The Bronson Campaign's Response to APOC's Staff Report is Some Word Soup
Bronson campaign counsel Stacey Stone has submitted the campaign's response to APOC's amended staff report, and let me tell you—the response is a big bowl of word soup.
Walker-Mallott
This year's Anchorage mayoral election is not the first time Stacey Stone and Paula DeLaiarro (treasurer for the Dunbar campaign) have gone head to head.
In September 2018, DeLaiarro, in her capacity as treasurer for the Walker-Mallott campaign, filed an APOC complaint against the Republican Governors Association (RGA), who had hired Stone as counsel.
The complaint alleged that the RGA made expenditures by reserving over $1 million in TV time to be used in the 2018 Gubernatorial race but had never registered with APOC. After the August Primary (which Dunleavy won), RGA "gave" the reservations to an IE group, Families for Alaska's Future - Dunleavy (FFAF). Then the RGA contributed the money to FFAF to pay for the reserved time.
Stone argued unsuccessfully that the reservations had no value and therefore were not expenditures. During the APOC expedited hearing, Stone compared the creation of media reservations to making dinner reservations—that you could cancel without penalty, so the reservations had no value.
Of course, dinner reservations are not required to be reported to the FCC. The APOC Commission ruled that the reservations constituted expenditures and RGA should have registered with the Commission before making them. The case was appealed to the Alaska Superior Court, which upheld the decision, and finally to the Alaska Supreme Court, which ruled that:
"Substantial evidence supported the Commission’s finding that the reservations were agreements or promises, that they had value, and that RGA made them for the purposes of influencing an election. We thus conclude that RGA’s reservations constituted expenditures."
Bronson's Response to Amended Staff Report
When looking at the Bronson campaign's response, one must remember that David Bronson began making campaign expenditures before registering with APOC and was fined for purchasing a domain registration, having a website created, and campaign signs printed. APOC assessed a civil penalty of $675 for that violation last September. APOC also fined the Bronson for Mayor campaign $500 in May for what it said was a late filing of their 7-Day Campaign Disclosure Report due on May 4, but the campaign filed a day late on May 5, 2021.
Throughout Bronson's response to the APOC Staff Report, Stone argues for a reduction in fines, but APOC cited in its Staff Report these two previous fines as the basis for not recommending any additional penalty reductions.
APOC Staff concluded the Bronson campaign failed to file full and complete reports. Stone tells APOC in the campaign's response that even though campaign volunteers put forth their "best efforts," the campaign "recognizes that certain errors were made when the campaign filed its reports with the Commission."
That's putting it mildly.
Stone argued that the Bronson campaign filed several amendments—insisting that the campaign was working "as fast as possible" through its books, records, and with its various vendors to obtain information to correct any errors in "real-time." But, unfortunately, Stone left out the bit about APOC's Staff finding that it was not until Bronson for Mayor filed its May 11, 2021, amendments to its year-start, 30-day, and 7-day reports that the Bronson campaign's reports came even close to compliant.
Those amendments were filed after polls closed on the day of the mayoral runoff—hardly expeditious, and the timing of which APOC noted in its Staff Report.
The Bronson campaign amended its reports a mind-boggling 13 times in total. Four times on their Year Start Report and 3 times each on their 30-day, 7-day, and 7-day runoff reports.
In the campaign's response, Stone wrote that they agreed with Staff Report's determination that the Commission should dismiss polling expenses. Here, Stone references the WPA Intel and Remington Research polls but may have forgotten that APOC only fully dismissed the Remington Research poll allegation.
In its Staff Report, APOC wrote they were dismissing the WPA Intel poll allegation “without prejudice,” recommending that APOC be able to “continue its investigation and file its own complaint if the facts warrant it.”
Related: Recall Rivera Campaign Refused to Provide WPAI Polling Information
Leaning on the recent Ninth Circuit Court of appeals ruling, Stone argues that the federal courts found the over-the-limit limitation unconstitutional and should be summarily dismissed.
Bronson sure has been the recipient of some major breaks. First, the pandemic and now the Ninth Circuit Court's ruling. Regarding the Ninth Circuit Court's recent ruling, the Dunbar campaign was careful to refund over-the-limit contributions on time and is now ineligible to get those contributions back.
By being tardy in complying with campaign finance requirements that were in effect at the time of the campaign, Bronson might get to keep those overages. So, in essence, he could wind up being rewarded for being non-compliant. Ultimately, I think the over-the-limit contribution issue is going to be difficult for the Commissioners to decide.
You can read the Bronson campaign's response below.
