State auditor Stacey Pickering has spent the last week dismissing allegations he used money donated to his campaign for personal use as little more than smear tactics by a desperate opponent, aided by a former Pickering campaign worker with inside knowledge of his campaign.
The allegations include the purchase of a car and an RV and $135,0000 in reimbursements from his campaign account for unspecified “campaign expenses” for three years in which he did not face an election. There was even a reimbursement for a garage door Pickering had installed at this home, an expense that is hard to justify as a campaign cost.
Tuesday, prior to a speaking engagement at the Columbus Rotary Club, Pickering again defended those expenses by saying that he had broken no laws, although an FBI investigation of his campaign spending that has been ongoing since March continues.
Asked if he had paid income taxes on the campaign money converted to personal use, Pickering said he had reported all personal use of campaign funds on his income tax, although he balked when asked if he would be willing to release his tax returns to verify his claim. He said he would be willing to “have those discussions” at the appropriate time. That time, presumably, is sometime after the Aug. 4 primary.
That Pickering, the person who is responsible for investigating public officials who misuse taxpayer dollars, should be caught up in this type of controversy is embarrassing, obviously.
While it is yet unknown whether Pickering’s handling of his campaign funds rise to the level of criminal conduct, the allegations paint a picture of an ethical lapses that can emerge when the state’s laws governing campaign financing are lax, unregulated and often ignored.
For years now, bills designed to bring integrity to campaign financing have died quietly in the state legislature. Aside from one bill that required the identity of any donor who contributes more than $200 to a campaign listed on the candidates’ campaign finance reports, there has been little to discourage candidates from spending that money on personal expenses. When a candidate can dip into campaign funds to buy a garage door, you can safely assume there are no real constraints on how this money can be spent.
Pickering may not be alone, either. Other allegations against state treasurer Lynn Fitch and state senators Joey Fillingame and Dean Kirby are emerging as campaign finance reports are scrutinized.
Some might suggest when a person donates to a campaign, the donor is giving the candidate permission to use that money any way he chooses. But what might be true for some donors may not be true for others.
Of course, the IRS may have something to say about that too. When campaign money is converted to personal use, it becomes taxable income.
Outside of the legal questions that emerge, there is a larger issue: It is a matter of integrity. We believe money contributed to a campaign should be used for specific, verifiable purposes – things like advertising, legitimate travel costs and campaign staff.
We also believe that all expenditures be thoroughly itemized.
As it is now, the campaign finance reports are vague, often to the point of being deliberately deceitful.
As Pickering has argued, none of this may be illegal under our current state laws.
But it should be.
When the legislature convenes in January, we hope this embarrassing episode will move legislators to make some serious reforms to campaign finance laws.
The Dispatch Editorial Board is made up of publisher Peter Imes, columnist Slim Smith, managing editor Zack Plair and senior newsroom staff.
You can help your community
Quality, in-depth journalism is essential to a healthy community. The Dispatch brings you the most complete reporting and insightful commentary in the Golden Triangle, but we need your help to continue our efforts. In the past week, our reporters have posted 41 articles to cdispatch.com. Please consider subscribing to our website for only $2.30 per week to help support local journalism and our community.