missouri, Case # 04-5062-CV-SW-RED, now that this case has been randomly
reassigned to District Judge Richard E. Dorr. I'm suing RuntBlunt for declaratory and injunctive relief, not a single penny
of Missouri taxpayer money involved, my relief being to make the punishment fit the crime and make RuntBlunt run with
his imposed proper nickname on the general election ballot of 'Runt' and a link to my web page criticising RuntBlunt's
moral and mental shortcomings.
. . . . In any case, I did a Google search on the Internet and came across the enclosed newspaper reports from the Columbia Missourian
and the Springfield News-Leader written by AP reporter Scott Chariton. I consider Scott Chariton to be a typical complete lying
media whore because he got onto me while 'moderating' the Missouri Press Association forum at Lake Ozark, Missouri on
June 5, 2004 for calling RuntBlunt 'RuntBlunt.' Chariton claimed that I had no legal standing to be calling RuntBlunt 'RuntBlunt'
and I said I'd quit calling RuntBlunt 'RuntBlunt' if RuntBlunt would call me 'Mad Dog.' Chariton said 'Mad Dog' was not my
legal name. I sputtered that that was for the courts to decide, and not him. But I behaved myself a bit because it seemed that
all of them well-fed, stupid wuss village Republican editors of the county seats as well as RuntBlunt thought that I was a dangerous
Wizard between the Sheets and were looking for a chance to throw me out. So I backed off a little and didn't call RuntBlunt 'RuntBlunt'
for the rest of the forum, didn't use my customary n-word but used 'negro' instead, and referred to homosexuals as homos or homosexuals
instead of calling them faggots. It's not as if I'm not willing to compromise a bit when necessary. I think it was an interesting,
although exciting forum, but RuntBlunt ran off like a scalded pup and forgot the list of exhibits and bill of particulars I had given him.
Contrary to popular rumors, I was not thrown out or arrested for hate crimes or hate speech at the forum.
. . . . But enough of the nattering of the whores and whoredumbs of the lie-papers concerning myself. Recently, this Scott Charton,
Associated Press Reporter in both the Columbia Missourian and Springfield News-Leader reported "Blunt in federally funded voting ads"
and "Blunt appears in taxpayer-paid ads." In both lie-papers, the fundamental facts were the same: That RuntBlunt, under color and
authority of his Office of Secretary of State, used a taxpayer-financed, federal $60 million appropriation designed for the non-partisan
'Help America Vote' federal legislation approved in 2002 to pay $47,984 to the lie-papers of the Missouri Press Association to promote
his own candidacy against his primary opposition and in part, his general election political opposition. It is admitted that "nothing in
the criteria [of the law authorizing funding] suggests Blunt's name and picture should appear in newspaper ads." Columbia Missourian,
July 30, 2004 (Article enclosed).
. . . . Here are additional quotes from that story:
Secretary of State Matt Blunt spent almost $48,000 in public money on statewide newspaper advertising that includes his name and
picture, urging voters to turn out for Tuesday’s primary.
The ad is to make a return appearance in Missouri’s daily newspapers on Monday - the day before Blunt faces five little-known
opponents in the Republican primary for governor. Blunt used federal funds to pay $47,984 to the Missouri Press Association to
place the ads twice through Tuesday’s primary in 295 daily and weekly newspapers across the state, said Mike Sell, MPA’s
advertising director.
. . . . Thus it is admitted that RuntBlunt, using his authority as Secretary of State, has spent taxpayer money, $47,984, to place ads twice,
including his name and picture, urging voters to turn out for Tuesday's primary and vote -- presumably for him. After all the
gravimen of my previous complaint to this Missouri Ethics Commission, was that RuntBlunt used the resources and authority
of his public office to refuse to place my nickname of 'Mad Dog' on the ballot and to refuse to place my web page on the list of
official Candidate Listings. The MEC refusal to rein in this abuse of power by RuntBlunt & RuntBlunt's lackeys, especially
his spokesliar & PR shill Spence Jackson, probably led to these regime criminal politicians concluding that they could get
away with anything, especially using taxpayer funds to pay for their political campaigns and political advertising.
Blunt's spokesman, Spence Jackson, who designed the ad, said it was appropriate to include Blunt’s photo and name in the
publicly paid ad because of its civic message.
"We just felt like that personalized it a little bit more, so people would know who’s talking,” Jackson said. “Election officials
should do all they can to encourage voter participation."
. . . . This is nothing more than a disingenuous rationalization on the part of a spokes-liar for a thief in office. If any 'personalizing'
needed to be done, then RuntBlunt could have put up the photos and names of ALL candidates for governor, Republican,
Democrat, and Libertarian, urging voters to vote. But as we see, today RuntBlunt and his corporate spokes-liars won't put
the nicknames and web pages of primary opponents on official state documents, why would they do so with money stolen
from the taxpayers and applied to their own political campaign? RuntBlunt's spokes-liar Spence Jackson, far from denying
the theft, took part in it by 'designing' the advertisements. All of which goes to show that the office of Missouri Secretary of
State, its funding, its resources, perhaps its personnel, are being co-mingled in RuntBlunt's personal campaign for governor.
'Personalizing' public funds for private gain is corruption in office, not to mention, unethical. Back in 1992, Roy 'Skunk' Blunt,
Father of RuntBlunt, accused Bill Webster, Attorney General of Missouri, of using the Workman's Comp funding to selected
trial lawyers, to pay for Webster's campaign for governor. A dozen years later, in 2004, RuntBlunt, son of SkunkBlunt, is
again corruptly using public funding to pay for his own primary campaign for governor of Missouri. Where was the
Missouri 'Ethics' Commission then? More importantly, where is the MEC now? Go after RuntBlunt!
Jackson also provided criteria for spending the federal money on voter education, a framework he said was developed
with bipartisan input from public meetings. But nothing in the criteria suggests Blunt’s name and picture should appear
in the newspaper ads.
. . . . Where exactly was there bi-partisan support for RuntBlunt using public taxpayer funding to advance RuntBlunt's primary campaign?
Also admitted, is that there isn't even the suggestion, much less permission, for RuntBlunt or lackeys of RuntBlunt to design, much
less promote, even less pay for such primary advertising under color of the Chief Election Official's office and color of authority.
. . . . Roy Lang contacted me the morning of August 5, 2004. He said that he was in contact with Jeff Killian and Jen Sievers, two other
Republican candidates for governor of Missouri. Roy Lang wanted to know how to file a complaint with the Missouri Ethics
Commission after I told him that I was quite aware of RuntBlunt's latest official treason against his office and the People of Missouri.
While Roy Lang made it quite clear that he wanted no part in what he called my 'racism' and what I call 'White Nationalism,' I told
Roy that I would send him a copy of my complaint to this Missouri 'Ethics' Commission and the blank pages of your complaint
form from the MEC web page, as Lang has no computer or experience in using the Internet so that he could make his own complaint.
Lang also asked if he could join my federal lawsuit against RuntBlunt, and I said that we'd see, although I do intend to use this latest
matter in my lawsuit. I suggested that a federal lawsuit in which all aggrieved parties sharing the cost against RuntBlunt might be
in order, or a joinder to my lawsuit under Rules 18-21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure might be in order later.
. . . . In any case, the question is what the Missouri 'Ethics' commission is going to do about this complaint and the complaints of others
in this matter. It is doubtful that RuntBlunt put the federal tax dollars of $47.984 in his campaign finance reports -- to RuntBlunt &
corporate lackeys it was all just free money provided by the tax-suckers, er, tax-payers. But I am sure it falls within your 'jurisdiction'
and if you rule that it does not, then what good is the Missouri 'Ethics' Commission? It sure didn't prevent the Chief Election [Thief]
Official of Missouri from stealing from the taxpayers under color of law for his own personal campaign financing.
. . . . I shall send a copy of this to the Chief Election [Thief] Official, Secretary of State, and Defendant in a federal civil-rights lawsuit,
hisself, i.e. Matt 'Runt' Blunt. I shall also use this as an exhibit in my lawsuit, and post it upon the Internet. A copy of this
complaint shall in due be sent to the Missouri Attorney General's office, to show him that he has no business defending
RuntBlunt from my lawsuit when he should be prosecuting RuntBlunt for corruption, violation of campaign financing laws,
violation of Missouri election laws, and treason. I am,
Most Formally yours,
Martin 'Mad Dog' Lindstedt
Republican Candidate for Governor of Missouri
http://www.martinlindstedt.org
Blunt in federally funded voting ads
The secretary of state’s spokesman defends the ads as a civic message.
By SCOTT CHARTON, Associated Press Writer
July 30, 2004
Secretary of State Matt Blunt spent almost $48,000 in public money on statewide newspaper advertising that includes his name
and picture, urging voters to turn out for Tuesday’s primary.
The ad is to make a return appearance in Missouri’s daily newspapers on Monday — the day before Blunt faces five little-known
opponents in the Republican primary for governor. Blunt used federal funds to pay $47,984 to the Missouri Press Association to
place the ads twice through Tuesday’s primary in 295 daily and weekly newspapers across the state, said Mike Sell, MPA’s advertising director.
Blunt’s spokesman, Spence Jackson, who designed the ad, said it was appropriate to include Blunt’s photo and name in the publicly paid
ad because of its civic message.
“We just felt like that personalized it a little bit more, so people would know who’s talking,” Jackson said. “Election officials should do
all they can to encourage voter participation.”
The two-columns wide, six-inches deep ads were provided to newspapers from Blunt’s office. Sell said it was the first time in memory
that a secretary of state placed a statewide ad buy using public money to promote voter turnout.
The ads include Blunt’s black and white photo, a drawing of an American eagle with wings spread wide, and the bold-faced headline:
“WE WANT YOUR VOTE COUNTED!!!”
The ad says: “Missouri’s chief election official, Matt Blunt urges every eligible Missourian to vote in the August 3, 2004 primary election.
Your county clerk’s office or local election board stand ready to assist you in making your voice heard.”
County clerks and, in the two largest urban areas, local election boards, actually run the polling places and count ballots.
Blunt’s ad goes on: “If you have any questions about how or where to vote, or Missouri’s election laws, please contact your local
election authority, or call this statewide toll-free number: 1-800-NOW-VOTE.”
The Columbia-based MPA said the first round of weekly newspaper ads ran last week, with the second round appearing in this week’s editions.
Ads appeared Thursday in many daily newspapers, and will be repeated in the dailies on Monday, according to the press association,
which places ads in state newspapers.
Jackson said funding for the ads came from a $60 million federal appropriation to Missouri as part of the Help America Vote law, enacted in 2002.
He said Blunt is spending about the same amount, roughly $48,000, on radio and television announcements promoting voting through
the Missouri Broadcasters Association. Jackson said the television ads do not show Blunt.
A script provided by Blunt’s office has the TV announcement delivered in a bipartisan way: the speakers are Glenda Mott, a Republican
who is county clerk of Laclede County, and Sharon Turner Buie, the Democratic director of elections in Kansas City.
Jackson also provided criteria for spending the federal money on voter education, a framework he said was developed with
bipartisan input from public meetings. But nothing in the criteria suggests Blunt’s name and picture should appear in the newspaper ads.
It’s not unusual for incumbent politicians to promote government programs and themselves at the same time.
For example, Democratic Gov. Bob Holden and his wife, Lori, are among bicyclists seen on the Katy Trail in television public
service announcements promoting state physical fitness programs.
Jackson said State Treasurer Nancy Farmer, a Democrat who is running for U.S. Senate, was pictured in newspaper ads from early
July promoting her office’s Unclaimed Property Division.
Blunt is heavily favored in Tuesday’s GOP gubernatorial primary. His primary opponents are Karen Lee Dee Skelton-Memhardt,
of Wildwood; Jennie Lee Sievers, of Jackson; Martin Lindstedt, of Granby; Jeff Killian, of Jackson and Roy W. Lang, of Davisville.
.
.
Second Complaint To The Missouri Ethics Commission
Concerning RuntBlunt's Use of Taxpayer Dollars for RuntBlunt's Primary Campaign
.
.
.
.
.
The Missouri 'Ethics' Commission Decides to Investigate RuntBlunt's Abuse of Taxpayer Funds
.
.
Over to Martin 'Mad Dog' Lindstedt, Republican Candidate for Governor of Missouri -- 2004
Over to My Struggle -- The Rants of a Resistance Political Operative
Over to Thought for the Day
Over to Martin Lindstedt's CI Church & State WWW Page
Back to www.martinlindstedt.org or Patrick Henry On-Line
