Home » Board of Aldermen »Crime »Featured »Politics/Policy » Currently Reading:

Poll: Thoughts on Former Alderman Kacie Starr Triplett’s Personal Use of Campaign Funds

April 13, 2014 Board of Aldermen, Crime, Featured, Politics/Policy 8 Comments
Please vote in the poll, located in the right sidebar
Please vote in the poll, located in the right sidebar

Kacie Starr Triplett was elected 6th ward alderman in March 2007, after getting just over 50% of the votes in a 3-way primary for the Democratic nomination, there was no challenger in the April 3, 2007 general election.  Triplett, reelected in 2011, was the youngest elected official in city hall until her resignation in November 2012.  Many, myself included, thought she had a long future at city hall. Resigning to take a non-profit job so soon after being reelected seemed puzzling, but plausible. A month prior to her resignation news broke about the FBI looking into the finances of Jesse Jackson Jr.

Then in February 2014 her sudden resignation began to make sense:

A former St. Louis alderwoman has sent out a letter of apology, admitting to using campaign money for personal use.

Kacie Starr Triplett says her illegal use of campaign funds was done on a small-scale, but did not disclose the amount of money she used. NewsChannel 5 obtained a copy of the Missouri Ethics Commission court filing, which states she misused as much as $18,900. (KSDK)

See her February 27, 2014 email here. On Friday we learned some of the consequences she’ll face as a result of her actions and admissions:

A once-rising star in city politics avoids possible jail time but agrees to a stiff fine in a deal with the circuit attorney’s office.

The deal between Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce and Kacie Starr Triplett was signed on March 6th, but announced Friday only after Triplett made good on several payments.

In total Triplett has agreed to pay $22,000 in restitution, which that money will go to the St. Louis city public schools. (Fox2)

Jennifer Joyce, in an email reply, indicated the agreement is for 3 years, saying: “March of 2017 is when it will conclude.” Apparently she could also face a $100,000 fine from the Missouri Ethics Commission.

For the poll this week I want to know your reaction to her illegal use of campaign funds and the consequences, I’ve provided numerous answers but you can also add your own. Pick up to two.

— Steve Patterson


Currently there are "8 comments" on this Article:

  1. JZ71 says:

    Two perspectives – one, she violated the law and is apparently receiving appropriate “punishment”. Two, money is fungible, it’s all green, it all spends. Trying to limit “corruption” by limiting expenditures to “campaign” expenses does very little in reality. Large donors are “remembered”, whether they make cash, in-kind or straw-man contributions. Personally, I have a bigger problem with wealthy candidates “loaning” money to their campaigns – in theory, no politician should be beholden to wealthy donors and no race should be “bought”. In reality, money WILL find its way to both campaigns and politicians, the only difference will be in how it ends up being “packaged”.

    • Haven’t you said before if the pay was higher we might get more/better candidates? Hopefully that’ll be possible after the number of aldermen drops from 28 to 14 in 2022.

      • I’m in favor of a higher aldermanic salary, but opposed to the Ward reduction.

        Optimism says you’ll get a higher percentage of progressive candidates; STL pessimism says the corrupt/inept ones will just get a bigger piece of the geographic pie…

        • Douglas Duckworth says:

          Saint Louis is a poor city. Public tax dollars should go towards improving services not aldermanic salaries. We need people in office who care about reducing inequality not purchasing Prada.

          Money can be kept out of campaigns through public financing and still prison sentences for those donors and public officials.

  2. Sgt Stadanko says:

    surprise, surprise….another crook in city politics. if they think she will pay back $22k, they have another thing coming. they are going to get stiffed – mark my word. hopefully the Missouri Ethics Commission goes after this swindler for that $100k. for those sympathetic to this shyster, why don’t you kick in to pay this money back for her & put your money where your mouth is. -Sarge

  3. Greg says:

    There is no “could face” a $100,000 fine from the Missouri Ethics Commission — she was fined $100,000 but the fine drops to $10,000 if it was paid in 90 days.


  4. Sgt Stadanko says:

    i wonder how these politicians that get their hand caught in the money jar justify what they are doing. oh, it’s just a little. every other politician does it. my time doing this campaigning is work…they owe it to me. the ‘little guy’ – the working stiff, gets it stuck up their keister once again. -Sarge


Comment on this Article: