STATEMENT BY GOVERNOR PAUL E. PATTON

June 18, 2003

Today, I have exercised my power under the Constitution of Kentucky to pardon Andrew “Skipper” Martin, Danny Ross, Lon Fields and Robert Winstead for any conduct relative to the 1995 election for governor of Kentucky which may be considered a violation of Kentucky’s election laws.

I have received an application for pardon from each of these individuals as well as personal correspondence which affirms that they did not knowingly violate any of Kentucky’s election laws as a result of their activities relative to that election. Any verdict to the contrary would be based on circumstantial evidence in stark contrast to the sworn testimony of the four participants.

Having known Skipper Martin and Danny Ross for many years and having worked with them on a daily basis, I know for a fact that they are honest, honorable men who would not knowingly violate the law. I do not know Mr. Fields and Mr. Winstead as well but it is obvious that if I believe Martin and Ross are innocent then Fields and Winstead are also innocent. I am convinced that “not guilty” would be the verdict of any impartial jury which would hear the evidence, however, I am unwilling to cause these men to endure further punishment so I could be proven right. There is no point in having them to bankrupt themselves in a lengthy political trial.

I did not and I still do not believe the law prohibited a campaign from communicating with their supporters. I am convinced that the communication between Danny Ross and Skipper Martin during that campaign was limited to matters such as scheduling, my position on labor issues and other legitimate political activity that is a normal part of the political process; communications which Attorney General Chandler and his staff engage in with their supporters on a daily basis.

To interpret the part of the law which limits a political party’s contribution to a candidate’s campaign the way Chandler is interpreting the law would mean he violated it when he moved his campaign staff into Democratic State Headquarters just after the election. The same would hold true for Ernie Fletcher and the Republican Party.

The court battles up to now have imposed a severe punishment on these men and their families financially, emotionally and career-wise, but these proceedings have not been about their guilt or innocence. The issues publicly debated to date have been about the constitutionality of the law itself, an issue about which Kentucky judges have disagreed at the circuit, appellate and supreme court levels. U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell filed a friend of the court brief arguing that the law is unconstitutional.

There are several precedents for my actions.

President George H. Bush stated in his 1992 pardon of his former Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger, “I am pardoning him not just out of compassion or to spare a 75-year-old patriot the torment of lengthy and costly legal proceedings, but to make it possible for him to receive the honor he deserves for his extraordinary service to our country.”

I make a similar statement on behalf of Skipper Martin and Danny Ross. They have served my administration and the people of Kentucky well, never expecting or receiving anything in excess of their well-deserved wages.

Or as President Gerald Ford said in his pardon of Richard Nixon in 1974, “The prospects of such a trial will cause prolonged and divisive debate over the propriety of exposing to further punishment and degradation a man who has already paid the unprecedented penalty of relinquishing the highest elective office of the United States.”

Again, I say these men have been punished enough!

I have great confidence in the judicial system of Kentucky but it is not perfect. The power of the pardon is granted to Kentucky governors for the purpose of, among other things, rectifying injustices and showing compassion. Before my term ends I will use this power again to rectify injustice and show compassion.

The ultimate injustice would be to subject these men to a trial prosecuted by an Attorney General who is in the midst of a campaign for governor. Ben Chandler’s whole political career would be at stake and his objective would be conviction, not justice. The correct course of action would have been for him to leave the prosecution of this case up to the next Attorney General. After seven and a half years, six more months would have made no difference in the outcome.

General Chandler has said the issue is: was Paul Patton honestly and openly elected governor in 1995? I would say the issue is: is Ben Chandler trying to get elected in 2003 by prosecuting innocent men?

The fact is that the 1995 election was considered by most observers as the most open and honest in Kentucky history. In 1992, as the legislature debated the proposed campaign finance law, I supported the concept of limiting the amount of money the candidates could spend despite the fact that I was the candidate who could have raised the most money and made the largest personal contribution to my own campaign to ensure victory. Any slight monetary advantage my campaign would have gained if the Attorney General’s allegations had been true would be miniscule compared to the advantage I had under the old rules which I gladly gave up to be able to compete on a level playing field and wage a campaign on the issues. I make the flat statement that the campaign finance laws of 1992 would not have passed without my passionate plea to the Eastern Kentucky delegation to support it. I said at the time that reining in the excessive influence of money on the governor’s race was more important than Paul Patton being governor.

It is a tragedy that the 1992 law was improperly administered by the Registry of Election Finance and the Attorney General relative to the 1995 election and a tragedy that it has been effectively repealed for the 2003 election.

It has been more than seven years. My tenure as governor is coming to an end. The results of a trial would not change the results of the 1995 election. It will be up to history to judge my administration and the fairness of the election.

Finally, I cannot ignore the fact that all four of these men have already paid a price in depleted savings and anguished families disproportionate to any errors in judgment they are alleged to have committed. Nor can I ignore the debilitating illnesses endured by Ross and members of Martin’s family while they endured this long and costly legal process. This pardon will enable them to attend to their and their families’ health and welfare undistracted by the arduous and costly ordeal of a trial.

I execute this pardon with a clear conscious because I am totally confident that my actions have helped to ensure that justice prevails.