Posted: 7/11/06
Davids calls new complaints ěmean-spiritedî
By David Heiller
Argus News Editor
House District 31B State Representative Greg Davids (I-R, Preston) said he will provide any information that is requested by the Campaign Finance Board over campaign violation allegations filed against him recently.
Three Lanesboro residents submitted a 14-page document to the Campaign Finance and Public Disclosures Board on June 23.
The complaint asks Davids to account for $3,180 in out-of-district mileage and $3,704.76 in postage fees for which he was reimbursed last year. It also alleges that Davids violated the Minnesota Ethics in Government Act.
ěThese issues were resolved in a similar complaint of two years ago,î Davids said on July 5.
The complaint is politically motivated, Davids feels. ěPeople Iíve talked to say they can see right through this Itís a pretty mean spirited campaign tactic.î
The complaint will get front page treatment when it is filed, then put on page 13 when the results are out, Davids said.
Regarding the mileage report, the complaint states, ěThere is no meaningful information in the 2005 Davids Committee Report to shed any light on Rep. Davidsí claimed travel outside of his district. What services were provided? To whom? What was the subject matter, purpose or nature of the service? No facts at all are given to justify the payment of these funds to Rep. Davids from the Davids Committee.î
Regarding the postage amount, the complaint states: ěThere is a total absence of any explanation for these relatively huge postage costs. There is nothing but an unsupported claim that these costs were incurred for ëconstituent services.íî
Frank Wright, Peggy Hanson, and Harlin Taylor filed the complaint. Hanson lost to Davids in the 2004 election by a margin of 10,349 to 9,435 votes.
Wright and Taylor also filed a complaint with the Campaign Finance board in 2004. The board dismissed the part of that complaint that challenged certain postage expenses as non-campaign disbursements. Davids did have to pay $6,100 for newspaper ěidea adsî that he claimed as constituent services. The board ruled that they did not meet the requirement.
Wright and Hanson stress that their goal is campaign finance reform and having a level playing field. They have even drafted a proposed law that would set a limit of $6,000 per year on non-campaign expenses.
Currently, legislators can spend an unlimited amount of campaign contributions if the funds arenít spent on campaign-related expenses. They donít have to count this against their annual spending limit, which is $30,100 this year for the House.
There are many exceptions that you can use political money for, and legislators can raise endless amounts of money, Hanson said. ěAnd Greg Davids is very good at this,î she said.
Wright pointed to exhibit nine that was part of the campaign finance complaint. It lists the total Davids committee expenditures in 2003 at $48,367, compared to an average expenditure of other House campaign committees at $6,847.
Hanson feels Minnesota has creating a system where the incentive is to raise money. She wonders if people who give that money are receiving the right to more service. If legislators need money, then it should be in the budget, Hanson feels. ěThis creates this weird little back door system.î
Legislators can raise publicly subsidized money and pay themselves for travelling out of state, Wright added. ěNobody is going to be bird-dogging this,î he said. ěWeíre getting criticized for bird-dogging.î
ěNot politically motivatedî
Is this complaint politically motivated or a case of sour grapes? No, Wright and Hanson said to that question. Win or lose, you donít lose your right to be an activist citizen, Wright said. ěI donít lose my right to be a watchdog.î
Hanson said she ran against Davids in 2004 because she believes in democracy and the electoral system. She was happy she ran. ěYeah, it was hard to lose but Iím totally OK with that,î Hanson said.
She said she feels strongly that people should have a system that is fair and encourages good people to run for office. She said it bothers here when she sees something that discourages democracy.
Davids disagreed with the approach that Hanson is taking regarding changing the law to put a limit on non-campaign expenses. He thinks she should go to the legislature to change the law, and not through what he called ěa process of character assassination to try to prove a point.î
Davids said that when two people spend 400 hours going through his records, as Wright stated in another newspaper article, they can possibly find things that need clarification. ěAnd weíll get the information to them,î Davids said.
ěWeíll take it one day at a time here. Weíre fully cooperating with the campaign finance staff,î he said.
Ethics allegation
A third part of the current complaint asks the board to conduct a detailed audit of the People for Davids committee records to determine whether it has violated the Minnesota Ethics in Government Act.
The alleged Ethics in Government violation in the current complaint has a personal twist: Exhibit 8 is a congratulatory letter that Wright and Hanson received from Davids on the birth of a grandson, Samuel Booth. The complaint states, ěIt would appear that the cost of mailing this particular congratulatory letter was borne by the legislature and, therefore, the taxpayers. It would be a question for the Legislature, not the board, as to whether this use of the legislative postage allowance complies with the requirement that it be spent for no other purpose but ëlegislative business.íî . . . Without an audit, it is impossible to know how many of these cards and letters get sent each year and where the money comes from to pay for this.î
Davids said the letter was proper. ěThat letter is through house rules,î he said. ěThere is a postage allotment for that.î
The ethics part concludes by noting that the People for Davids Committee ěfor years has raised and spent more than any other House campaign committee ń either for incumbents or challengers. . . Complainants have come to believe that Rep. Davids has skirted the requirements of the Ethics in Government Ace, in order to enrich himself and to circumvent the political expenditure limits that are applied to candidates, like Rep. Davids, who accept public subsidies.î
Ruling in 30-60 days
Jeanne Olson, the executive director of the Campaign Finance board, told The Argus that the board and its staff are prohibited from confirming or denying the existence of filed complaints until the board has issued findings in a matter. ěDepending on the allegation, the Board has 30 to 60 days to issue Findings - the deadline may be extended by a majority vote of the Board,î she wrote in a July 5 email. Its next meeting is August 15.
Caledonia Argus
314 West Lincoln St.
P.O. Box 227
Caledonia, MN 55921-0227
507/724-3475
E-Mail: editor.argus@ecm-inc.com