Missouri on the hook for $240,000 after open records violation under Josh Hawley

A Cole County judge on Wednesday ordered Missouri to pay more than $240,000 in legal fees and costs as part of a ruling that found the attorney general’s office violated the state’s open records law under Republican Josh Hawley.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee sued the attorney general’s office in 2019, alleging that it purposely concealed emails between the office and Hawley’s political consultants during his successful run for U.S. Senate in 2018.

Cole County Judge Jon Beetem sided with the DSCC in November, agreeing that the attorney general’s office hid the emails and ordered the office to pay the maximum amount allowed by state law, $12,000 in civil penalties as well as additional attorney’s fees.

The DSCC in January requested they be awarded $306,000 in attorney’s fees. Beetem on Wednesday awarded the plaintiffs $242,385.

“A big win for transparency, election fairness, and the rule of law,” Mark Pedroli, an attorney for the DSCC and a government transparency advocate, wrote on Twitter Thursday.

The Missouri attorney general’s office, now under Republican Andrew Bailey, will be on the hook for that money as Hawley is now in the Senate.

Pedroli called on Hawley to “step up” and apologize to Missouri residents and cover the bill with proceeds from his new book “Manhood: The Masculine Virtues America Needs.”

Hawley’s campaign spokesperson Kyle Plotkin, in a statement to The Star, attacked the DSCC for pursuing the lawsuit and called for the group to return the money.

“It’s a shame that Democrat Party bosses kept a lawsuit going even after the witch hunt was dismissed by investigators and after all documents were voluntarily made public,” Plotkin said. “The only purpose seems to have been to bilk Missouri taxpayers out of thousands and thousands of dollars. They should return whatever money they get to the people of Missouri and apologize.”

A spokesperson for the attorney general’s office, under Bailey, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Beetem, in his November decision, said that the attorney general’s office “prevented an opposing party committee from accessing documents potentially damaging to then-Attorney General Hawley’s political campaign.”

During his tenure as attorney general, Hawley’s staff used private email rather than government accounts to communicate with his out-of-state political consultants. Hawley’s campaign consultants gave direct guidance and tasks to his taxpayer-funded staff and led meetings during work hours in the state Supreme Court building, where the attorney general’s official office is located.

The DSCC had sought emails and other records in 2017 and 2018 to show the role Hawley’s political consultants played in the office. Hawley mounted a successful campaign against Democratic incumbent Sen. Claire McCaskill in 2018.

The attorney general’s office initially told the DSCC it found no records, but The Star later revealed in October of 2018 that his staff had used private email.

Beetem wrote in his November decision that being able to store public information offsite and conduct public business in private emails would leave the Sunshine Law “toothless.”

“It is the public policy of this state ‘that meetings, records, votes, actions and deliberations of public governmental bodies be open to the public unless otherwise provided by law,’” he wrote.

Though the case is regarding Hawley’s time as attorney general, the November decision came down when fellow Republican Eric Schmitt was in the position. Bailey was appointed by Gov. Mike Parson in January after Schmitt was elected to the U.S. Senate in November.

Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft, a Republican, investigated whether Hawley illegally used public resources for his campaign in 2019, but cleared him of any misconduct.

Then-State Auditor Nicole Galloway, a Democrat, also investigated Hawley’s use of public resources and concluded it was unclear whether his actions were illegal. Hawley criticized Galloway at the time, alleging that the Democratic auditor was altering the audit to seem more critical of him.