Knapper campaign is 2 weeks late filing Missouri Ethics Commission report: Post-Dispatch

29
991

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported on Thursday that Maplewood incumbent mayor Nikylan Knapper is 14 days late filing a required report with the Missouri Ethics Commission.

“Knapper’s fundraising and spending report, or a ‘limited activity’ report, was due on Feb. 22. As of Thursday morning, 14 days after the deadline, no paperwork for Knapper’s campaign had been filed,” according to the the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

Shevaun McNaughton, Knapper’s campaign treasurer, told the Post-Dispatch’s Joe Holleman that it’s her fault the report wasn’t filed on time and said she hoped to have it submitted soon.

Knapper’s opponent, write-in candidate Barry Greenberg, filed his report on Feb. 21. The report shows that Greenberg has raised $4,153 for his campaign and has spent $1,285, according to the Post-Dispatch.

Holleman also reported that Knapper didn’t respond to requests to take part in a League of Women Voters candidates forum, so there will be no forum with her and Greenberg.

Read the St. Louis Post-Dispatch article: Maplewood mayoral race: No debate, no campaign report from incumbent

29 COMMENTS

  1. Call me dumb or whatever, but this situation has little to nothing to do with Donald Trump or his supporters/opposition.
    We all borrow phrases and expressions from each other. Always have; always will.
    Can’t we just stick to what we personally understand to be accurate, of our own knowledge, and leave motive speculation and innuendo out of it?

  2. I hear Jaz, or at least I think I do. You’re asking that Doug go that extra mile even if it is not “necessary” just so that there is no possibility for anyone to make claims against him.

    I think this is a sad but realistic scenario and I understand why it’s being brought up. When people are looking for something to twist, let’s go extra far not to give it to them.

    • On the other hand, if Barry decided to pay for an ad (which he did) would it be fair to him to put Nikylan’s name right next to his, saying that she was offered the same, for free? Or maybe I’m misunderstanding. Also, maybe she doesn’t want her name anywhere near this publication.

    • Eliza — basically yes, and thank you. The conspiratorial things are sad but I don’t think the need for standard disclosure is sad…the same would be reasonable if covering a commercial advertiser with an issue at City Hall (hypothetical example: X Hardware has contentious zoning/expansion/dumpster issue in front of City Council, pitting unhappy resident against happy business owner. So… Disclosure: X Hardware is an advertiser). Sure, someone can still question your motives but at least you’re out ahead of it.

      We’ve already seen how some people perceive the uptick of coverage here and at the Post as biased or fed by foes, and we’ve seen the vitriol toward the mayor in comments here, and the questioning of both candidates’ true intentions and their past records everywhere (the online discourse on this election online elsewhere is filled with suspicion and hyperbole about each side’s supporters, same for the Board of Ed races too, sadly), so every measure to tone it down or reiterate civic purpose and be above reproach in reporting is worthwhile.

  3. We’re just copying the right-wing/MAGA playlist, aren’t we, Knapper superfans?!

    1) Deflect-distract on anything other than the FACT that this mayor has a pattern of alienating people she works with who don’t kiss the ring.
    2)Blame the media in this case from the same dang people who accuse MAGA of doing this
    3)Ignore that actual documents provided to the media show that our city manager was paid out for a threatened lawsuit for damages and not some BS severance
    4) Protect your leader at all costs even it it means trashing everyone in your way
    5) Just like Trump Knapper isn’t the problem but is a symptom of the problem-y’all are the problem with your blind loyalty and failure to use critical thinking.

    • This constant comparison of Trump to Knapper is ENDLESSLY hilarious. The Trump supporters in Maplewood are all very vocally for Barry. That’s all anyone needs to know.

      Have a good day.

  4. The ad on this site is just that – advertisement. Paid for by the campaign, and the expense will be itemized on our next MEC report. Which, by the way, will be filed on time again.

  5. And regarding the Greenberg advertisement on this site–I swear some people in this town need a crash course in media literacy. It’s a paid advertisement. Think for a second about how any form of media exists. What pays to keep the lights on, to pay staff? Journalism doesn’t grow on trees.
    If you these commenters weren’t more concerned with wearing the mantle of righteous victimhood they’d donate some money to Mayor Knapper so she can buy a bigger banner ad that sends Greenberg’s to the bottom of the page.

    • You’re wondering whether the electorate, in 2024, needs media literacy? YES. A very obvious YES! That’s why I strongly urge the publisher to disclose when he’s running an ad/accepting funds from one of the candidates.

      Because it’s *not* clear (until he commented below) that ad space was offered to both candidates. And no, journalism doesn’t pay for itself, but it does (in its best form) make every effort to make the reader understand if there are potential conflicts of interest. Transparency and all that.

      Just like in past posts he took pains to explain that both candidates were reached out to for the League of Women Voters forum (sincere kudos!), he should really be clear about this. When you visit this site on mobile, you first see ads for various local enterprises along with the ad Write In Barry before you get to the content, the first of which is a post reporting that the Post reported on what was posted here. What is a first-time visitor to think? What is someone who is skeptical or trying to decide in this election to think when weighing the validity of this source?

      This is not some victimhood plea or a shoot-the-messenger — it’s a request to use best media practices to best serve the readers and citizenry, so that actual policies and behaviors rather than conspiracies can be the focus.

      • Your line of reasoning is precisely what I’d like the mayor to read. If the mayor was more forthcoming, maybe we citizens wouldn’t be left wondering what to believe. I’d like the mayor to follow the best practice of being honest and transparent with the voters.

        • As would I. From what I can tell, some of the hot-button issues about the current mayor are largely self-inflicted, and the silent/incomplete response only exacerbated the damage.

          As someone who knows neither candidate nor their loudest advocates personally, it has been something to behold how much paranoia and histrionics people on both sides have displayed (at least online, admittedly a forum that just foments that kind of thing). This includes *immediately* jumping with suspicion or even accusation to us undecideds who ask pretty reasonable questions while trying to sort out fact from fiction, policy activity from personal grudge. (And then…accusing only the *other* candidate’s people of doing this.)

          Maybe that’s just what politics does to people, but it’s sad, especially in a small community where the differences in values and policy seem relatively narrow. It feels like those closest to — or maybe just most loudly advocating for — each candidate are oblivious to how they sound to neutrals trying to get meaningful information to help decide where to place their vote.

        • Barry paid $50 for an ad. I told Nikylan that she’d pay the same as Barry. She still can. No one is getting rich here, or receiving any favors. No one is buying influence.

  6. When the content of the message is not defensible it’s time to attack the messenger. That’s what we are starting to see here.

    Look: Joe Holleman is a political columnist, not a reporter. As such he is going to inject his own personal opinions and interpretation into his writing. Yell bias at him if you want. I am not even a fan of his and am not going to defend him. I wish someone else in the media had picked up on the bonkers stories coming out of Maplewood, but beggars can’t be choosers I guess. I’d rather have information presented in a less than ideal way than be kept completely in the dark.

    Doug is not a columnist. A lot of what he reports on is not even original reporting–he is serving as a content aggregator providing links without editorial comment to other work published regarding the area like this very post I’m commenting on. When he does do original reporting he presents facts without editorializing. I assume the bias is that he chooses to not be silent about newsworthy events to protect the reputation of those involved? He’s not biased in the direction you’d prefer?

  7. Yes, to that first comment of of course you wouldn’t want to sit down at a debate with you when all you’ve done is a smear campaign

  8. And you wonder why she did not want to sit down with you for a debate. You are biased and contributing to a smear campaign. DO BETTER Doug Miner

    • is that also why she refuses to answer questions at council meetings from her constituents AND cut one of the public forums out?

      Nice try but the gaslighting and deflection isn’t working any more. You can have your own opinion but not your own facts…try again.

    • Lgo:

      Neither Doug Miner nor 40 South would have been part of the proposed forum. The League of Women Voters produces candidate forums, solicits the questions and provides the moderators. 40 South would have simply been the sponsor.

      Here’s an explanation from the LWV website: “The League of Women Voters of Metro St. Louis believes one of the best ways for voters to learn about people seeking election is to hear candidates speak and answer questions in a public forum. To keep forums informative for voters, the League has established candidate forum ground rules. The LWVSTL moderator determines which questions will be asked and attempts in good faith to cover areas of interest expressed by the audience.”

      Here’s a link from the LWV website with more info:
      “https://my.lwv.org/missouri/metro-st-louis/activities/forums

    • Talk about a red herring! Anything to take the focus off of what looks like a pattern of cronyism and misuse of public funds by the mayor right? Why wouldn’t she agree to a debate? Can’t believe, I’m saying this, but wow….way to be like Donald Trump.

  9. Regardless of the editorial viewpoint of these posts, you should really include something like:
    1) Disclosure: The Greenberg campaign is an advertiser on 40 South News. [or if not an advertiser, whatever arrangement created the banner ad next to commercial ads]
    2) “Holleman also reported [what this writer/40 South News posted] that Knapper didn’t respond to requests to take part…”

    Otherwise, posts highlighting critiques of the current mayor’s transparency have the feel of, well, not being transparent.

    • Regarding the Greenberg ad, a paid ad was offered to both candidates and Greenberg said yes, Knapper didn’t respond. Also, is disclosure necessary when everyone can see the ad?
      About Holleman giving credit to 40 South, it’s what you do when you share content from another source.

      • Right, it’s great that Holleman credited 40 South and I wasn’t questioning that, but your final line makes it sound like he independently reported/verified the part about Knapper not responding to requests.

        For the sake of this race and people trying to verify information in a heated environment, YES! YES disclosure is necessary — if people get to this post through an external link, they will not see the ad. If they then navigate to the homepage they then will (which gives understandable pause). And it is not noted around the ad that it was offered to both candidates, so best to just include that boilerplate info in posts about these candidates.

        I’m not trying to be prickly or playing editor, I’m trying to highlight that people are heated about this race and trying to find, weigh and consider the credibility of information, so this basic upfront info would go a long way to reassure rather than create suspicion. (At least the people who don’t already have their mind made up; I can’t speak for the all-caps and conspiracy folk).

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here