Legal opinion: Scottsdale chamber violated campaign law

1. 
   The Scottsdale Area Chamber of Commerce will meet with its attorney to determine its next actions after a legal opinion stated the chamber violated state campaign finance laws.
   
   Mayor Jim Lane and former mayoral candidate John Washington say the opinion authored by the Tucson City Attorney's Office on Tuesday confirms what they suspected all along: mailers and television commercials the chamber disseminated last fall attempted to influence city elections, and the non-profit group should have filed as a political action committee to comply with state election laws.
   
   The opinion partly puts to rest an issue that has been debated for more than a year,
   since Lane's campaign committee and Washington filed complaints against the chamber.
   
   Both complained about the chamber's mailers and television commercials that identified four candidates in the Sept. 2, 2008, city election as candidates who "support Scottsdale's quality of life." Lane and Washington were not among those pictured.
   
   Their complaints said the chamber violated election law because its materials represented "express advocacy" to influence the election, yet the chamber did not form a political action committee or disclose how the materials were funded.
   
   The chamber had maintained it was within the law and did not engage in express advocacy. Instead, the chamber argued, the mailers and commercials were part of an ongoing economic development campaign and did not use "vote for" or other language that would influence the outcome of the election.
   
   But if the ads had not been intended to advocate candidates shown in the chamber's materials, "it would not have been designed as it was, sent when and to whom it was, and contained the text and photographs that it did," according to the opinion by Dennis P. McLaughlin, Tucson principal assistant city attorney.
   
   "The direct mailer and the television advertisement both target Scottsdale residents," his opinion continued. "Both were timed to reach those shortly before its Sept. 2, 2008, general election. Both also present the four identified candidates in a favorable light."
   
   Because the case involves several current and former members of the Scottsdale City Council, the Scottsdale City Attorney's Office referred the complaints to Tucson to avoid the appearance of conflict.
   
   The opinion from the Tucson City Attorney is very different from a February decision tied to a related criminal complaint.
   
   The Pima County Attorney's Office declined to prosecute a criminal complaint against the chamber on similar allegations of campaign finance violations, saying the laws in question were "fatally vague" and may violate First Amendment rights to free speech when applied to non-profit entities.
   
   Chamber President and Chief Executive Rick Kidder said he was surprised by the opinion from the Tucson City Attorney's Office.
   
   "I believe that one of the reasons we hired a good election attorney up front was to make sure our i's were dotted and our t's were crossed so that we weren't near any lines that could be construed negatively against us," Kidder said.
   
   The chamber has not decided yet if it will challenge the ruling, Kidder added.
   
   Lane said while it is the chamber's legal right to appeal, the process could be "destructive" and it would be better for the city if it was "all over and done with and we move on."
   
   "The worst part of all of this is how it impugns the reputation of a fine organization for the city," Lane said. "They're an important part of this city and their work helps move the city forward."
   
   Scottsdale spokesman Pat Dodds said the Scottsdale City Attorney's office and city clerk are reviewing the opinion to determine what actions to take.
   
   If Scottsdale follows the opinion's recommendations, the chamber could be subject to thousands of dollars in fines and would have to disclose who contributed to fund the mailers and commercials.
   
   Washington said he was happy to see some closure, but "it's a no-win situation for everyone."
   
   "Regardless of what the outcome would have been, the damage was done when the act was committed," Washington said. "The only thing I would say I'm pleased about is, now we have clarity in what is allowed during elections and hopefully we won't see this happen again."