Did backers of failed Jackson County tax have permission to use photo of Patrick Mahomes?

Editor’s note: Reality Check is a Star series holding those in power to account and shining a light on their decisions. Have a suggestion for a future story? Email tips@kcstar.com.

Patrick Mahomes is a winner. But a ballot issue with which he became associated, almost certainly without his permission, took a drubbing at the polls on Tuesday.

Nearly 60% of voters cast ballots against Jackson County Question 1, the proposed countywide use tax measure. The week before, many of them had received a mailer in support of the tax sent out by a group called Forward Jackson County, which used a photo of Mahomes as a way to convince them to vote yes.

It showed Mahomes, with a big smile on his face, hoisting his first Super Bowl trophy in the air as Chiefs owner Clark Hunt looks on at the conclusion of Super Bowl LIV in 2020.

Was Mahomes for the tax? The mailer didn’t say, but the image was clearly there in the hopes of associating the tax with arguably Kansas City’s most popular figure.

But there is no indication on the mailer that either Mahomes, the Chiefs or the NFL gave Forward Jackson County permission to use the image.

Team spokesmen Ted Crews and Brad Gee did not respond to messages, nor could anyone else with the Chiefs be reached for comment as the team’s offices were closed during this bye week. Neither could The Star get responses from NFL Properties or Mahomes’ agents at Equity Sports.

Typically, use of Mahomes’ image in advertising copy would require payment, but there is nothing in the Forward Jackson County campaign finance reports to indicate that any payment was made.

Mahomes hadn’t made any public statement in support of the tax. Still, some people saw his image on the mailer as an endorsement.

“I wonder how much they paid Mahomes for this? Or is it part of his contract to support KC taxes?” someone posted anonymously in the comments section of a blog post on the website Tony’s Kansas City, which posted the image two days before the election.

If it had passed, the measure would have added what would have amounted to a countywide sales tax on purchases of goods sold by out-of-state businesses by mail, online or through catalogs.

The county estimated that the tax would have raised $30 million a year, and nearly all of that — except $5 million set aside for helping the homeless — would have gone to fund construction projects, including repairs to two county courthouses and fixes to roads and bridges.

Forward Jackson County was bankrolled almost entirely by five donors from the construction industry, campaign finance records show.

J.E Dunn Construction Co. gave $10,000 and McCown Gordon Construction gave $20,000. The Heavy Constructors Association Industry Advancement Fund donated $25,000, and two construction trades union-affiliated PACs gave $10,000 each: Operating Engineers Local 101 and the Mid-America Carpenters Regional Council.

A sixth donor, Democratic Coalition Kansas City, contributed $100. That group shares the same mailing address as Forward Jackson County and the campaign committee of DaRon McGee, who is chairman of the Jackson County Legislature and who was instrumental in putting the measure on the ballot.

‘Deeply troubling’

As of Monday, the day before Election Day, Forward Jackson County had spent $33,000 of the $75,000 it had raised. The group’s next campaign finance report, which is not due until 30 days after the election, may show other contributions and expenditures.

Forward Jackson County’s biggest outlays leading up to the election were for printing mailers. The PAC paid Lee’s Printing in Basehor, Kansas, $11,941 on Oct. 27 and $15,266 on Oct. 30, according to campaign finance reports.

One mailer pictured county legislator Manny Abarca and prosecutor Jean Peters Baker. Another showed Mahomes and Hunt. It’s unclear who took that original photograph that the mailer credited to Getty Images.

The text over the Mahomes photo read: “When we invest in supportive services and housing, we’re not just helping the homeless, we’re building a community of champions.”

The back side of the mailer lists the other ways the tax money would have been spent and includes a misleading statement about how the tax would be paid by out-of-state businesses. In fact, people in Jackson County would have paid the tax on their purchases of goods from those businesses.

Getty charges $499 for use of its photos in news/editorial formats, which is not the same as a political ad, where there may be a higher fee, if arrangements are made. Nothing in the campaign finance reports shows a payment to Getty.

Attorney Allison Berman, a principal at the Hardwick Law Firm, is treasurer of Forward Jackson County, but said in an email that she did so in her personal capacity. Hardwick represents Jackson County in stadium lease negotiations with the Chiefs and Royals and has no affiliation with Forward Jackson County, she said.

She referred questions about the mailer to Mark Bryant, an attorney at the law firm Rouse Frets White Goss Gentile Rhodes who, she said, formed Forward Jackson County.

He did not respond to requests for comment.

McGee referred questions to Bryant, also, and did not comment when asked what role he played in the Forward Jackson County campaign. When asked about the mailer and Forward Jackson County, a woman who answered the phone at Lee’s Printing said, “Oh, yes, DaRon McGee!”

County Executive Frank White Jr. opposed putting the measure on the ballot at a time when voters, recently hit with big property tax increases, were in no mood for another tax increase.

But McGee and five other county legislators overrode White’s veto at the end of July. After voters defeated the measure this week, White issued a written statement reiterating his objections and claimed that the special election cost county taxpayers more than $1 million.

Asked Thursday to comment on The Star’s findings regarding Forward Jackson County and the campaign mailer, White said he had been unaware of the political action committee’s formation and objected to its tactics in sending out the Mahomes mailer.

“The use of any individual’s image to imply endorsement without explicit permission is a practice I find deeply troubling and inappropriate,” he said. “Those responsible for the mailer should step forward and accept responsibility.”

The Star’s Chris Ochsner contributed to this article.