In the Kansas Meadowlark post, “1st Amendment Constitutional Right may become issue in Kansas Ethics Commission Hearing in January. Silence the accuser?”, the two counts are outlined.

Count 1. On or after Oct. 15, 2008, Kristian D. Van Meteren disclosed to Phil La Certe, blogger for KansasLiberty.com, the filing of and allegations contained in Complaint No. 422, filed by Kristian D. Van Meteren on Sept 17, 2008, amended on Oct. 8, 2008, and amended on Oct 15, 2008 …

Count 2. On or after Oct. 15, 2008, Kristian D. Van Meteren disclosed to Tim Carpenter, reporter for the Topeka Capital Journal, … [the same as in Count 1]

As the KRA points out:

•  The complaint was based on public campaign finance records. The records clearly show a violation of campaign finance laws. The commission could have (and should have) taken action on their own without a complaint from the public. The fact that they didn’t take action on their own is troubling.
•  The basis of the two counts is simply that Kris Van Meteren, the citizen filing the complaint, spoke with two media outlets regarding the complaint. If Van Meteren had not filed a complaint and still spoken with these two media outlets regarding the finance violations, there would be no basis for the two charges. However, if Van Meteren had not filed a complaint, it would have allowed the commission to neither confirm or deny an investigation. How convenient for a commission that seems to be rather disinterested in fining real campaign finance violations.