December 31, 2008
Why is Arizona Allowing Proposition 102 Backers to Sidestep State Election Contribution Rules?
It was very tempting to title this: “So, Who’s Got Joe Kanefield’s Nuts in a Vice?” Or: “Is Joe Kanefield Just Another Anti-Gay Running Arizona Elections?” but that might suggest there’s something corrupt about Arizona’s “top election official,” and we don’t want to make anybody think such a thing. We certainly don’t think such a thing. In fact, we are 150% certain that Joe Kanefield is an honest, hardworking public servant who does his job with complete integrity. So, don’t you get the idea that there’s anything underhanded going on here. And if you think such a thing, you sure didn’t get that idea from us. Nossirree.
Backers of gay marriage ban did not properly fill out campaign donor list PHOENIX — The backers of the successful ballot proposal to constitutionally ban gay marriage did not get the occupations of the majority of those who contributed to the campaign despite a state law requiring them to gather that information.
But the state’s top election official said Monday that the wording of the law allows them to get away with that. Joe Kanefield said they do not have to give back the donations that came without the required information or even to pay a fine.
A review of the public reports filed by the Yes for Marriage campaign shows occupations listed for only about one out of five contributors. The campaign managed to collect more than $7.7 million, mostly from individuals identified only by name and address.
By contrast, Arizona Together, the committee that collected nearly $750,000 for the campaign against Proposition 102, has occupations listed for virtually all of its contributors. …
Kanefield, the state elections director, said the law does require campaigns to get the information on occupations. And Kanefield said that, based on Frazier’s complaint, he sent a letter to John LeSueur, treasurer of the Yes for Marriage campaign asking for an explanation.
The response came in the form of several hundred pages of affidavits saying the information had been requested from the donors. …
On the bottom of each letter was a note, in small type, saying that if the contributor did not provide information about occupation, he or she “may do so” by sending an e-mail to a campaign address.
LeSueur did not return several calls seeking comment. But the committee never filed an amended report adding even a single address. Despite that, Kanefield said they are now in compliance with the law.
That law, he said, only requires a campaign to make its “best effort” to get the missing information. Kanefield said even the boilerplate language at the bottom of the acknowledgement of the donation meets that legal description. …
More at the link.
Tweet This Post! 
Filed Under: Arizona, Civil Rights, Election 2008, Marriage
