My problem with the Citizens Clean Elections Commission article and headline, [Arizona Capitol Times, top of Page 5, Feb. 11 issue] is threefold.

First, I didn’t violate funding law. Second, the Commission did not yet investigate to determine whether they believe I did or not. Third, there is no “law” in question, but rather a reporting “rule” which was internally created by the commission, which is in question.

I have been accused of the above, but have not yet had my day in court, as they say. For months, the complaint from former Rep. Clancy Jayne has been just sitting there at the commission with no requests for further information from me.

The first paragraph of the story begins, “Three new lawmakers have violated a number of provisions of the state’s public campaign funding law.” Again, I didn’t violate funding law.

That same sentence ends with “the Citizen’s Clean Elections Commission has found.” Commissioners haven’t “found” anything. Rather, what happened was a decision to open an investigation to see if there is anything to find. My accuser has not provided any evidence of his outlandish claims. His imagination is the sole source of his complaints. To say they “found” I violated anything tells the readers that they have looked at evidence from both sides and determined guilt.

The sixth paragraph contains “Mrs. Gorman bought a voter list for $200, and then reimbursed herself, in violation of ARS 16-948 (C), which provides that no petty cash disbursement for single expenditure may exceed $110, Mr. Lemon’s memo states.”

My purchase of the voter list was not made from a petty cash account and was handled as a loan to my campaign (mostly because we had never been told that the clean elections folks were not OK with this…this complaint was dismissed in a letter dated Jan. 11). My explanation of this was part of public record and was readily available to your reporter at the meeting.

The seventh paragraph reads, “Mrs. Gorman appears to have accepted illegal contributions…”

Why does it appear that way≠ To whom≠ I realize that your reporter was able to pick up a copy of Mr. Lemon’s misguided report and write an easy article. However, your reporter has been on this story for months and is, therefore, responsible for knowing details that Mr. Lemon wouldn’t have without ever talking to me or asking to see any of my own records. I feel it is irresponsible to print ridiculous things from the report, without also pointing out that this assumption was based on zero evidence.

In the 10th paragraph I am directly quoted in a bizarre sentence that makes it look as though I am somehow finally admitting guilt. The sentence containing the quote reads, “Mrs. Gorman, who previously has denied that she has violated any rules or statutes, stated she now understands that the commission ‘simply wants more information.’”

I did not give this quote and was quite surprised to see it in the article, in any context, since I didn’t speak to your reporter at any point surrounding this last hearing. And, while I did point out in my testimony that no one had ever called me to see my files, I am quite certain I would not have said it the way it was written and definitely not in that context.

The bottom line is the commission has made no findings except that the commissioners realize they need more information to develop a finding. Thus, they voted unanimously to proceed with an investigation into these open cases that have been sitting stale since mid-November.

Incidentally, the complaint against me regarding the direct payment of vendors was dismissed already in the same letter that dismissed the petty cash complaint. These were both part of MUR 0036 (not Mr. Jayne’s complaints numbered MUR 0028 and MUR 0037), which was dismissed based upon my response to the complaints. The letter came from Colleen Connor (before she recused herself from my case) and is dated Jan. 11, 2005.—

—Rep. Pamela Gorman, District 6