August 21, 2010

Mr. Ken Bennett

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE
State of Arizona
1700 W. Washington, 7th Fl.
Phoenix, AZ 85007

Mr.Todd Lang, Director

CITIZENS CLEAN ELECTIONS COMMISSION
1616 W. Adams Street
Phoenix, AZ 85007

Mr. Terry Goddard

Mr. James E. Barton, II
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
State of Arizona
1275 W. Washington
Phoenix, AZ 85007

Re: Campaign Finance Violations - LD 5

Sylvia T. Allen (Comm. No. 201000208) (Non-Participating)
Chester Crandell (Comm. No. 201000320)(Participating)
Brenda Barton (Comm. No. 201000189) (Participating)

Gentlemen:

We have reason to believe that Sylvia Allen, State Senate candidate for
Legislative District 5 is substantially under-reporting her campaign expenses. We
further believe that Ms. Allen is failing to comply with the obligation of sub-
vendor reporting. We also believe that Ms. Allen is financially contributing to the
campaigns of Chester Crandell and Brenda Barton in violation of the Clean
Elections laws. Lastly, we believe that Chester Crandell and Brenda Barton are
receiving financial contributions from Sylvia Allen’s campaign in the form of
political flyers without reporting the contributions or expenses associated with the
printing and dissemination of these flyers. Our position is set forth more fully
below.

CANDIDATE OVERVIEW

Sylvia Allen is a Republican Primary candidate for the office of State Senate for
Legislative District 5 (hereafter LD5). The name of her committee is “Committee
to Elect Sylvia T. Allen 2010", Committee #201000208. Her Treasurer is Walter
F. Dudley. Chester Crandell is a Republican Primary candidate for the office of
State Representative for LD5. The name of his committee is “Committee to Elect
Chester Crandell,” Committee # 201000320. His Treasurer is Marcie Lynn
Franco. Brenda Barton is a Republican Primary candidate for the office of State
Representative for LD5. The name of her committee is “Barton4AZ,”
Committee# 201000189. Her Treasurer is Donna Orbegoso.

Sylvia Allen is a “non-participating” candidate. Chester Crandell and Brenda

Barton are “participating” candidates. Attached as Exhibit 1 is the Campaign
Finance Report for Sylvia Allen filed August 11, 2010, for the Reporting period
of June 1, 2010 - August 4, 2010. Attached as Exhibit 2 is the Campaign Finance
Report for Brenda Barton filed August 11, 2010, for the Reporting period of June
1, 2010 - August 4, 2010. Attached as Exhibit 3 is the Campaign Finance Report
for Chester Crandell filed August 11, 2010, for the Reporting period of June 1,
2010- August 4, 2010.

CAMPAIGN VIOLATIONS: Sylvia Allen

Attached to this letter are multi-colored, two-sided campaign mailers for Sylvia
Allen’s current campaign for LD5. See Exhibits 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10. Also
attached to this letter are multi-colored, two-sided campaign mailers where Allen,
Barton and Crandell are running as a “team.” See Exhibits 11, 12 & 13. These
are expensive flyers that have been sent to potential Republican voters in LD5
with the obvious intent to persuade electors. These are expensive flyers. We
believe that these flyers cost a minimum of $0.45 to design, produce, print and
mail. We believe that have been mailed to at least 4,000 “high-efficacy””
Republican voters in LD5. If there are TEN (10) multi-colored, two-sided mailers
for 4,000 voters, then the cost for all of these mailers would be $18,000 (4,000
pieces x 10 mailers x $0.45 apiece).

In looking at Ms. Allen’s Campaign Finance Report (Exhibit 1) at page 40, there
is only one expense item listed and described that would explain the cost of
designing, producing and mailing these expensive flyers. There is a listing for
“High Noon Campaign Productions” for $6,650 for the reporting period
($7,187.50 total for the election cycle.) There is no plausible explanation for this
many mailers costing so little other than to claim fraud in the disclosure.
We also attach two campaign ads which are not appropriately accounted for in
the Campaign Finance Report. See Exhibits 14 & 15. Exhibit 14 is an ad that
appeared recently in the Payson Roundup and is for all three candidates (Allen,
Barton & Crandell.) This ad does not appear anywhere as an expense in Ms.
Allen’s Campaign Finance Report. (Exhibit 1.) Exhibit 15 is an ad that appeared
recently in The Beehive and again is for all three candidates (Allen, Barton &
Crandell.) Again, this ad does not appear anywhere as an expense in Ms. Allen’s
Campaign Finance Report. (Exhibit 1.)

There are multiple violations in this matter. First, it is clear that Ms. Allen is
substantially under-reporting the cost of mailing these flyers, and not even
reporting the costs of these newspaper ads. This is a violation of A.R.S.
§§16-901,915 and AAC R2-20-109. Second, it is clear that Ms. Allen has failed
to report any sub-vendors for the design and production and mailing of these
flyers, all in violation of AAC R2-20-109. Third, it is very difficult - if not
downright impossible - to determine who is paying for these ads as the writing
used is deceptively small. Fourth, by conflating the three candidates into one
flyer or ad, but not requiring the two participating candidates (Barton and
Crandell) to pay their proportionate share of these mailers or ads, Ms. Allen is
helping these other two candidates to defeat the limits of the Clean Elections laws
that Barton and Crandell agreed to be bound by.

CAMPAIGN VIOLATIONS: Brenda Barton & Chester Crandell

Ms. Barton and Mr. Crandell have both agreed to be “participating” candidates
under Arizona’s Clean Elections laws. As such they are given substantial
financial benefit by the State in exchange for their agreement to abide by strict
financial accounting in their respective campaigns. Search as one might through
the Campaign Finance Reports (Exhibits 2 & 3) there is no vendor or sub-vendor
listed for either candidate that explains the joint mailers ( Exhibits 11, 12 & 13.)

This is not a question of under-reporting. This is a question of no reporting

whatsoever. By accepting Ms. Allens’ campaigns’ largesse of design, production
and mailing of these flyers, without accounting for them on their reports, Ms.
Barton and Mr. Crandell have violated A.R.S. §§ 16-913, 915, 941, 948, 952, 958
and A.A.C. R2-20-109.

As for the Payson Roundup ad (Exhibit 14), neither Ms. Barton nor Mr. Crandell
accounted for this expense in their respective Campaign Finance Reports.
(Exhibits 2 & 3.) Accordingly, the “teeny-weeny” disclaimer on this ad that it
was paid for by all three committees is false. Again, Ms. Barton and Mr. Crandell
have violated A.R.S. §§ 16-913, 915, 941, 948, 952, 958 and A.A.C. R2-20-109.
Lastly we deal with The Beehive ad (Exhibit 15). This ad IS accounted for in
Mr. Crandell’’s Campaign Finance Report. (Exhibit 3.) But it is not otherwise
accounted for in Ms. Barton’s Campaign Finance Report. (Exhibit 2.) Again,
Ms. Barton and Mr. Crandell have violated A.R.S. §§ 16-913, 915, 941, 948, 952,
958 and A.A.C. R2-20-109.

CONCLUSION

These violations are not insubstantial. These ads are running and these flyers are
being mailed to voters during the “early vote by mail” season and are effectively
depriving candidate Bill Konopnicki of a fair election process. There will not be
a meaningful opportunity for Mr. Konopnicki to timely respond in kind to these
flyers. Accordingly, we ask that you act as swiftly as possible, and impose the
severest of sanctions allowed by law to send the message that this type of election
chicanery will not be allowed in Arizona. I look forward to hearing from you
shortly.

If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.

Very truly yours,

TREON, AGUIRRE, NEWMAN & NORRIS

Thomas M. Ryan