Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen: Petty Tactics, Petty Cash and Petty Candidate By AZ Samuel

I wonder If I can Attack A Credible Candidate Today Without Even Getting out of Bed? - S. Jacobson

By AZ Samuel


Incumbent State Senator of District 5 Sylvia Allen and her lapdog Susan Jacobson at the Payson Throw-up Roundup have recently been raising quite the brouhaha over campaign contributions and campaign finance. The entire situation only perpetuates the desperate nature of Sylvia’s campaign and is all very petty indeed. Here is why:

Sylvia and her pals have been attacking Bill Konopnicki (the common sense one that is running, you know the one that doesn’t embarrass our state every time he opens his mouth) over the contributions sent in to Konopnicki’s campaign. Ol’ Sylvia is upset that Konopnicki has and is outspending her in the primary. Konopnicki has also raised more money than Sylvia another stickler for her. Sylvia and her people claim that nearly all of Konopnicki’s campaign contributions are from evil “outsiders” and “lobbyists” etc. I know it’s odd that someone like Sylvia who’s violated election law before (2004) and who’s own campaign last cycle was made up of nearly 30% lobbyist money to be complaining about anyone else. Then again when has common sense ever taken precedent with Sylvia? Exactly.

Bill Konopnicki has secured contributions from across the state, both in and out of his district. Bill has also received numerous contributions from various organizations and political action committees. A large portion or at least a significant portion of these org’s and Pac’s membership’s consist of folks from district 5. However; according to Sylvia that is all evil “outsider” money. Influential Maricopa county hot-shots trying to wrap their hands around rural Arizona. (you know the folks she accepts her commands from when she needs to do something really hard like cast a vote or . . . Think.). The reality is often times simply because a PAC or organization has a presence in a certain area does not mean that is where they are based or HQ’d or have their administrative offices etc. Very often these checks will be sent from other parties or the official offices wherever they may be located. To discount it all as being out of district is dishonest and well . . . Petty.

Take for example that in legislative district 5 there are seven hospitals all of which contributed to their hospital PAC. A PAC that supports Bill Konopnicki’s campaign due in large part to the immense concern, attention, action and initiative Konopnicki has given the area of health care during his time in the legislature. There are also approximately 500 nurses, 350 doctors, 108 highway patrolmen, 470 members of the FOP and almost 600 realtors all of whom made contributions to various PAC’s. The realtor’s PAC also made a sizeable contribution to Konopnicki’s campaign. Sylvia is a realtor, one can only assume she’s contributed to this PAC and using her own logic if she has . . . Does that make her one of these evil out of town contributors that Konopnicki is allegedly beholden to?

Let’s move forward a bit.

As I’ve already mentioned Sylvia was fined back in 2004 for violating clean election laws in Arizona. (Shocking). Well, it seems she’s continuing the trend. Sylvia denounces Konopnicki’s “out of town” contributions whether from individuals, organizations or PAC’s but makes no mention of her own. Odder still is her seemingly low showing in the expenditures category even given the amount of money she’s managed to scrounge together. One thing in particular strikes the eye right off the bat: numerous personal withdrawals from her campaign fund under the guise of “Petty Cash.” Personal withdrawals? Petty Cash?

I don’t know about you but I can’t wait to hear Sylvia’s befuddling explanation of these withdrawals. There is no further description of them in her financial report, no ties to any reasonable expenditures, no follow up and no explanation other than she personally took some funds from her campaign for her own personal use on well . . . Whatever. Looks like someone should’ve supplied her with that “math genius” she asked for during the discussion on HB2370.

Wait . . .it gets better er eh . . . Or worse I should say.

It appears Sylvia is masterminding some type of campaign finance violation mafia in legislative district 5.

I know what you are thinking, Sylvia couldn’t possibly be masterminding anything.

Well you are probably Right but she is definitely participating.

Take the “ABC Team” as they’ve likened themselves, of Sylvia Allen, Brenda Barton and Chester Crandell (who also has the second worst campaign site ever next to Sylvia Allen. That's another story).

It appears after looking carefully at Sylvia’s financial reporting, her ads, fliers, hand-outs, radio-spots etc.

That Sylvia is under-reporting her campaign expenses. It also appears she is not complying with the sub- Vendor reporting. It also appears ol’ Sylvia is contributing financially to B&C of ABC. She’s definitely Contributing to their campaigns in the form of campaign materials such as fliers etc. Of course there are no Expenses associated with the printing and dissemination of these materials.

Well it only appears that way right?

In case I’m losing you Sylvia is running for re-election to the LD5 State Senate seat and her committee is “Committee to Elect Sylvia T. Allen 2010.” Her Treasurer is Walter F. Dudley. Chester Crandell is a Republican primary candidate for State Representative for LD5. The name of his little committee is “Committee to Elect Chester Crandell” Committee #201000320. His Treasurer is Marcie Lynn Franco. Last but not least is Brenda Barton another Republican party candidate for State Representative for LD5. The name of her committee is “Barton4AZ” (slightly more original than the other two) Committee #201000189. Her Treasurer is Donna Orbegoso. Sylvia is a “non-participating” candidate. Chester and Brenda are both “participating” candidates.

Exhibit 1- The campaign finance report for Sylvia Allen filed August 11, 2010, for the reporting period of June 1, 2010 - August 4, 2010. Attached as Exhibit 2 is the Campaign Finance Report for Brenda Barton filed August 11, 2010, for the Reporting period of June 1, 2010 - August 4, 2010. Attached as Exhibit 3 is the Campaign Finance Report for Chester Crandell filed August 11, 2010, for the Reporting period of June 1, 2010- August 4, 2010.

This also requires taking a look at the multi-colored, two-sided campaign mailers for Sylvia Allen’s current campaign for LD5. See Exhibits 4,5 6,7 8,9,10. And of course we can not forget the multi-colored, two-sided campaign mailers where Allen, Barton and Crandell are running as a “team.” See Exhibits 11,, 12 & ,13.

Now I don’t run a graphics company or a print shop but I’ve ordered more than a few in my day and I know as well as you do that these fliers can get pretty expensive. These costly little numbers have been sent to potential Republican voters in LD5 with the obvious intent to persuade electors. Let’s take a conservative estimate here, after-all that’s what we are talking about right . . . A bunch of alleged conservatives? Let us say that these fliers cost a minimum of $0.45 to design, produce, print and mail. They were 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).

Take a gander back over at Ms. Allen’s Campaign Finance Report (Exhibit 1) at page 40, there is only one expense item listed and described that could possibly come close to explaining the cost of designing, producing and mailing these precious little fliers. There is a listing for “High Noon Campaign Productions” for $6,650 for the reporting period ($7,187.50 total for the election cycle.) Now I’ve gone over it a few times and I actually checked with a real math genius (you’re welcome Sylvia) and there is simply no reasonable explanation for getting this many mailers out without paying the actual price.

Maybe they just found the cheapest place on the planet to purchase and mail campaign material from . . . A place no other candidate on earth has access to yet. Yeah maybe . . . But then what about these
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 Throwup Roundup and is for all three candidates (Allen, Barton & Crandell.) Do you see this ad anywhere on Sylvia’s finance report? Nope, me either. (Exhibit 1.) Exhibit 15 is an ad that appeared recently in The Beehive and again is for all three candidates (Allen, Barton & Crandell.) Once again . . . Nada. (Exhibit 1.)

Staying with me here? Good because there are multiple violations in this matter. First, it is clear that Sylvia is substantially under-reporting the cost of mailing these fliers, 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. (whammy) Second, it is clear that Sylvia has ALSO failed to report any sub-vendors for the design and production and mailing of these fliers, all in violation of AAC R2-20-109. WHOLY VIOLATION BATMAN! But wait boy-wonder! There’s More! Third, pretty darn hard, even with my trusty side-kick - to determine who is paying for these ads as the writing used is deceptively small or petty heh heh.

Fourth, by ABC‘ing these three candidates into one ad, but not requiring the two participating candidates (Barton and Crandell) to pay their proportionate share of these costly subversives or ads, Sylvia is assisting these other B&C to cheat the limits of the Clean Elections laws (Laws she’s already broken in the past) that Barton and Crandell intentionally agreed to be bound by.

B&C (Barton and Crandell) have both agreed to be “participating” candidates under Arizona’s Clean Elections laws. Now due to this little venture they are given substantial financial benefit by the State in exchange for their agreement to abide by strict financial accounting in their respective campaigns. However search as one might (and I might . . .a lot.) through the Campaign Finance Reports (Exhibits 2 & 3) there is no vendor or sub-vendor listed for B or C that explains the joint mailers ( Exhibits 11, 12 & 13.)

So we move on from the question of under-reporting to no reporting whatsoever! By accepting Ms. Allens’ campaigns’ largesse of design, production and mailing of these fliers, 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. (double whammy)

As for the Payson Throwup Roundup ad (Exhibit 14), Baron and Crandell have no mention of it in neither of their financial reports. Big surprise given the trail we’re following now eh? (Exhibits 2 & 3.) Accordingly, the “microscopic, its-bitsy wee lil” disclaimer on this ad that it was paid for by all three committees would be and of course is false. Which means yet 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. (Are there triple whammy’s? I don’t remember.)

Now we buzz over to The Beehive ad (Exhibit 15). This ad IS actually accounted for in Mr. Crandell’s Campaign Finance Report. (Exhibit 3.) But don’t buzz off yet because it is not accounted for in Ms. Barton’s Campaign Finance Report. (Exhibit 2.) Which means . . . Yep you guessed it Quadruple Whammy! (now I know we‘re breaking new ground with that one), Ms. Barton and Mr. Crandell have violated A.R.S. §§ 16-913, 915, 941, 948, 952, 958 and A.A.C. R2-20-109.

What does all this mean? Why does anyone care? Does it matter? Short and sweet of it. Hell yes it matters!

These aren’t insignificant violations or simple things that were “mistakenly” over-looked. These ads are and have been running in the district and these costly fliers are being mailed to voters during our “early vote by mail” season thusly robbing Konopnicki (and others) of a fair election process. We are down to the wire folks. There is not time, at least not enough for Konopnicki or anyone else to respond in kind to these fliers.

You know we make a big deal of our elections and election process here in Arizona. We typically have some type of law, legislation or whatever in the works all year ‘round that has to do with our
elections and campaigns in one fashion or another. At the very least we’re always talking about it good bad or indifferent. Clean election law like it or hate it we brought it on ourselves just as we have with all the others.

As over-done as it may be it is vital. It is important. And these are significant and severe violations. (Again). I hope the Konopnicki campaign acts quickly. I think Mr. Ken Bennett with the Secretary of State, Mr. Todd Lang the Director of Citizens Clean Elections Commission and Mr. Terry Goddard our ‘beloved’ Attorney General should act swiftly as humanly possible and impose the severest of penalties allowed by our law. A strong message must be sent that this type of election behavior, this disregard for our process, law and one another will NOT be allowed in Arizona.

Oh and one more thing . . . . EARTH TO SYLVIA!!! Are you there? Earth To Sylvia! Wake Up!