Green Party candidates Risa Lombardo and Duwayne Collier are running for statewide office using Clean Elections money. At least six voters say that they have no idea why they are listed as having made small-dollar donations to help Lombardo, Collier and GOP gubernatorial candidate Scott Neely qualify for the public campaign funding.
The Arizona Citizens Clean Election Commission says that its investigation into whether two Green Party candidates fraudulently qualified for campaign funding is squarely within the scope of its legally mandated job of protecting the state’s public campaign finance system, and that a Maricopa County Superior Court judge should throw out the candidates’ lawsuit to block the commission from doing that job.
“It is not optional for the Commission and its representatives to enforce the provisions of the (Citizens Clean Election Act) at issue here,” the commissioners said in their response to the lawsuit.
Risa Lombardo and Duwayne Collier, the Green Party nominees for governor and secretary of state, filed a lawsuit earlier this month that accuses the Clean Elections Commission of violating their First Amendment rights by launching an investigation into whether they falsely qualified for millions of dollars in campaign cash. They want a judge to block the investigation and block the Commission from forcing them to repay the money.
Lombardo, Collier and Republican Scott Neely, who lost his primary for governor to Andy Biggs, are all being investigated by the Citizens Clean Elections Commission and the Arizona Attorney General for allegations that they falsified documentation for enough $5 contributions from voters to qualify for a collective $4.7 million in public campaign funds.
Last month, the Arizona Mirror reported that six people who were listed in campaign finance records as having made $5 contributions to all three candidates were adamant they didn’t give any money to the candidates.
In the commission’s response to the lawsuit, its attorneys wrote that the court should not grant the injunction as it didn’t have authority to interfere with the commission’s investigation, which is mandated by state law.
Like other Clean Elections candidates, Lombardo, Collier and Neely agreed to forgo large contributions and money from PACs in exchange for a fixed amount of public funding, based on the office they seek. As a condition of their participation, candidates agree to follow a long list of Clean Elections rules, including increased reporting requirements about how they spend campaign money.
Now that they’re facing the scrutiny they consented to in exchange for public funding, Lombardo and Collier cannot exempt themselves from state law and Clean Elections rules, the commission’s attorneys wrote.
“By accepting the certification as a participating candidate, and especially by accepting the public Clean Elections funds accompanying that certification, the Plaintiffs accepted the obligation to abide by all the (Citizens Clean Election Act) terms, prerequisites, and campaign finance controls and restrictions, including the existing and transparent Commission investigation and enforcement procedures,” the commissioners wrote in their response to the lawsuit.
“The Plaintiffs made no objections to such terms until just recently when they became the subject of an investigation.”
Lombardo and Collier have already been subject to political scrutiny after the Arizona Green party disavowed their candidacies and accused them of being Republicans in disguise. After Tom Collins, the executive director of the Clean Elections Commission, announced on Aug. 25 that the commission was investigating the three candidates, Tim La Sota, Lombardo and Collier’s attorney, said the accusations were “nothingburgers” and conspiracy theories relayed to the candidates “in a menacing manner.”
On Sept. 10, the pair filed a lawsuit in Maricopa Co
