[Time line of attempts to pass legislation governing campaign-account expenditures]

By Holly Clark

A growing chorus of Virginia legislators and campaign reform activists wants the state to audit how politicians spend their political donations -- a system they say is open to abuse.

The General Assembly rejected such oversight this year but agreed to consider the issue again in 2003. By then, a citizens’ group hopes to have enough private money to conduct the audits -- thus pre-empting the major objection of opponents.

"Audits, in my opinion, will provide for more accountability," said Delegate S. Chris Jones, R-Suffolk. He has led the push for campaign-finance reforms, such as auditing the expenditures of a random sample of state politicians.

"A random and thorough review of the candidates selected will ensure or encourage that proper record keeping is of utmost importance," Jones said.

Most of the debate over Virginia’s almost-anything-goes campaign finance system has focused on the contributions politicians get. Virginia is among a handful of states that have no limits on the size of donations.

But some people want to draw attention to the other side of the system: how politicians spend their contributions. The money is supposed to go for campaigning and other political purposes, but it’s largely an honor system, said Steve Calos, executive director of the Center for Open, Ethical and Accountable Government.

Certain expenditures could raise eyebrows.

General Assembly members have used campaign funds to hire their own businesses, pay auto-license fees and buy computers and expensive furniture that they can use when they are out of office, according to an analysis of records by the Legislative Reporting class at Virginia Commonwealth University.

Legislators also tapped their campaign-finance accounts last year to make $1.4 million in donations to other politicians, community groups, labor unions and organizations like the National Rifle Association.

"Under the law, it’s permitted," Calos said.

For several years, campaign-finance reform advocates have been pushing the state to keep closer tabs on politicians’ expenditures.

An ethics commission under former Gov. L. Douglas Wilder first proposed auditing campaign accounts several years ago. Shortly after, the audits were backed by Common Cause of Virginia. (Before his current position, Calos was the executive director of the state chapter of Common Cause, a self-styled "citizens lobby.")

In 2000, the General Assembly considered legislation to require random audits of the campaign finance reports of legislators and statewide officeholders. The charge was led by newly elected Sen. D. Nick Rerras, R-Norfolk. Rerras defeated a longtime incumbent who had used his campaign contributions for personal matters, including leasing a Mercedes-Benz.

In January 2000, the Senate Privileges and Finance Committee voted to postpone consideration of the audit legislation until the following year.

At the same time, the General Assembly created a joint subcommittee, headed by Jones, to:

• Examine the costs of campaigning in Virginia.

• Study the effectiveness of the Commonwealth’s present disclosure laws and their enforcement.

• Scrutinize the constitutional options available to regulate campaign finances.

• Determine possible revisions in Virginia’s law to promote the integrity of, and public confidence in, Virginia’s campaign laws.

The study committee concluded that bills should be introduced to deal with campaign finance disclosure, Jones said. These bills should incorporate audits and "enhanced penalties for violations of the act and electronic filing of reports," he added.

During the 2001 legislative session, the idea of audits came up -- and got shot down -- again.

Some lawmakers expressed concerns that the audits would be intrusive and nitpicky.

"If I take a constituent out to lunch and buy a second piece of lemon pie, would I have to explain that?" Sen. H. Russell Potts Jr., R-Winchester, asked during a discussion of the issue.

At the time, Potts said he used $26,400 in campaign contributions for office and staff expenses and spent his entire legislative salary of $18,000 on constituent services.

This year, Jones proposed another bill requiring random audits of politicians’ expenditures. It would have required auditing five candidates in the 100 House races and two in the 40 Senate races.

However, Delegate Johnny S. Joannou, D-Portsmouth, amended the bill to require auditing every legislative candidate. He said it would be unfair -- and could mislead voters -- to single out only a handful of candidates for scrutiny.

Joannou’s amendment raised financial concerns among legislators: Because of Virginia’s budget crisis, they said they didn’t think the state would have enough money to audit all candidates.

As a result, Jones’ bill was put off for another year. It was referred to the House Appropriations Committee for the 2003 session, so the panel can consider the fiscal impact of the audits.

During the legislative session that ended in March, Jones attempted to save his bill, arguing that random audits are a starting point for reform. "If what I’m doing can’t stand the sunlight," he said, "then maybe I ought not to be doing it."

Given the General Assembly’s longstanding opposition to audits, Calos fears that legislators are looking for an excuse to kill the idea -- and that the excuse will be lack of money.

So he is seeking to remove that objection: Calos’ nonprofit group is raising private money to underwrite the audits of all legislative candidates. The Center for Open, Ethical and Accountable Government also might persuade accountants to donate their time to conduct the audits, he said.

Such donations of money and services, Calos said, would undercut legislators’ argument that the state can’t afford to audit campaign accounts.

> Return to On The Lege