AZ State Senator Sylvia Allen Breaks Campaign Finance Law LD-5

Aug. 23, 2010 - PRLog -- PHOENIX – Arizona Legislative District 5 Representative Bill Konopnicki (pronounced KO-puh-nicki) today released the following statement regarding Campaign Finance Violations in the LD 5 races for the legislator.  We have reason to believe that Sylvia Allen, State Senate candidate for Legislative District 5 is substantially under-reporting her campaign expenses and income to her campaign.  We further believe that Ms. Allen is failing to comply with the obligation of sub-vendor reporting.  We also believe that Ms. Allen is financially contributing to the campaigns of Chester Crandell and Brenda Barton in violation of the Clean Elections laws.  Lastly, we believe that Chester Crandell and Brenda Barton are receiving financial contributions from Sylvia Allen’s campaign in the form of political flyers without reporting the contributions or expenses associated with the printing and dissemination of these flyers.

Attached to this letter are multi-colored, two-sided campaign mailers for Sylvia Allen’s current campaign for LD5.  See Exhibits 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10.  Also attached to this letter are multi-colored, two-sided campaign mailers where Allen, Barton and Crandell are running as a “team.”  See Exhibits 11, 12 & 13.  These are expensive flyers that have been sent to potential Republican voters in LD5 with the obvious intent to persuade electors.  These are expensive flyers.  We believe that these flyers cost a minimum of $0.45 to design, produce, print and mail.  We believe that have been mailed to at least 4,000 “high-efficacy” Republican voters in LD5.  If there are TEN (10) multi-colored, two-sided mailers for 4,000 voters, then the cost for all of these mailers would be $18,000 (4,000 pieces x 10 mailers x $0.45 apiece).

   In looking at Ms. Allen’s Campaign Finance Report (Exhibit 1) at page 40, there is only one expense item listed and described that would explain the cost of designing, producing and mailing these expensive flyers.  There is a listing for “High Noon Campaign Productions” for $6,650 for the reporting period ($7,187.50 total for the election cycle.)   There is no plausible explanation for this many mailers costing so little other than to claim fraud in the disclosure.
   We also attach two campaign ads which are not appropriately accounted for in the Campaign Finance Report.  See Exhibits 14 & 15.  Exhibit 14 is an ad that appeared recently in the Payson Roundup and is for all three candidates (Allen, Barton & Crandell.)  This ad does not appear anywhere as an expense in Ms. Allen’s Campaign Finance Report. (Exhibit 1.)   Exhibit 15 is an ad that appeared recently in The Beehive and again is for all three candidates (Allen, Barton & Crandell.)  Again, this ad does not appear anywhere as an expense in Ms. Allen’s Campaign Finance Report. (Exhibit 1.)
   
   There are multiple violations in this matter. First, it is clear that Ms. Allen is substantially under-reporting the cost of mailing these flyers, and not even reporting the costs of these newspaper ads.  This is a violation of A.R.S. §§16-901,915 and AAC R2-20-109.  Second, it is clear that Ms. Allen has failed to report any sub-vendors for the design and production and mailing of these flyers, all in violation of AAC R2-20-109.  Third, it is very difficult - if not downright impossible - to determine who is paying for these ads as the writing used is deceptively small.  Fourth, by conflating the three candidates into one flyer or ad, but not requiring the two participating candidates (Barton and Crandell) to pay their proportionate share of these mailers or ads, Ms. Allen is helping these other two candidates to defeat the limits of the Clean Elections laws that Barton and Crandell agreed to be bound by.

This is not a question of under-reporting.  This is a question of no reporting whatsoever.  By accepting Ms. Allens’ campaigns’ largesse of design, production and mailing of these flyers, without accounting for them on their reports, Ms. Barton and Mr. Crandell have violated A.R.S. §§ 16-913, 915, 941, 948, 952, 958 and A.A.C. R2-20-109.

   As for the Payson Roundup ad (Exhibit 14), neither Ms. Barton nor Mr. Crandell accounted for this expense in their respective Campaign Finance Reports.  (Exhibits 2 & 3.)  Accordingly, the “teeny-weeny” disclaimer on this ad that it was paid for by all three committees is false.  Again, Ms. Barton and Mr. Crandell have violated A.R.S. §§ 16-913, 915, 941, 948, 952, 958 and A.A.C. R2-20-109.
   Lastly we deal with The Beehive ad (Exhibit 15).  This ad IS accounted for in Mr. Crandell’s Campaign Finance Report.  (Exhibit 3.)  But it is not otherwise accounted for in Ms. Barton’s Campaign Finance Report.  (Exhibit 2.) Again, Ms. Barton and Mr. Crandell have violated A.R.S. §§ 16-913, 915, 941, 948, 952, 958 and A.A.C. R2-20-109.

These violations are not insubstantial.  These ads are running and these flyers are being mailed to voters during the “early vote by mail” season and are effectively depriving candidate Bill Konopnicki of a fair election process.   There will not be a meaningful opportunity for Mr. Konopnicki to timely respond in kind to these flyers.  Accordingly, we ask that you act as swiftly as possible, and impose the severest of sanctions allowed by law to send the message that this type of election chicanery will not be allowed in Arizona.