Bosma Identifies Kittle As The Person Who Offered Him Unlimited Contributions To Kill HJR-3

The Indianapolis Star has finally been shamed into covering the public flap created when House Speaker Brian Bosma recently announced during a State House press briefing that he had been offered unlimited campaign contributions by one of the opponents of HJR-3 if he agreed to kill the proposed constitutional amendment. Bosma refused to identify the offeror at the time, but the AP's Tom LoBianco, citing numerous sources, identified the person making the offer as former Indiana GOP Chairman Jim Kittle. Speaker Bosma acknowledged during an interview with the Star's Barb Berggoetz today that Kittle was indeed the person who made the offer.

On Wednesday in an interview with The Star, Bosma publicly acknowledged for the first time that the person was Jim Kittle Jr. — a prolific GOP fundraiser and former state party chairman . . .

“The exact quote was: ‘There will be unlimited campaign contributions if this thing can just go away,’ ” he said.

“I thought it was highly inappropriate,” Bosma reiterated Wednesday. “I didn’t think it crossed any criminal line. But I was very uncomfortable with it.”  

Bosma characterized Kittle’s offer as atypical and decided to make it public to show intensity of the lobbying effort on the gay marriage ban. 

“It’s not unusual for people to come to me to support a position,” he said. “Rarely, if ever, is it connected with any pledge of campaign support. I’ve never heard anyone ever say anything ever about unlimited anything.” 

When he told Kittle how he thought it sounded, Bosma said, Kittle changed the offer to “virtually” unlimited campaign funds. Bosma said Kittle he didn’t specify exactly to whom the money would go

For his part, Kittle tells the Star that Bosma is mischaracterizing their conversations about HJR-3:

Kittle said Wednesday, while vacationing in Mexico, that Bosma “mischaracterized” their conversations.

“I expressed my opposition to the marriage amendment and also expressed my belief there would be strong political support for those who had the courage to oppose it or at least amend the (constitutional) amendment,” said Kittle, owner and board chairman of Indianapolis-based Kittle’s Furniture. His company contributed $5,000 to the Freedom Indiana coalition which opposed the amendment and he played a key role in helping find financial support for the group.

Kittle denied he promised “unlimited” campaign funds for GOP lawmakers who would vote against House Joint Resolution 3, which lawmakers passed in February without the civil union ban, thus keeping it off the November ballot.

“Any implication or anything that can be construed as inappropriate or untoward, that’s simply not true,” Kittle told The Star. “I’ve been around politics for a long time. And I know the difference.” . . .  

Kittle said didn’t cross the line. He said Bosma told him he was concerned some House Republicans could draw primary opponents funded by social conservative groups if they voted against the amendment or agreed to remove the civil union ban.

But Kittle said he just told Bosma there would be “significant or substantial support” for them from the businesses, universities and many groups that opposed the amendment. He added, though, he wasn’t there representing anyone but himself, but acknowledged his support of Freedom Indiana.

“I think I had some credibility with Brian and that certainly was one reason I met with him and thought my counsel and offer to support folks who did stand up against it probably had some validity,” Kittle said.

The article goes on to discuss whether the offer might be considered a bribe. Of course, they reference the state's bribery statute and not the federal bribery statute and conclude Kittle's offer probably doesn't rise to a criminal level. As I've discussed before, the state bribery statute is intentionally written to make prosecution under it difficult. That's why cases involving allegations of bribery are typically referred to the feds for prosecution. The Star's story mentions that Kittle contribute $5,000 to Freedom Indiana, the political action committee formed to fight passage of HJR-3; however, Kittle insists that he spoke to Bosma in his individual capacity and not on behalf of Freedom Indiana.

Kittle Denies Offering A Bribe To Speaker Bosma To Kill HJR-3

Former Indiana State GOP Chairman James Kittle is denying a recent AP report identifying him as the unidentified person that House Speaker Brian Bosma recently told State House reporters offered him unlimited campaign contributions if he would kill HJR-3, the marriage discrimination amendment. Bosma said he turned down the offer and expressed concern about the legality of the offer to the unidentified person who offered it to him. Lobianco reported that numerous sources familiar with the offer said it was Kittle who made the offer.

What I find more interesting than who said what in this saga is the State House media coverage of this issue, or better yet, the lack thereof. I observed at the time Speaker Bosma stepped before reporters and made the astonishing claim that virtually no State House reporter mentioned the serious bribery allegation in their reporting of that day's press briefing. Apparently, only the AP's Tom LoBianco even bothered to track the story down to learn who the person was who Bosma alleged made the offer to him.

One would think that a story of this importance put out by an AP reporter would be picked up by virtually all major news outlets in Indiana. Yet most newspapers ignored the story and many media outlets either didn't run the story, or only ran abbreviated version of the story. The only newspaper I could find that ran LoBianco's follow-up story containing a denial from Kittle is the Columbus Republic, which is hardly one of the State's leading daily newspapers. This would story would appear to be an abbreviated version of LoBianco's story, judging by its length--four short paragraphs.

LoBianco's story also mentions that the National Organization for Marriage sent a letter to Attorney General Greg Zoeller requesting an investigation of the alleged bribe offered by Kittle to Bosma. The out-of-state organization obviously is unaware that our state's Attorney General, one of the weakest in the nation, has no prosecutorial powers.

Perhaps revealing of the media's agenda on the issue of same-sex marriage was the extra attention it gave to an issue that arose with a tax bill making its way through the legislature yesterday. Because Indiana's income tax piggy backs on the federal income tax, lawmakers are asked to periodically update the state's income tax code to reflect changes in the Internal Revenue Code. After the IRS ruled last year that same-sex couples would be allowed to file joint tax returns and otherwise be treated the same as traditional married coupled under the tax code following the Supreme Court's landmark decision striking down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, the Indiana Department of Revenue quickly announced that same-sex couples who filed joint federal tax returns would still have to file tax returns separately because of the state's Defense of Marriage Act, which no court has yet ruled unconstitutional.

Arguably, the differing tax treatment of same-sex and opposite-sex couples increases the likelihood that state laws like Indiana's Defense of Marriage Act will eventually be ruled unconstitutional. That has already been the outcome in several lower federal court rulings handed down since last year's Supreme Court ruling. If state lawmakers had rejected the Department of Revenue's ruling last year and allowed same-sex couples to file joint state tax returns, it would have implicitly repudiated the state's Defense of Marriage Act. Yesterday's action in the Senate was taken to codify the state's Department of Revenue's administrative determination, which is consistent with state law whether one likes that law or not.

UPDATE: The IBJ has published a longer version of the AP story, which includes quotes from Kittle in response to the allegations:

Jim Kittle, a prolific fundraiser in Indiana Republican circles, said he twice met with and tried to convince House Speaker Brian Bosma that the ban shouldn't be considered this session but that he never offered unlimited funds. Bosma has repeatedly said he was offered unlimited money in the heat of the debate if he would pull the issue from consideration, but he has refused to say who made the offer.

Kittle, who opposed the ban, told The Associated Press that he met with the legislative leader at Bosma's law office, once before the session and again shortly after the session started. He said Bosma expressed concerns that some House Republicans could face strong primary election fights if they opposed the ban.

"To offer support to individual legislators if they do happen to get primaried or they're running certainly is not illegal, immoral or anything else," Kittle said. "I respect the fact that Brian's got himself kind of in a jam here. He misjudged what was happening, period, on this."

At the start of the fight in January, Bosma said he had rejected an offer of "unlimited" funds to make the ban "go away." He said at the time that he was concerned it might violate state and federal law.

But, last week, Bosma said he believed nothing criminal was meant by the offer. Bosma spokeswoman Tory Flynn declined comment Tuesday, referring to Bosma's comments last week.

Former Indiana GOP Chairman James Kittle Fingered In Bribe Offered To House Speaker To Block HJR-3

Wealthy businessman and former Indiana State Republican Chairman James Kittle has been identified as the businessman who offered House Speaker Brian Bosma unlimited campaign cash earlier this session if he would kill HJR-3, the proposed marriage discrimination amendment according to the AP's Tom Lobianco. Citing multiple sources familiar with the offer, Lobianco said Kittle withdrew the offer of "unlimited" campaign help after Bosma questioned the legality of his offer.

Jim Kittle offered "unlimited" campaign help to House Speaker Brian Bosma as part of a push to defeat the proposed amendment, according to multiple people with direct knowledge of the discussion. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to disclose the private discussions.

Kittle withdrew his offer after Bosma questioned its legality, and it turns out the money wasn't needed after all. Only four House Republicans targeted by ban supporters face primary challenges, and changes to the proposed amendment's language will keep the issue off the ballot until at least 2016. But the back-room intrigue illustrates how election-year politics and campaign dollars shape some of the state's most important decisions . . .

Bosma also has said a potential candidate notified him that he had been offered $500,000 from an out-of-state source to challenge the speaker in the May primary.

But Kittle's offer is the one that raised some eyebrows. Bosma first announced an offer of campaign dollars in a January news conference but did not identify the potential contributor.

"I received a pledge of unlimited campaign funding if I were to make this issue go away," Bosma announced.

Bosma said he rejected the offer and expressed concern that it might have violated state or federal law. He has worn his decision as a badge of pride throughout the session, telling reporters he does not bow to threats or intimidation.

Bosma told The Associated Press last week that he didn't think the offer constituted a crime. But the speaker, who has never said Kittle made the offer, acknowledged voicing some concerns.

"I did bring to that individual's attention what it sounded like he was saying and I think he was pretty concerned about it after he said it," Bosma said.

Kittle did not return calls seeking comment . . .

This isn't the first time Kittle's name has surfaced in connection with nefarious activities. Kittle, who stepped down as the GOP's state party chairman and Gov. Daniels' finance chairman after before his arrest for drunk driving in Hamilton County in December, 2010, was identified as one of several investors a controversial Chinese immigrant had supposedly lined up to start up a new company that would assist Chinese investors with investment opportunities in the United States. Monica Liang, then a newly-hired consultant to Mitch Roob, the former head of the Indiana Economic Development Corporation (IEDC), became the subject of a complaint lodged by Chinese businessmen after Liang lured a Chinese billionaire, Ao Yuqi, to wire $50,000 into her bank account. According to a written complaint several Chinese businessmen had delivered to Gov. Mitch Daniels accusing Liang of criminal wrongdoing, Liang had identified Kittle as someone with whom she was very close who had tremendous political clout in Indiana.

She advised us that the State of Indiana would set up an office in China and she would be appointed as the manager of that office. She also repeatedly hinted to us that she was connected politically because she was in an intimate relationship with Chairman of Republican Party of Indiana. She advised us that the Chairman was "super rich," owned two large biotechnology companies and was the largest campaign contributor of Governor Daniels' election. As she put it that meant it was no problem for us to meet Governor Daniels when we next visit Indiana.

Sources familiar with an FBI investigation of Liang's business dealings tell Advance Indiana that she had formed a new company, China North American Investment Group, LLC, whose members according to Liang were to include herself, Ao, Kittle, Mitch Roob and Bingham McHale managing partner, Toby McClamroch, a former Indianapolis City-County Council member. Liang used a letter dated February 18, 2011 signed by Roob appointing her as his special assistant for Chinese relations to impress potential investors in China. Liang had also supposedly represented to the Chinese investors an opportunity to invest in a $12 million nursing home project she was trying to develop in a building she had purchased in Marion, Indiana, which she claimed included Gov. Daniels, Marion Mayor Wayne Seybold and Roob as investors according to an expose' on the entire sordid affair by the Indianapolis Star, titled, "The China Letter." Among the supporting documents Liang provided to the Chinese investors was a letter on the City of Marion's letterhead signed by the city's economic development director, Darren Reese, pledging support for TIF incentives for the project.

The FBI dropped its investigation of Liang's business dealings after she died unexpectedly from an aneurysm during a visit to her apartment in Carmel in late October, 2011 from a Chicago attorney, Thomas Gehl, who was advising her on EB-5 immigrant visas, a visa program that allows large foreign investors to obtain permanent resident status in the U.S. in consideration for investing in qualified American investments.  As a result of an internal investigation of the complaint sent to Gov. Daniels, Liang was immediately terminated and Roob stepped down as IEDC's CEO a short time later, although he insisted that the sordid affair was not the cause for his resignation. IEDC also ended its long-term relationship with Pacific World Trade, which had an exclusive contract to assist the IEDC in developing business relationships in China, in retaliation for its perceived role in helping bring the serious allegations of wrongdoing on Liang's part to light. The company's owner, Dennis Kelley, delivered the complaint on behalf of the Chinese businessmen, a fact that irked state officials, even though essentially all of the allegations contained in their complaint had been determined to be accurate based on the state agency's internal investigation of the complaint. Roob had demanded that Kelley retract the allegations set forth in the complaint prior to his abrupt departure from the state agency.

Last December, the Indianapolis Star featured a $2.5 million log cabin home in Carmel owned by Kittle that was being offered for sale. "Detailed craftsmanship is the hallmark of this spacious Carmel home being offered for $2.5 million," the article read. "Jim Kittle's custom log home is filled with signature lines from the family furniture business." "Set in a private, wooded area, the home resembles a mountain retreat, complete with natural interior features such as slate flooring and exposed board and batten ceilings." Watch the Indianapolis Star and other media outlets to bury this AP story since it doesn't fit their meme on HJR-3, not to mention the advertising Kittle's furniture store purchases from them.

State Party Platforms Not Likely To Impact Same-Sex Marriage Debate

The Star's Mary Beth Schneider has a story today discussing changes in both the Indiana Republican and Indiana Democratic state party platforms on the issue of same-sex marriages. Republicans chose not to mention the issue in the party platform it adopted last weekend. Democrats at its convention this weekend in Fort Wayne plan to adopt a platform that expresses opposition to a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would expressly ban same-sex marriages or the recognition of any other similar benefits. Since 1996, Indiana law has defined marriage as between one man and one woman so a constitutional amendment won't change Indiana's marriage law; however, additional language in that amendment could strike down domestic partner benefits provided to unmarried couples. A number of large employers, including Eli Lilly and Wellpoint, offer such benefits. The Indianapolis City-County Council is currently considering a bipartisan proposal that would extend domestic partner benefits to cohabitating unmarried couples who have declared themselves to be in an intimate and committed domestic partnership, including same-sex couples.

Despite the fact that the Democratic Party is adopting a position opposing the pending constitutional amendment, more than a dozen Democrats elected to the state legislature supported the amendment when it was voted on last year, including House Democratic Leader Pat Bauer. The party's nominee for governor, John Gregg, has also supported the amendment and publicly distanced himself from President Barack Obama's recently declared "evolving position" now declaring his support for same-sex marriage after opposing it throughout his short political career. Gregg's running mate, State Sen. Vi Simpson, opposes the proposed state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages and other similar benefits. The Republican nominee for governor, Mike Pence, has a long history of hostility towards LGBT rights and supports the constitutional amendment. His running mate, State Rep. Sue Ellspermann, also supported the constitutional amendment during her first term in the House; however, she did support efforts to remove the additional language in the amendment that would also ban other benefits beyond marriage.

Schneider quotes the American Family Association of Indiana's Micah Clark as expressing surprise to learn that the state party platform omitted language opposing same-sex marriage as had been included in recent past party platforms. The issue was not discussed at the state convention, and party platform meetings where the decision was made were held behind closed doors.

"It's unusual for a party to contradict their candidates at the top of the ticket," Clark said.

Pete Seat, press secretary for the Indiana Republican Party, brushed off questions about the change in the GOP platform.

"A lot of issues are covered; a lot weren't," he said. "This platform reflects the broader priorities of the Indiana Republican Party."

House Speaker Brian Bosma and Indiana Senate President David Long have both supported efforts to adopt the constitutional amendment. If it is passed by the House and Senate next year as expected, the measure will go before Indiana voters for approval at the 2014 election. Public opinion on same-sex marriage has changed significantly in recent years with some polls showing a majority now supporting it. Indiana Democratic Party Chairman Dan Parker cited that shift in public opinion as a reason for the change in his party's state platform.

State Senator Threatens Libertarian Party Over Opposition To Marriage Discrimination Amendment? UPDATE: Senate Says E-Mail Spoofed

[UPDATED] The Libertarian Party of Indiana is rankled after one of its members received an e-mail purporting to be from State Sen. Connie Lawson (R) with a less than thinly-veiled threat over the party's opposition to the marriage discrimination amendment, which the Senate Judiciary Committee approved on a 7 to 3 vote this morning. Senate President Pro Tempore David Long's Chief of Staff Jeff Papa has informed me that further examination of the e-mail leads them to conclude the e-mail was spoofed. Last week, Indiana School Superintendent Tony Bennett's office was the victim of a spoofed memo containing information Bennett supposedly put out concerning education reform. A State Police investigation should be launched to figure out who impersonated Sen. Lawson in putting out this potentially damaging e-mail. The Libertarian Party has not officially responded to the Senate's conclusion the e-mail was spoofed.

The e-mail response to one of the party's members presented as being sent by Lawson, who is the Senate Majority Leader, suggested the Republican Party may be forced to make "structural adjustments" if the opposition continues. The e-mail reads, in part, according to the Libertarian Party's press release:

I have come to realize that you have helped drive the Libertarian Party of Indiana’s most recent views against HJR-6 and SJR-13. While you do understand that I appreciate and respect your views on this issue, I do request that you keep these posts to a minimum. The Republican Party of Indiana does not wish to cause issue with the Libertarian Party of Indiana in any way, but should these oppositions continue to occur, we may have to make some structural adjustments . . .

I do appreciate your views and think that you have done a magnificent job in articulating an adequate viewpoint on these issues. While they are viewed as the most basic civil rights issues of our day, it should also be noted that continual political polarization in Indiana and in the United States could result in serious consequence should we not provide support and coalition together for the greater good of all Hoosiers . . .

The reaction to the apparently spoofed e-mail from the Libertarian Party's leadership was swift. “When a State Senator or their staff demand that a political organization remain silent on any issue, I consider this a very serious problem,” said Sam Goldstein, the Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Indiana. “If we aren’t silent, then what “structural adjustments would be made? I have personally reached out to Lawson’s office and the Indiana Republican Party to give them an opportunity to explain these statements, but we did not receive any response back. We have also been trying to confirm if this was a staffer using government time and resources or if these are the thoughts of the Senator herself. Either way she is accountable for these statements.”

Goldstein continued, “We are a bona fide political party. We are not servants of the Republican Party or the General Assembly, and we will proudly speak out against discrimination being amended into our State’s Constitution. Days after this email, we put out a press release denouncing HJR-6 and SJR-13. The desire to control the relationships of all Hoosiers is clearly spelled out in both Lawson’s email and these joint resolutions. Someone should remind Republicans that their legislative duty is to defend rights, not control behavior.”

Efforts by Senate Democrats in committee to remove by amendment a second sentence from the marriage discrimination amendment that expands the proposed gay marriage ban to include civil unions, domestic partnership agreements and other benefits enjoyed by unmarried couples failed in committee today. Indiana's Defense of Marriage law has barred same-sex marriages since 1996. The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of the statute in Morrison v. Sadler several years ago. Proponents of the constitutional amendment insist Indiana's Bill of Rights must be amended to include the ban on same-sex marriages and civil unions to prevent activist judges from overturning Indiana's current law, although there is no reason to believe an Indiana court would be able to do so given the Supreme Court's standard for overturning the constitutionality of laws passed by the General Assembly.  Indeed, Indiana courts have rarely overturned laws enacted by the legislature because the standard for reviewing state law enactments poses such a high hurdle to jump.

UPDATE: Here is the e-mail Jeff Papa sent to Goldstein explaining why the Senate concluded the e-mail was spoofed:

Sam,


The address it claims to be from has been manipulated. This is NOT an outbound email address that we have. It is an incoming alias only. We publish this address because it is easy for constituents to remember without writing down numbers and letters, but it is only an inbound alias. We never send out with this address. In fact, look at the text you sent me – it has clearly been manipulated – part of the email address is in hypertext link and the middle part is in regular black text. Further note the person also changed the email at the end to S24@iga.in.gov . Also, we cannot find any such email in our outbound email and Senator Lawson never wrote any such letter. We did not send this, or write the accompanying email. Maybe you can look at the properties of the incoming message on your end to see what domain it truly originated from. Let me know if you have other questions, but this did not come from us. It seems similar to the fraudulent/criminal email that was sent last week claiming to be from Dr. Bennett. Can you update your web statements to reflect the fact that it did not come from us and change the title or update it? Please let me know if you would like to discuss further – no one here meant any offense or silencing of the Libertarian (or any other) voice… especially since we did not send this letter.

Thank you for taking my call and discussing the matter. We don’t show any calls from you that were taken or not returned, but in any case If you ever have trouble reaching anyone at the Senate please call me on my cell at any time.

Jeff Papa, Chief of Staff
Indiana Senate

UPDATE II: Senate President Pro Tempore David Long released an official statement on the incident moments ago confirming the Senate's believe the e-mail is a "hoax." “The most recent ridiculous incident involves a state senator supposedly threatening the viability of the Indiana Libertarian Party,” Long said. “This follows closely on the heels of a March 10 e-mail blast regarding proposed education reforms and attempting to embarrass State Supt. of Public Instruction Dr. Tony Bennett. Both messages were complete hoaxes and should be disregarded as such.” A subsequent Indiana State Police investigation may result, Long said.

UPDATE III: The Libertarian Party has responded with this message from Sam Goldstein following the disclosure by Senator Long's staff that the e-mail was a hoax:

We sent out a press release this afternoon with a memo regarding a Constitutional ban on gay marriage. After further investigation we have determined that we were the victim of a similar hoax as the one that befell Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Bennett last week. Our party cares deeply about accountability and transparency, so we want to be the first to confirm to you that this email was not sent from a state government email address.

This email was sent to us February 9, 2011, but we released it today. We wanted to take the time to hear the other side of the story before sharing it with our membership and the media. Unfortunately, answers were never provided.

The person working on our social networking sites at the time received the email first. We called the Indiana State's Senate Office to speak with Senator Lawson about the email's contents immediately after we were made aware of its contents. We were never able to get through to the Majority Leader for clarification.

We also reached out to the Indiana Republican Party last week, and provided them with a hard copy of the email. After no response, we felt it was time to make the public aware of this information, and hopefully get some answers that way.

We do not know where the email came from, or what motives were behind the hoax. We have and will cooperate with any authorities that wish to pursue this matter to get answers. We also apologize to the other victim of this hoax, State Senator Connie Lawson. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.

In Liberty,

Sam Goldstein