Horne's defense plan detailed

As the campaign-finance allegations against Attorney General Tom Horne hang in legal limbo, documents obtained by The Arizona Republic offer insights into the case Horne and his co-defendant would make if it goes to court.

An attorney representing Kathleen Winn, Horne's director of community outreach, argues in the documents that allegations the two illegally coordinated campaign efforts are based on speculation. Attorney Timothy La Sota also questions investigators' tactics, revealing they not only continued to tail Horne more than a year after the alleged violation, but also followed Winn's attorney, Larry Debus.

Investigators' techniques "raise questions of bias and political motives and taint this entire investigation," La Sota wrote in a letter to the Secretary of State's Office.

"Despite all the resources poured into this investigation, all the interviews and surveillance … the FBI and Maricopa County Attorney's Office have speculation and conjecture, but not hard evidence," he wrote.

Horne and Winn last year were accused of unlawfully coordinating campaign spending during the 2010 election, when Horne was the Republican candidate for attorney general and Winn was chairwoman of Business Leaders for Arizona, an independent-expenditure committee. Both have denied wrongdoing.

After a 14-month investigation, Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery accused Horne and Winn of collaborating to quickly raise more than $500,000 to run negative ads against his Democratic opponent. By law, candidates are not allowed to coordinate certain activities with independent-expenditure committees.

Montgomery pursued a civil-enforcement action, but a judge this month ruled the case could not move forward because of legal technicalities and procedural failings by the Secretary of State's Office, which found reasonable cause exists to believe a campaign-finance violation occurred.

"While we certainly welcomed Mr. La Sota's submission, it doesn't change our reasonable cause determination," said Matt Roberts, Secretary of State Ken Bennett's spokesman. "It doesn't sway our opinion at all."

Montgomery declined to comment on La Sota's letter.

A spokesman for the FBI also declined to comment.

The judge said the secretary of state must submit the case to the Arizona Attorney General's Office to determine how to proceed. The Attorney General's Office can send the case to another law-enforcement agency or a private attorney for review, Montgomery has said.

While the case is with the Attorney General's Office, Horne, Winn "and immediate staff such as executive assistants," won't have access to information, discussion, or decisions on the case, according to Horne's spokeswoman.

In his letter to the secretary of state, La Sota says:

Despite authorities' "exhaustive" and "expensive" investigation, they were only left with "speculation and conjecture" about coordination.

La Sota wrote that calls between Winn and Horne before the release of an attack ad against Horne's Democratic rival were tied to a complex real-estate deal -- not the ad. Horne never referred anyone to an independent campaign to make a donation, never suggested to Winn the names of people to be solicited for contributions, never spoke to anyone about contributing to an independent campaign, and never weighed in on how an independent campaign's money should be spent.

A statute that Winn and Horne are accused of violating is unconstitutional.

La Sota argues the Arizona Revised Statute 16-905 "is blatantly unconstitutional" because contribution limits were too low, and therefore violated free speech and equal protection under the U.S. and Arizona constitutions. La Sota points out that the state Legislature this session raised contribution limits partly because "they were ripe for a free-speech challenge."

La Sota says Montgomery, in testifying before lawmakers, blamed the number of investigations by his office on low contribution limits. An affidavit from an official with the Goldwater Institute declaring current individual contribution limits under current state statutes are unconstitutional is included with La Sota's letter.

The FBI "came with an agenda and that was to get Tom Horne."

La Sota questions why the FBI was involved in the investigation. Authorities have said the FBI took the case because Horne was conflicted from investigating himself. La Sota accuses the FBI of attempting to "intimidate witnesses and lie to them in order to get them to say what they wanted." He accuses the FBI of threatening to use "the 'Martha Stewart' treatment"-- to send them to prison for lying -- to get them to cooperate.

La Sota says the FBI's undercover surveillance of Horne was "the most unseemly part" of the investigation. "The FBI was following the Arizona Attorney General around years after alleged civil campaign finance violations had been committed, looking for any type of infraction that they might be able to pin on him," he wrote. "What in the world did this have to do with a civil campaign finance matter?"

During that surveillance, the FBI saw Horne back a borrowed car into a Range Rover and leave without leaving a note. An FBI report states Horne did not leave a note because he was having an extramarital affair with a subordinate who was with him during the accident. Earlier this month, he pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor hit-and-run charge stemming from the incident and paid a $300 fine.

Democrats are trying to use Horne's driving offense -- and the FBI report accusing him of an affair -- to their advantage as Horne gears up for a re-election campaign. One Democratic senator has called on lawmakers to initiate impeachment hearings against Horne, and this week, the state Democratic Party called on him to explain the circumstances surrounding the accident.

La Sota also takes issue with investigators having a mole in the Attorney General's Office: "A one point and perhaps still to this day, the FBI had what they call a human asset apparently inside" the agency. La Sota said the mole raises questions about potential "invasions of attorney-client protected relationships to federalism concerns."

Copyright 2013 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here