Local opinion: Tucson voters deserve full transparency

The Star’s August 15th Political Notebook covered my campaign’s complaint about Kevin Dahl’s campaign finance violations, reporting his consultant’s explanations as if they resolved the matter. They did not. Several comments were inaccurate, misleading, and dismissive of serious potential violations in an election decided by 19 votes.

From my first day on the TUSD Governing Board through this campaign, I have prioritized transparency and accountability. Campaign finance rules protect fairness and integrity, and when they are broken without consequence, it distorts democracy. I ran as a Clean Elections candidate because the program reduces incumbents’ advantages and levels the playing field by limiting how much a candidate and their family can contribute. We believe Dahl exceeded those limits while underreporting personal contributions.

The Star cited a memo from the City Clerk stating candidates could contribute up to $5,630.86. That is correct for the full election period, but the primary limit is $4,223.15, or 3% of the $140,771.70 primary expenditure limit. Kevin likely exceeded that by underreporting in-kind contributions and may have violated the overall limit.

Here is our reasoning:

• $3,179.88 reported as “contributions from candidate”
• $530 in family contributions (count toward the limit)
• $600 for VoteBuilder, software which Dahl never reported but clearly used

That totals $4,309.88, already over the primary limit. Dahl also reused hundreds of campaign signs from his last race without reporting them. At $5.75 each from Gloo Factory, those signs would add one to several thousand dollars. Campaign finance law requires all such contributions, including “property-in-kind ... for use in advocating or influencing the election of the candidate,” to be reported. While his consultant told the Star he had “never heard of campaign materials being considered as in-kind donations,” Tucson’s rules define a contribution as anything used “for the purpose of influencing an election.” This gave him a significant advantage in a race this close.

Dahl’s consultant also claimed the $600 VoteBuilder expense was reported, but no such line item appears on his reports. Multiple “NGP VAN” expenditures match the cost of Mobilize, a separate platform campaigns use, at $108.70 per month. One charge of $326.10 divides evenly into three months of Mobilize, and since Dahl began canvassing in March, a July 12 charge of that amount is unlikely to be for VoteBuilder. Since our campaign (like every viable Democratic campaign) also uses VoteBuilder, we’re familiar with the charge and the fact that, since it requires payment, its use must be reported.

The consultant said the allegation of not paying for VoteBuilder “was a little confusing,” which is confusing to us: it’s strange that a consultant, not the treasurer or candidate, was explaining the reports.

Dahl waited until two weeks before Election Day to amend his Period C report, adding $2,679.88 of candidate contributions from February and March that had gone unreported for months. By then, our campaign was engrossed in Get Out the Vote efforts, with little capacity to respond. Had these contributions been reported when incurred, we would have raised the issue earlier.

While our campaign was new to Tucson’s Clean Elections process and faced challenges navigating rules and corrections not clearly outlined in the city’s rulebooks, Dahl and his treasurer are well-versed. Dahl is a current City Council member running his second Clean Elections campaign, and his treasurer is highly familiar with the rules, having worked on multiple campaigns and for the city department that oversees campaign finance. Even so, my treasurer immersed herself in the process to uphold the highest standards. In an election this close, this is not a minor issue — it is a substantial violation that could have impacted the outcome. If the roles were reversed, voters would rightly expect the same scrutiny of my campaign.

I will not apologize for standing by the principle that rules must apply equally to everyone, no matter their position or connections. This is why I ran for City Council: to work for a Tucson where what you do matters more than who you are or know, and where fairness is not negotiable.