When Rebecca Bextel was escorted onto the Wyoming House floor by Rep. Nina Webber, R-Cody, to hand out checks to members of the House of Representatives, no one could have predicted the political wildfire that would follow.
The issue exploded when Rep. Mike Yin, D-Jackson, raised it on the floor while trying to block introduction of a bill championed by Bextel and sponsored by Rep. John Bear, R-Gillette — a bill aimed at making affordable housing mitigation fees illegal in Wyoming.
Rep. John Bear, R-Gillette, tried to make a quick cover-up of the check issue to protect is pet bill, demanding proof from Yin.
Here’s the irony: Campbell County doesn’t even have those fees. They’re a Teton County issue, where working-class families can’t afford to live.
So why is a Campbell County legislator sponsoring a Jackson-specific bill?
And how big of a check do the citizens of Campbell County need to write before their own legislator starts representing them instead of benefactors from Western Wyoming?
But I digress.
Rep. Rachel Rodriquez Williams jumped up and suggested Yin should be punished for making unsubstantiated statements and if what he said was true, it would amount to allegations of bribery. She introduced “bribery” into the Checkgate lexicon.
Bear didn’t know there were photos when he demanded proof.
Those photos were in the hands of the press.
The press asked questions about checks being delivered on the floor. The legislators, who received those checks, tried to sidestep the questions.
Trying to shut down debate and then sidestepping reporters’ questions looked really bad – it looked like a coverup.
Later that week, Speaker of the House Chip Neiman, R-Hulett, delivered a preacher-like confession, glaring at Rep. Karlee Provenza, D-Laramie, as if she were to blame for the entire mess.
Let’s be honest, that speech didn’t appear to happen out of principle. I suspect it happened because the story wasn’t going away. Neiman could see the hands on his political career dissipation clock spinning like a ceiling fan. He had to say something before the scandal stuck.
But it already had.
In his defense, Neiman argued the check couldn’t be a bribe because he supported similar legislation last session.
Proving the nexus between the payments and the votes on Bextel’s bills is the issue, and no proof exists that Neiman took a bribe.
But, without filing for office, he took a campaign check in an office less than 70 people in the history of Wyoming have occupied – an office of great power.
The evidence is pretty clear there was no quid-pro-quo.
It still stinks.
The Checkgate Committee is doing admirable work ferreting out the facts.
Under Chair Art Washut’s, R-Casper, leadership, I’m confident they’ll continue a thorough and serious review. The hearing, so far, did not uncover much new information.
Rep. Scott Heiner, R-Green River, questioned Rep. Provenza about why she did not use the confidential house ethics complaint process to expose wrongdoing.
She replied she wanted the truth. She went on to say she went to the public, because she did not trust a private process behind the scenes was going to result in the complete truth.
She was probably right.
The strategy, now that folks are caught with their hands in the cookie jar, seems to be witness shaming. The fact that Provenza went to the press was mentioned in the hearing by a couple of representatives in the hearing.
Apparently, wanting the public to know what is happening in their legislature is sinful.
Most of the representatives who received checks never had any conversation with Bextel about anything – let alone her bill. The checks were brokered by Rep. John Bear, R-Gillette.
No quid pro quo appears to have happened.
That is a good thing.
The bad thing is that few of the representatives who testified felt they did anything wrong.
Rep. Chris Knapp, R-Gillette, brought up his brother, a West Point graduate, and said he would do nothing to dishonor his brother’s service.
Denton Knapp’s service is admirable. Chris Knapp’s service is admirable. All of these representative’s service are admirable. The fact they serve has little to do with why this situation stinks.
A series of text messages between Bextel and Bear appear to show that Bear is the money broker for the house. He told Bextel, via text message, which legislators should receive the money Bextel raised from her fat-cat friends.
One thing is clear, though. The correlation between the people Bear recommended to receive money, and the people who vote the same way Bear does is pretty obvious.
As I predicted, no bribery was apparent in the testimony.
Bextel did talk with passion about her bill but claimed she did not talk about her bill with anyone this time. She did host a party later in the week where the press was not invited.
Rebecca Bextel’s closing statement is telling. She argued, “Wyoming, we deserve better. If the Democrats had followed the rules, this would have been over in a matter of hours.”
In other words, if Democrats had followed the ethics procedure, this matter never would have come to the attention of the Wyoming public.
Bextel continued, “But some in our legislature have tried to derail your budget session and I believe LSO Director Matt Obrecht is in on it. When did you see the photos? The real scandal, uh, Democrats are not the threat because we know their intentions. They plan to change the very fabric of Wyoming if we let them. The real scandal that affects Wyoming is this. We have Democrats masking as Republicans in the Wyoming legislature. These counterfeit Republicans were elected into office on the 23 planks of the Republican platform, yet they are doing the bidding of Democrats. Yes sir, I’m getting back to the $1500. These people need to be run out of office and I plan to help.”
She was interrupted by Chairman Washut and asked to focus on the checks.
She continued, “I passed out $1500 from a donor in full transparency. There is not a single legislator in this Capitol that I believe can be compromised for $1500, but apparently, I think better of all of you than come of your colleagues do.”
Then, Bextel started talking about the bill she wanted passed.
She argued, “I have uncovered house scams, property tax exemptions. Imagine if this committee asked me for all of our texts, correspondence, emails for the $1500 checks, and this did not happen, but what would you do if we deleted all of them to save space on our phone. That’s what’s happening all around Wyoming with my public record requests. I have asked the Housing Director of Teton County for her text messages while negotiating millions of dollars in real estate deals on behalf of the public. Everybody deleted them. The Wyoming Community Development Authority refuses to hand over these. Governor Gordon announced he was giving a private company $100 million dollars. You’ll notice there is no hearing on that.”
The irony of Bextel talking about her bill and then talking about checks is glaring and that is why the whole situation is emeshed in controversy. The checks and the bill seem to come up in the same sentence often.
Bextel concluded, “But they are investigating me over $1500 checks because they say it’s bad optics. I am a proud conservative Republican from Teton County. I put a Trump sign in my yard in East Jackson. I’m more concerned with doing the right thing than optics.”
The real problem with this whole situation is the optics.
Checks handed out on the House floor look terrible. They make Freedom Caucus legislators appear to be for sale. The evidence likely shows they are not.
But those who accepted the checks on the floor are certainly guilty of poor judgment.
The floor of the House belongs to the people of the state of Wyoming. That room is a place where historic and passionate debates about segregation, equal rights, participation in wars, and creating permanent savings took place. It is room to be entered with great reverence and respect for the giants who occupied it before.
That sacred and dignified place is lessened by the money changing hands there.
And no investigation can scrub away that stench.
An old parable explains why accepting checks on the floor after the first day of the session is such a problem.
A dirty old man sat on a park bench beside a beautiful woman.
“Would you commit adultery for a million dollars?” he asked.
She fluttered her eyelashes. “Why yes, I think I would.”
“Would you commit adultery for a dime?”
She recoiled. “Absolutely not! What do you think I am?”
“I already know what you are,” he replied. “Now I’m just haggling over the price.”
That’s where this sad episode leaves us.
The spectacle continues to unfold.
And now, Wyoming is left asking a simple, uncomfortable question:
Is there a price?
Tom Lubnau served in the Wyoming Legislature from 2004 to 2015 and is a former Speaker of the House. He can be reached at: YourInputAppreciated@gmail.com
