Background Image
Previous Page  39 / 66 Next Page
Show Menu
Previous Page 39 / 66 Next Page
Page Background






12/17/14 Respondent was a campaign treasurer for a PAC in support of three

district judge candidates. Respondent disclosed a $0 balance main-

tained on a semi-annual report, but that was in fact the expected bank

balance rather than the actual bank balance because a check did not

clear until after the date of the report. For five contributions, Respon-

dent either improperly omitted or wrote “none” for employer, and dis-

closed the wrong employer name for two other contributions. Respon-

dent also listed employees and “AMEX” as the payee of expenditures

for the purpose of reimbursement, which is a violation. The respon-

dent should have listed the actual vendors from which the employees

made purchases or the actual vendor for which the AMEX was used.

Furthermore, Respondent listed the description of the purchases as

“general supplies,” which is an insufficient description. (SC-3120372)

$500 assess-

ment fee


Respondent is a District Judge. Respondent over-reported political

contributions maintained by $110 and failed to properly disclose the

principal occupations, job titles, and employer names for 12 contri-

butions. Respondent also failed to report an iPad he purchased for

campaign use, valued over $500, on Schedule M which is used for

reporting assets. Furthermore, Respondent failed to sufficiently de-

scribe political expenditures or the officeholder activity for which the

expenditure was made. Finally, Respondent did not disclose the ac-

tual vendor payee, address, date and/or amount for five political ex-

penditures. (SC-31206194)

$450 assess-

ment fee


Respondent was a candidate for county court-at-law judge. Respon-

dent failed to timely file reports, often missing the deadline by only

one day. In regards to a purchase of a voter database, Respondent

agreed to pay $500 up front, with $1,000 to be paid at a later date.

Respondent alleged that the database was defective and refused to

pay the $1,000. Only the $500 payment was disclosed as a political

expenditure, but the Election Code requires that a purchase of goods

or services pursuant to a vendor’s normal business practices and not

with the intent to aid a campaign be reported as a political expen-

diture. Therefore, Respondent should have reported the full $1,500

as a political expenditure at the time he made the purchase, even if

$1,000 was to be paid at a later date. Respondent also failed to re-

port the amount of a filing fee to secure a place on the ballot. Finally,

Respondent failed to disclose a $450 in-kind contribution for access

to a voter database. (SC-31210310, SC-31210319, SC-31210320,

SC-31210321, SC-31211332, SC-31211333, SC-31211334)

$375 civil



Respondent is a District Judge. Respondent’s campaign mailed a

letter addressed to “Fellow Members of the Business Community,”

signed by several business people, in which they praised Respondent

and urged for re-election, without including a political advertising dis-

closure statement. The Election Code requires political advertising to

indicate that it is political advertising, and the full name of the person

who paid for the advertising, the political committee authorizing the

advertising, or the candidate or specific-purpose committee support-

ing the candidate. (SC-31210316)

$500 civil