Revenge is a dish best served cold, they say.
When it comes to Rep. Lance Pruitt, the campaign finance revenge complaints against him are very cold indeed.
The Alaska Public Offices Commission staff is seeking a large fine against Pruitt for various minor violations of campaign finance rules accrued in 2016 and 2018.
A handful of administrative errors and omissions on Pruitt’s reports were not discovered when APOC performed a routine audit of his campaign in 2016. The methodology he used in 2016, he continued in 2018, thinking all was well, since neither he nor APOC found anything amiss in his books.
But a treasurer who works on Democrat campaigns, Paula DeLaiarro, weaponized the APOC rules to hurt Pruitt politically at the end of the 2020 campaign. She found errors and omissions that, although minor, are now thousands of days old. That is going to hurt Pruitt financially.
Pruitt may not be the only candidate in DeLaiarro’s crosshairs. As one who makes a living defeating Republicans, she may be after other candidates, but she has up to five years to lodge a complaint and it’s to her war-room advantage to wait for as long as possible in order to rack up the most impactful fines against her company’s political foes.
DeLaiarro sent the complaint that stretches back four years to APOC in October, one month from the end of the election, forcing Pruitt to focus his attention on it, rather than his tight campaign against Liz Snyder, who ultimately won by 11 votes. The tactic was meant to embarrass Pruitt and distract him from campaigning.
Small administrative issues on a campaign report can bring fines that can add up to, in this case, over $1 million. Typically these fines are greatly reduced in the final accounting, as this one has been.
Because of the time that had lapsed — 1,500 days times $50 to $500 a day — the fine looks more serious than the offenses would appear to ordinary Alaskans. The Democrat operatives at Ship Creek Group, where DeLaiarro works, know that, and are taking advantage of it.
Pruitt will no doubt argue to the commission that most of the complaints brought forward by DeLaiarro were matters that were reported in good faith and that were remedied, where necessary.
‘This is the kind of thing that will discourage people from running because of the heavy hammer they can come down on you with,” Pruitt said. “It doesn’t do anything that APOC is supposed to do — which is to protect the public trust. Every dollar is accounted for. Everything is listed. There’s nothing to these but administrative. They audited it, they didn’t find anything,” he said. If they had found something in 2016, he would not have operated the same way in 2018.
The errors listed by APOC include
- Pruitt accepted more than $500 from one donor in 2016. The excess amount has already been returned when the error was discovered by Pruitt.
- Pruitt received a $250 contribution from an unregistered political group in 2018. Pruitt says he didn’t know the group was unregistered, but the group evidently failed to finish its own APOC paperwork.
- Pruitt failed to provide details of advertising purchased in 2016 and 2018. He says he provided details as soon as they were known.
- Pruitt improperly reimbursed himself for campaign expenses. He has corrected that.
“Staff recommends that the Commission find that Pruitt’s 2016 and 2018 campaign for House District 27 violated provisions of AS 15.13 by failing to accurately report incurred expenditures as debt, failing to provide information detailing media advertising placement and consulting services rendered, failing to timely reimburse personal funds or report the use of personal funds as contributions, and failing to return two prohibited contributions,” according to APOC.
Pruitt will take his case to the commission itself at its Jan. 13 meeting, but he will be forced to defend himself over the computer, which puts him at a disadvantage in front of a commission that will be on the other end of the Zoom lens.
