ELECTION LAW FRUSTRATES PROSECUTOR

Cape Girardeau County Prosecuting Attorney Morley Swingle wants the state to change the way campaign disclosure laws are enforced.

Swingle last week chose to not file charges against the treasurer of the Elect-A-Neighbor Committee for alleged violations of state campaign disclosure laws.

The prosecutor summarized a 289-page report on his investigation of the matter by saying he didn't believe Mary Ann "Miki" Gudermuth had any criminal intent when her committee failed to file the appropriate financial disclosure statements.

He said Saturday the state's campaign finance review board ought to have administrative fiat to enforce election laws.

"The way it is now, as I see it, the prosecutor is stuck in the middle of a political squabble when his job is to prosecute criminals," Swingle said.

Violators of state election laws rarely are prosecuted, he added, in part because it's so difficult to convince a jury of criminal intent when complicated disclosure requirements are at issue.

"The other two cases that have been referred to my office since I've been prosecutor involved a judge running for election and another was a candidate for sheriff," he said. "If anyone should know the law, it's a judge or sheriff.

"But those were similar situations. I felt like it was ignorance of the law rather than criminal intent, and yet those were people supposedly knowledgeable of the law."

Swingle said that at the time he dealt with the judge's campaign disclosure violation a few years ago, no one in Missouri had been prosecuted for election law violations.

"I would assume there had been violations referred to prosecutors in other parts of the sate, and if there's been no prosecution at all, I think that's another indication this isn't working and there should be some changes," he said.

Swingle's most recent election law case arose when Curtis Smith, a former Cape Girardeau city councilman, filed a complaint against the Elect-A-Neighbor Committee, citing 11 violations of state campaign disclosure laws.

The committee last fall promoted a ballot initiative on city ward elections. Voters overwhelmingly supported the measure, which changed the city charter by dividing the city into six wards from which council members will be elected in lieu of the current at-large system.

The Missouri Campaign Review Board sent the information on three of the violations cited in Smith's complaint to Swingle but did not make any recommendation.

The prosecutor's only options were to do nothing or prosecute members of the committee for violations of a misdemeanor crime.

"There's a huge burden of proof in criminal proceedings," Swingle said. "You have to convince 12 jurors that not only did a violation occur, but that there was criminal intent to purposely thwart the law.

"I'm not sure criminal penalties are what you want. I don't think that accomplishes what you're after."

Swingle said he would prefer that the Campaign Review Board, or some state administrative agency, have the authority to invalidate or reverse election results in cases where violations occurred.

"I think that's what Curt Smith wanted," he added. "There could be a better way to have the law written."

Swingle said he discovered at least one apparent violation of disclosure requirements through his investigation.

On October 30, five days before the fall election, Jim Drury contributed $2,100 to the committee. Swingle said his investigation showed the check was deposited in the committee's bank account on that day.

Gudermuth told Swingle that her campaign disclosure report, which didn't show the Drury contribution, was mailed to the county clerk's office before she got the $2,100 check.

"We talked to a clerk at the county clerk's office who said that was not mailed, and that she delivered that report in person Nov. 2," Swingle said. "Most likely, she filed that Nov. 2, saying that they were under $1,000, when she had already deposited the check for $2,100."

He also said state laws require disclosure of all large, pre-election contributions, regardless of whether they were made after the report filing deadline.

"The Drury contribution came five days before, so they thought, technically, it didn't have to be reported," Swingle added. "But there's a statute that says if a contribution comes after the seven-day report and before the election, you're required to file a report within 48 hours.

"Technically, that's where the clear violation occurred."

Yet Swingle said he isn't convinced Gudermuth intentionally violated the law.

"The more I looked into it, the more difficult it got to prove that she had any criminal intent to do anything," he said.

Swingle said his office spent an inordinate amount of time investigating the matter time that could have been better spent working on felony cases.

"At least through the publicity this has received, hopefully it will educate the public that the same laws that apply to a private person running for office also apply to a campaign committee working on behalf of a ballot measure," he said.