Snitch interviewed all three candidates for the position of Kentucky Attorney General, the top law enforcement position in the Commonwealth.
The interview was conducted last Thursday by staff writer Caleb O. Brown.
What makes you more qualified than Greg Stumbo and Jack Wood?
I’ve been a practicing defense attorney in the courtrooms every day for the past 26 years. I’m highly regarded for my courtroom success. I’m capable of putting cases together from the prosecutorial end, which is one of the job functions of the attorney general. Mostly, I’m more qualified than these two guys because I have no interest to which I am beholden. Being an independent cannot be overemphasized in this race.
We all should be able to handle ourselves in the courtroom. We all have to be licensed attorneys, so we have to meet the minimum standard there. Being independent of any special interests, any party politics, any partisanship, that’s what separates me from these other two guys. Right now is such a critical time in Kentucky’s history, where partisan politics has gridlocked our system and … stopped the delivery of vital services for which it’s set to function. Independence is what gives me quality over these other two guys.
You have no elective experience. You’ve always been an independent attorney. In terms of building a prosecutorial staff, what impact will that have?
I’ve already consulted with people on the transition that needs to occur once we win. Lots of experienced political, intelligent people have come forth and counseled with me on what it takes to put together a shadow team, placing your people with the key people in the past administration so that the baton can be handed off in an efficient manner. The attorney general’s office has 240 or 250 employees, 16 basic areas of service. I’m going into it with the idea that everybody up there is working to maximum efficiency and doing a good job. I know that they’re going to have an 8 percent to 10 percent budget reduction next year …. The delivery of services as they currently exist should be a top priority of whoever goes in.
The first plank of your platform deals with corruption, inside and outside of state government. You believe that as an independent, you are most suited to deal with abuses of both parties. What specific offices in state government will receive your office’s highest level of scrutiny?
(Chuckles). Right now Transportation looks like a pretty good candidate. I don’t think the investigation is going to be done there. I’m interested in any quid pro quo deals between folks with state contracts and the contributions they make to the politicians that they put in power. I think personal service contracts and the hiring of outside help is one of the main vehicles of corruption.
In Paul Patton’s first year, those contracts were $220 million or so. In his last year, it was over $850 million. That growth of $600 million a year in hiring outside help is the area where most of the payoffs and cronyism goes. No telling how many payoffs have been made that way.
There is a legislative oversight committee, but they don’t pull many contracts. I think the reason is that the Republicans don’t really want to eliminate corruption in Frankfort. I think that party wants to replace the Democrats at the trough to see how deep they can dig their snouts into it.
Corruption is what keeps this state bankrupt financially and morally. We’ve gone from a budget surplus down to a budget deficit. So much of that money goes to special projects. It’s not being used to pay the state’s bills. It’s the political payoffs that are the institutionalized corruption.
I’ll bring up a point here. Mr. Stumbo, during the KET debate, looked into the camera and said, I’ve been up there 24 years and I’ve never seen any corruption. I said, ‘Mr. Stumbo, what about BOPTROT, the Kent Downey affair, the Love Gov. and the Transportation Department? Don’t you think those things qualify as corruption?’ Then I got to thinking about it. You know, in his mind, maybe that doesn’t qualify as corruption. It’s more of a lifestyle to him. Maybe what’s corruption to some people may seem like business as usual to other people. Business as usual is what has brought this state to a very critical juncture.
The state budget will likely limit your abilities to prosecute crime. How will you deal with that?
We’re all going to have to face budget cuts. I’m going to ask the employees of the office to dig a little deeper and find a little more desire to do the best job that they can. We need to get a little more production out of the people we have.
Setting the persona of being honest and a hard worker myself I think is going to set well. I plan on being up there as early as necessary to get the job done and stay as late at night as necessary to get the job done. Nobody is going to outwork me. I’ll set that kind of tone and tenor of honesty.
Prioritization of the law enforcement dollar is one of the main functions of the attorney general. The attorney general is chairman of the prosecutorial advisory council. They take the state budget and the law enforcement section of that and they make sure the commonwealth attorneys’ offices are funded, the county attorneys’ offices are funded. They may have a little more money that they put toward multi-jurisdictional task forces or other special projects they may have.
We’re going to enforce all of the laws, but we’re going to put more money toward some than others. We’re going to focus on the methamphetamine scourge, the crack cocaine scourge, and we’re going to follow the tracks in the snow to where these pharmaceutical companies have been pushing these pills and make them come up with some money for other programs.
How will you achieve greater transparency in state government?
I’d like to meet regularly with other constitutional officers on a regular basis, either once a week or once a month. I don’t know if that’s ever been done. I’d like those discussions to be a matter of public record.
The attorney general is charged with enforcing the open meetings act. I believe that a strong policy of absolutely enforcing the open meetings law will set a good tone.
The attorney general’s opinion is taken very seriously. When interpreting state law, how do you differ from your opponents on matters of law?
I have my opinion about a lot of things. I don’t expect to express it inappropriately or in the wrong context when I occupy the office. When my office is asked to defend a law in the state of Kentucky, we’ll do so to the best of our ability.
However, my oath is to defend the Constitution of the United states and the constitution of the state of Kentucky. I have views on the constitution that I’m sure the other two people do not hold.
Mr. Stumbo wants to add a new layer of police, the Kentucky Bureau of Investigation, his own personal police force. He wants them to have overreaching jurisdiction over local police departments. He wants to fund it with a 13-cent-per-pack cigarette tax.
I, on the other hand, want to get the government off the backs of the people. I am a conservative. I believe, philosophically, in less taxes and smaller government.
My own personal view, if it is appropriate to express in an opinion as attorney general, I will express it based upon my own view of the constitution.
That being said, I believe people’s right of privacy is being violated in many quarters now. Not just from criminals, but from a large government. In your own home, you have rights to which the powers of police do not extend. That’s not my opinion, that’s the law of the state of Kentucky.
For instance, I believe that you have the right, in your home, to smoke marijuana. I don’t believe that violates the law. In 1909, the Kentucky legislature passed a law that said all alcohol in the state was illegal. You couldn’t possess alcohol anywhere in the state. In 1910, in Commonwealth vs. Campbell, and in 1915, in Commonwealth vs. Smith, the Kentucky Supreme Court said that the Kentucky constitution guaranteed you a right to privacy in your home to which the power of police does not extend.
That’s not some folklore with no impact. That’s the standing rule. It’s that rule that keeps the Kentucky State Police from kicking down the doors in 77 dry counties in Kentucky and hauling everyone’s ass to jail that possesses alcohol. My question is, if I have a substance that is demonstrably less harmful than alcohol, don’t I have the same constitutional right in my home? I get plenty of cases dismissed because prosecutors don’t want to challenge me on it.
If you would do so, how would you seek the death penalty as attorney general?
I’m for it. As a defense attorney, I’m very sensitive to the possibility of putting an innocent person to death. If that were a possibility, I’d look at the circumstances of the case four or five times if I had a say in it. There are some situations where the identity of the assailant is not in doubt, the severity of the crime is not in doubt. The people have a right to put a person to death. I think it’s a deterrent. There’s no doubt about that. That person, at least, isn’t going to kill anyone else.
Mandatory minimum sentencing requirements?
I’m against them. As often as I’ve been ruled against in the courtroom, I trust the judge. I trust the system that places the judge there with the discretion that they have. In the long run, having that elected individual pass sentence based on community standards and the expectations of the people around them, that’s the ultimate of being judged by your peers.
There’s too much demagoguery played with the war on crime and the war on drugs. I’m afraid the legislature can get carried away trying to show how tough they can be, and they could pass more draconian laws than exist now.
