Fate of Chalk contribution still unsettled

Does a ruling by the State Ethics Commission mean former Warner Robins mayoral candidate Chuck Chalk has to return the majority of a $10,000 contribution?

The can of worms was opened after the commission’s advisory opinion Thursday that rules in place have always been interpreted to include limits to campaign contribution amounts, made either by campaign, political group or individual. State Ethics Commission officials did not return calls for comment on the situation.

What is clear is this: Chalk accepted a contribution from a campaign account for the late Mayor Donald Walker the State Ethics Commission now says is unlawful. The opinion, though, came after the commission dismissed a complaint against Chalk in August, saying it could not rule either way before clarifying issues between a section of the Ethics in Government Act and a rule speaking to contribution limits.

The ruling comes nearly eight months after The Telegraph first reported in January that Chalk may have violated campaign contribution rules by accepting the $10,000 contribution.

At the time, State Ethics Commission officials said little could be done unless someone filed a complaint with regards to the contribution. Warner Robins resident Charles Rose did that in March, alleging the contribution was not within the limits specified in the Ethics in Government Act.

Chalk listed the donation on year-end campaign contribution reports submitted to the city Dec. 31. He listed receiving the contribution Dec. 19. Walker, who was running for re-election, committed suicide Sept. 28.

Chalk said he had not directly spoken to State Ethics Commission officials at the time issues with the contribution were raised, but mentioned someone he trusted had. State Ethics Commission officials last month cited assistance from former board member Sonny Watson, whom they said had been working with them and the Chalk campaign to get a handle on the situation.

Commissioners discussed during Chalk’s hearing last month how to handle a conflict between section 21-5-33, which speaks to the disposition of contributions and says contributions to a candidate may be transferred “without limitation” to any national, state or local committee of any political party or to any other candidate. Officials said in January that it shouldn’t take precedence over section 21-5-41, which states “no person or political entity shall receive more than $2,400 from a single donor during a general election and $1,200 during a general election runoff.”

Last month, State Rep. Wendell K. Willard asked the state Attorney General’s Office to issue an opinion on the matter.

Panel’s interpretation

The State Ethics Commission writes in its opinion that the phrase “without limitations” was meant to speak to the number of contributions, not the amount being transferred as could have been conveyed.

“We interpret the words ‘without limitation’ as a reference to the types of organizations to which a candidate may contribute excess contributions and not as a reference to contribution limitation amounts or an exemption therefrom,” the opinion states.

A message left for State Ethics Commission Executive Secretary Stacey Kalberman about how the ruling would affect the commission’s ruling on Chalk’s case, up to and including his having to return $7,600 of the contribution, was not immediately returned.

Chalk lost a close runoff election against Mayor Chuck Shaheen after quickly gaining speed in the weeks following Walker’s death in late September. He received contributions of more than $12,000 in two weeks’ time — all from Walker supporters, including Walker’s widow, Patricia, daughter Stephanie and brother Tommy.

The money could have been used to pay back a $10,000 loan Chalk took out from Robins Federal Credit Union to help fund his campaign.

According to the contribution reports, Chalk deducted $10,230 on Dec. 31 to repay loans he’d given his campaign.

Bill Bozarth, executive director for Common Cause Georgia, a nonprofit political watchdog group, said this issue is far from over.

Bozarth said the commission now has “to explain themselves, having gone down one path on Aug. 17, then doing a 180 on Sept. 2. How do they rationalize having dismissed (the Chalk case)?”