Clean Elections releases Heap funding, launches probe

Heap's funding has been tied up since he qualified for the public financing program in July, pending the submission of a sworn statement certifying that his campaign finance reports are accurate. That statement was submitted this week.

Although the Citizens Clean Elections Commission voted to release the funds after the month-long delay, they unanimously voted that there was reason to believe the Heap campaign had violated campaign finance rules or statutes.

Arizona Corporation Commission hopefuls running in the Clean Elections program were eligible for $147,836 for the primary election and $221,915 for the general election.

The commission voted 3-1 to release funding and 4-0 on the merits of a complaint that claimed Heap didn't report the full cost of campaign signs at an Aug. 14 special meeting, launching further investigation into the claims.

Clean Elections Executive Director Tom Collins recommended the commission continue to withhold funding, given evidence that campaign finance violations had occurred.

Earlier this month, the commission voted to deny Heap's request to leave the public financing program, barring the candidate from raising private dollars. Heap received a wave of support from voters during public comment at the Aug. 14 meeting, who urged the commission to release him from the program or distribute the public financing.

Heap's campaign received a complaint that claimed a discrepancy between the number of signs supporting the orthopedic surgeon and state legislator and the reported spending on signage. Campaign finance reports show an expenditure of roughly $650, while other candidates have spent thousands.

His attorney wrote in a letter that the small figure paid to Mesa Sign Shop was because the order was made on credit. In an affidavit, Mesa Sign Shop owner Jim Torgeson wrote he provided the signs to Heap because of the candidate's creditworthiness and the size of the order — a decision he indicated was not unusual.

But Collins argues the April transaction was out of the ordinary, and the agreement should have been reported "the day it was made." Other candidates showed much higher spending with the same vendor within the same timeframe, according to his recommendation.

While it's unclear how many signs Heap bought, or what the total cost will be, Collins wrote that by agreeing to buy signs on credit, it appeared Heap's campaign had taken on more debt than it had earned. By the end of March, Heap had raised roughly $10,000.

"Dr. Heap's campaign finance reports suggest that his campaign committee did not have sufficient cash to pay Mesa Sign when he placed the order in late April, when the sign order was completed in late May or at any point prior to qualifying for Clean Elections funding," Collins wrote. "Dr. Heap has not provided any information that would counter this."

Collins rejected an argument by Heap's attorney that the extension of credit fell under an exception. Instead, he wrote that the agreement counted as a contribution, and therefore should have been limited and reported.

"Dr. Heap obtained goods and services from Mesa Sign Shop that he has not yet paid for, and his campaign finance reports do not disclose the transactions, which they must, in my view," Collins wrote. "This transaction and failure to report represent illegal activity that goes to the heart of Dr. Heap's agreement to participate as a Clean Elections candidate."