An Arizona administrative law judge on Monday found that Attorney General Tom Horne did not violate campaign finance laws in his 2010 election. Judge Tammy Eigenheer, found that the Yavapai County Attorney’s Office did not prove their claims that Horne violated state laws which bar “improper coordination” of expenses.
“We are obviously pleased. This verdict completely vindicates un having been ruled on by an objective Judge validating what we have been saying since the allegations were first made for political reasons,” said Attorney General Horne.
The case, brought by Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk, was from the start considered a political witch hunt of sorts by Horne’s political enemies. Horne has not made friends with those who support federal government involvement in issues ranging from education to healthcare.
The Yavapai County Attorney’s case revolved around two instances, win which she alleges that Horne coordinated efforts with Business Leaders for Arizona under the direction of Kathleen Winn.
Winn, a long time real estate agent in Arizona, claimed that her communications with Horne concerned a piece of real estate that Horne was selling at the time. Polk alleged that the two were not discussing real estate, but instead, they were producing a television ad.
The judge found, “While there are inferences that can be made, there are also reasonable explanations” that the communication between the two was about Horne’s real estate transaction.
Judge Eigenneer found that the Yavapai County Attorney’s Office failed to prove that an email from Horne to Winn broke campaign finance laws. She said there was no evidence presented to show that anything Horne sent to Winn had “any material effect on the funds spent by Business Leaders for Arizona.”
In what was described at the time as a political hit job, Polk ordered Horne and Winn to refund most of the $513,340 spent on the commercial.
ADI Staff was fortunate to be able to talk to Attorney General Horne, “We are obviously pleased. This verdict completely vindicates us, having been ruled on by an objective Judge validating what we have been saying since the allegations were first made for political reasons.” He said, “now we can get on with the State business without these distractions.”
Findings:
The judge found that “ultimately the Yavapai County Attorney’s Office failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the telephone calls between Mr. Horne and Ms. Winn on October 20, 2010 constituted an improper coordination of expenditure in violation of Title 16 Chapter 6 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. While there are inferences that can be made, there also reasonable that the communications related to Mr. Horne’s real estate transaction that was pending at the same time.
The Yavapai County Attorney’s Office also failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the October 27, 2010 email from Mr. Horne to Ms. Winn constituted improper coordination in violation of Title 16 Chapter 6 of the Arizona Revised Statutes.
It is now up to Polk to decide if she wants to move forward against Horne.