Ethics complaints were filed Thursday against Senators Kenneth Stolle (R-8th) and Thomas Norment (R-3) by Roanoke attorney G. David Nixon.
The complaints allege conflicts of interest involving eminent domain reform legislation before the Senate. Both Stolle and Nixon are employed by the law firm of Kaufman & Canoles, whose clients (public utilities and governments) use the existing eminent domain laws to take property.
Virginia is one of only 13 states in which no meaningful legislation regarding eminent domain has passed in wake of the Kelo decision. The complaints allege that is because Stolle and Norment have used their positions as members of the Eminent Domain subcommittee of the Senate Courts of Justice committee to block or water down legislation that would be harmful to their clients.
As part of his charges, Nixon points to the Kaufman and Canoles website, which contains the following:
For Kaufman & Canoles, Ken works closely with colleague Tommy Norment—the Senate Majority Leader—in presenting the firm to prospective corporate and governmental clients. He has, over his years in the Senate, developed a vast knowledge of state government and a network of business, government, and law enforcement leaders who respect him and his work.
In addition, he’s experienced in civil, criminal, and administrative litigation as well as in business law, particularly for the hospitality industry. This combination of political know-how, business acumen, and personal relationships, boosts Ken’s value to his clients. Says Ken, simply: “We have the ability to make things happen.”
The Senate Ethics Advisory Panel will hear the complaints.
UPDATE: I have obtained copies of the Stolle and Norment complaints.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Oooh.
This could be interesting.
Nothing’s going to happen. That’s my prediction. People will blow some hot air, and act indignant, and nothing will happen.
Well, let’s see. According to VPAP, G. David Nixon is a regular donor to Morgan Griffith’s reelection campaigns. According to this December 2006 commentary in the Roanoke Times, he’s a former chair of the Roanoke City Republican Committee, and an opponent of “big-government Republicans” who are straying from the party’s base and principles. This just happens to sound like a good description of the more moderate Republican senators like Stolle and Norment, who have been willing to work with Democrats to keep the government running in opposition to the no-tax, no-government hardliners of the GOP far right.
I’m sure Nixon’s really concerned about eminent domain, but on another level, I can’t help seeing this as cover for another internal GOP food fight. Not that that bothers me.
Randy – your comment got caught in the spam filter. Just fished it out.
When I got the email on this last night, I didn’t have time to check out Nixon. I figured somebody would 😉
“Virginia is one of only 13 states in which no meaningful legislation regarding eminent domain has passed in wake of the Kelo decision.”
That’s because Kelo is not possible under Virginia law – therefore Virginia law does not need to be changed.
While their at it, they need to bring up the 10’s of thousands in hunting trips these yahoo’s and Del. Abbitt get from the Va Sheriff’s Assc.
looks like the winds of change are in the air this election year.
Ha Ha Ha
Clancy Holland. Wiley Mitchell.
Does anyone think this is going to amount to anything?
By the way, if you want a part-time legislature, by definition legislators will have other jobs. What a stupid complaint!
Brian, you are so totally right. I mean, who are we to complain if we have legislators who appear to have their own financial reason for a vote, instead of the interests of their district or the Commonwealth. What a stupid complaint!
“appear”
I love how people don’t have the guts to make a real accusation and just complain how something “appears”
And I love how nitwits like you are so terribly confident in their initial brainless judgments, and stick by them without any thought or shame whatsoever.
Ah…namecalling resorted to so quickly.
“Namecalling”? Yes, indeed, I named your statements for exactly what they were. If this bothers you, you ought not to make them. You didn’t seem to have any trouble naming the complaint “stupid” or saying that particular statement shows that I “don’t have the guts”. Do you need further assistance in understanding the conflict, here? Or do you prefer to huff off, secure in the knowledge that you’ve martyred yourself on the sword of civility, while leaving any semblance of a substantive argument dead and/or dying on the field? I do understand that to be the favorite move of a certain kind.
Jim Bacon has his thoughts up on this as well.