Why do Democrats “cancel” people instead of engaging in civil discourse?
Two news stories surfaced on Thursday about my recent Transparency in Kansas Elections testimony to a joint legislative committee.
I’m trying to argue facts and logic from well-documented research, but one state rep said I had no credibility without a political science degree, and peer-reviewed research papers. Of course, she has a polisci degree.
A peer-reviewed study from 2005 — twenty years ago — shows a huge imbalance. Liberals outnumbered conservatives by a factor of 40 in political science departments! That imbalance is likely larger now.
Requiring a political science degree to testify is nearly the same as censoring all conservatives.
State Rep Alexis Simmons (D, Topeka) wanted to attack the messenger instead of listening to research, facts, and logic. She continued that ad hominem attack on Facebook on Thursday.
I still welcome dialogue with, and fact checking by State Rep Simmons.
If one describes and documents issues and problems in election system transparency, why does one gets labeled a conspiracy theorist?
Voter roll bloat that’s huge, easily found and documented is a conspiracy theory?
Help America Vote Verification, where transactions can match deceased Social Security records, is part of a conspiracy?
Spending of $23 million in Kansas by one nonprofit in the 2022 elections, without disclosures until early 2024, is part of a conspiracy?
Nonprofit healthcare foundations spending $8.7 million in Kansas on “integrated voter engagement” from 2017-2024 — that few know about — is part of a conspiracy?
Kansas Reflector
Tim Carpenter’s reporting was accurate (but my comments about Kansas Values Institute were more directed at their spending in the 2022 gubernatorial contest than the 2022 constitutional amendment referendum).
Nonprofit tax-exempt organizations should be banned from registering voters in Kansas if they targeted partisan segments of the population, he said. …
“All the nonprofits I talked about are nonpartisan nonprofits,” Glynn said. “How could I be partisan if I’m talking about nonpartisan nonprofits?” …
“Challenge me on my facts,” Glynn said. …
The back-and-forth among Simmons, Haskins and Glynn illustrated intensity of political opinion about demands to reform Kansas’ electoral system.
My response to Rep. Kirk Haskins perhaps could have been better.
“Obviously, the ones that you selected supported the Democratic ideology,” said Haskins, who inquired as to whether Glynn also had research on GOP-leaning nonprofits that could justify his recommendations for campaign reform.
“I probably don’t currently, but I have in the past,” Glynn replied.
I periodically rank-order all Kansas PACs. Here are my reports of Kansas PAC rankings from Dec. 2024 and March 2008. I often follow the big-dollar organizations based on these rankings.
The big-dollar organizations are mostly left-leaning. Large PAC money transfers are often related to nonprofits, such as the $600K in transfers mentioned in the talk from Middle of the Road PAC to the nonprofit Kansas Values Institute last year.
KSNT
KSNT’s Brayden Day interviewed me after talking with State Rep. Alexis Simmons.
His article is mostly accurate.
Earl Glynn, a retired data scientist, spoke to the Committee on Campaign Contributions and Transparency on Monday afternoon. He gave a presentation on election transparency, which included a section on campaign financing.
Glynn tells us, it was his goal during the meeting to inform lawmakers that certain non-profit organizations should be more transparent about campaign donations.
“There’s a lot going on in elections that isn’t reported anywhere,” said Glynn. “All I want to do is get the truth out on some things that I don’t think are being reported.”
I wasn’t talking about “certain non-profit organizations should be more transparent about campaign donations.” Rather, certain non-profits are involved in elections and there is no transparency about what they are doing.
I never used the word “unethical” about campaign donations. My charts show ACLU received money from Kansas Health Foundation; I didn’t say the ACLU was the source of any contributions.
My comments were that election-related spending by nonprofits appear to be inconsistent with their IRS labels, 501(c)(3) as a “charity,” or 501(c)(4) as a “social welfare” organization.
In particular, how can a nonprofit, tax-exempt “charity” selectively target only a subset of the population when it leads to partisan results?
Tilted electoral playing field
The electoral playing field is tilted and public views are distorted by huge progressive spending in Kansas by nonprofits and “dark money.”
Apples and Oranges
This quote from Simmons is not accurate since she’s comparing “apples” with “oranges”:
“Americans for Prosperity, Kansans for Life, Kansans Family Voice, all of those organizations are aligned with a conservative republican ideology,” said Simmons. “They all spend money in the same way as the other organizations that he listed …”
My testimony was about what the “left” is doing that is not being done on the “right,” but all my suggestions would apply to both the “left” or the “right.”
It’s not well known, but 501(c)(4) nonprofit Americans for Prosperity files “Independent Expenditures” reports with the Kansas Public Disclosure Commission — a report similar to a PAC report because the use the words “vote for” or “vote against” was used in advertising. See their independent expenditure reports here for 2022 and here for 2024.
My testimony was that left-leaning nonprofits are not filing any campaign finance reports like AFP during the election cycle. They are pushing the limits of what is “issue advocacy” vs “express advocacy” and reporting with vague nonprofit tax filings months after an election. That’s worthy of a public discussion.
Kansans for Life has 501(c)(3), 501(c)(4) and PAC organizations that never do the type of mailings (e.g., “push surveys”) shown in an example from the national Center for Voter Information. KFL’s c3 showed $1.6 million in revenue in 2024 — small change compared to the nonprofit examples I was giving.
Kansas Family Voice is a 501(c)(4) organization and does not have a PAC. Their revenue is small compared with the left-leaning organizations I cited. In 2023 Kansas Family Voice had revenues of $451,000 — and nearly $850,000 in 2022 in the Value-Them-Both effort. It’s unclear as a mostly religious organization why Kansas Family Voice files reports to the IRS, when the much larger United Methodist Health Ministry Fund files nothing.
Kansas Policy Institute was also mentioned in the hearing. Their average revenue the last three years is just over $2 million, ranging from $1.5 million in 2021 to $3.2 million in 2022. KPI is only a c3 organization, and does not have a c4 or a PAC. KPI does not send controversial pre-election “educational” mailings like KVI.
The right-of-center Capital Research Center reports a huge advantage for left-leaning philanthropy over right-leaning philanthropy, which is true in Kansas.
Related
Personal attacks derail interim Kansas legislative committee hearing on election reform, Tim Carpenter, Kansas Reflector, Oct. 16, 2025.
Lawmaker calls presentation a ‘partisan joke’ during legislative committee meeting, Brayden Day, KSNT, Oct. 16, 2025.
Voter Registration ‘Charities’: An Overlooked, Hyperpartisan Scandal, Parker Thayer, The Daily Signal, Sept. 19, 2023.
"Why do Democrats ‘cancel' people instead of engaging in civil discourse?” It has to do with how some of them view the world. Too many seek to control reality and redefine facts rather than to control themselves. BTW, I have a degree in Political Science, and I have always found your work objective and highly accurate.
Earl,
Thank you for your diligence in reporting on political "interference" from both sides of the deliberate divide! Isn't it standard operational procedure to attack the messenger to deflect from the message.
I wonder if Ms. Simmons would apply her logic to Steve Jobs and/or Bill Gates, for not being qualified to enter the tech industry? Where would we be without Apple and Microsoft?