Masek decision points to need for tougher rules, penalties

Campaign finance violations are going to cost outgoing state representative Beverly Masek $1,000. The charges brought against her by former aide Eric Musser could have totaled more than $28,000 in fines, but staff at the Alaska Public Offices Commission had recommended about $7,000.

The commission settled on the $1,000 number because it accepted Masek's explanation of how much of the money in question came to be in her POET account, and how and why it was spent the way it was. Masek explained that much of the money in that public account was her own, and that it was her personal money she spent on things like credit card payments, snowmachine repairs and a loan to her son.

The commission, on most counts, accepted that explanation. Regulations do imply that candidates should not commingle personal and campaign funds, but do not explicitly forbid it. According to the commission, that was enough to let Masek off lightly. Also contributing to Masek's soft punishment was the fact that she failed to keep accurate records of her finances. It was virtually impossible, based upon the scant records Masek provided, for the commission to tell the personal money from the public money. Since it couldn't prove the money wasn't Masek's, the commission decided to take her word that it was.

There are probably a lot of reasons for this APOC decision. On the side of compassion, Masek just lost to Mark Neuman in the primary, so her days as a representative are numbered, anyway. Further, Masek's attorney has said she simply can't afford to pay a large fine. On the side of pragmatism, it's probably true that finance rules are not as explicit as they could be, and the commission may feel uncomfortable playing an interpretive role.

Unfortunately, that's the role the commission is supposed to play. It's incumbent upon every elected official to know the rules, and it's always advisable to err on the side of caution. What logical explanation is there for placing personal funds in a public account? At best, it smacks of poor judgment, and at its worst, it give the impression of dishonesty. The fact that Masek mixed her personal funds with public money and then kept such poor records that her money was indistinguishable from campaign money should seem suspect to even the most trusting people.

This decision sets a precedent of leniency that sends the wrong message to politicians and to the public. The rules need to be rewritten and the consequences for breaking them should be tough.