Elections officials investigate Arpaio TV ads

State and county election officials are investigating television ads by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio that target Rick Romley and Tom Horne, both of whom are running against the sheriff’s political allies in separate races.

And even though Arpaio is not eligible for re-election until 2012, the ads were recently paid for by the sheriff’s political campaign.

But so far, the ads can continue.

A judge on Aug. 11 rejected an injunction request by Horne to halt the ads. Maricopa County Superior Court Judge John Buttrick said an injunction would directly harm Arpaio’s free-speech rights, and that he did not have the legal ability to block the sheriff from running additional ads.

The court case was separate from the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office and Maricopa County Elections Department investigations into whether the ads are legal under campaign-finance laws.
Romley, interim county attorney who is running against Arpaio ally Bill Montgomery in the GOP primary, filed one of the active complaints against Arpaio.

Romley contends an Arpaio ad is a guise to help elect Montgomery. Horne, too, said the sheriff’s massive war chest was benefitting his opponent, Andrew Thomas, in the attorney general’s race. Thomas also is a staunch supporter of the sheriff.

One of the commercials opens with a narrator stating that Arpaio has fought illegal immigration and he is running for a sixth term, but it doesn’t mention the election is in 2012. The ad then says that special interest groups and politicians such as Romley oppose Arpaio’s policies on enforcing illegal immigration and want him out of office.

“Romley even demanded that our governor veto SB1070,” the narrator said. “Rick Romley, just wrong.”

It isn’t until the final frames that it is mentioned Arpaio’s election isn’t until 2012.

Romley attorney Michael Manning said the ad is either an independent expenditure by an unregistered political committee or an undeclared contribution to Montgomery’s campaign.

Either way the ad is illegal, Manning said.

An independent expenditure is when a person or political committee other than a candidate’s campaign committee “expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly defined candidate,” according to statute.

“To do that lawfully, the person making the expenditure against Romley cannot have any connection to the person running against Romley,” Manning said.

Manning said he believes Arpaio has raised money for Montgomery, which means he cannot claim the ad as an independent expenditure.

Karen Osborne, Maricopa County elections director, said the complaint has been given to private attorney Jeffrey Messing for review, since Romley would normally be the one to review county election issues.

Messing said Aug. 10 that he sent a standard letter to Chad Willems, Arpaio’s campaign manager, asking that he respond to the allegations by Aug. 16.

Willems said the ads were meant only to defend the sheriff from critics who attack his policies. Horne said he has never attacked the sheriff publicly, but Willems said Horne’s criticism of Thomas for his prosecution of county supervisors and judges is criticism of Arpaio as well because the sheriff investigated the cases. He said Horne’s support of amnesty – an allegation Horne denies – is significant to the sheriff as well because he staunchly opposes amnesty for illegal immigrants.

“He’s really gone after Thomas on this stuff but the investigations are all the sheriff’s,” Willems said of Horne’s campaign against Thomas.

Willems said the sheriff did not single out Romley and Horne because they are running against his political allies. He would not say whether Arpaio planned to run additional ads.

The Secretary of State’s Office is investigating Arpaio’s second ad, which accuses Horne of supporting amnesty for illegal immigrants, a charge frequently leveled by Thomas’ campaign. Horne did not file a complaint with the office, but secretary of state spokesman Matt Benson said investigators began looking into potential campaign finance violations after they became aware of the ad. In an Aug. 11 letter, state elections director Amy Bjelland asked Arpaio and Willems for information about how much money was spent to create and broadcast the ad, which she said was needed for the investigation.

“We have not yet received a complaint. However, we are proactively looking into the issue and we’ll send a letter to the Arpaio campaign seeking basically a response to some of the issues raised in this ad. This is similar to the inquiry that Maricopa County has been undergoing,” Benson said.

Arpaio campaign attorney Tim Casey said the ads are meant to defend the sheriff from attacks from Romley and Horne, and that they did not violate any campaign finance laws.

“It’s not an independent expenditure. You have to expressly advocate for the election or defeat of a candidate,” Casey said. “Why is Tom Horne trying to gather votes by bashing Arpaio? Arpaio has the right, in the middle of his election cycle, which runs in a four-year term, to defend himself from candidates who attack his policies.”

Casey said there was no collaboration between the Arpaio and Thomas campaigns on the Horne ad, though both used similar language in their criticism of the superintendent.

“Tom Horne favors amnesty for illegal immigrants, which would cost taxpayers billions, and falsely and unethically accused the sheriff of political retaliation,” the ad said.