State Probes O.C. Sheriff’s Spending

The state attorney general is investigating whether Orange County Sheriff Michael S. Carona broke the law by billing his election committee for $130,000 in expenses that he did not itemize on campaign reports.

Legal experts said it was unusual for prosecutors to examine campaign spending unless there were questions of possible criminal violations. The state Fair Political Practices Commission handles most alleged campaign violations administratively, or as a civil matter, they noted. The commission, which cannot prosecute matters criminally, asked for help from Atty Gen. Bill Lockyer’s office.

“An attorney general’s investigation is much more serious,” said Bob Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies, a watchdog group. He cowrote the state law that created the commission.

Neither Carona, who is running for a third term this year, nor two of his attorneys responded to requests for comment.

The Times has reported that from 1999 to 2003, Carona’s committee paid him about $110,000 for meals, travel and other costs that were not identified as expenses on his campaign disclosure statements.

Carona listed the expenses as “loans” to his campaign fund, and the payments he received as reimbursement.

The Times also has reported that in 2004 and 2005, the sheriff billed his campaign for more than $20,000 without disclosing how the money was spent.

Carona attorney Michael Schroeder has said that the loans were properly reported, but he has declined to provide The Times with access to the receipts. He said the transactions were reported as loans because the sheriff, in effect, loaned his committee money by initially paying the expenses out of his own pocket.

The sheriff’s campaign treasurer, Lesley Stoll, has said that Carona turned in receipts for travel, meals and other expenses, and that she reported the totals as loans.

Most of the loans were reported in even figures, such as $2,000 or $4,000, rather than the odd numbers that a tally of receipts typically would produce.

Charles Bell, a Carona campaign attorney, has said this resulted from rounding off amounts of less than $100. The law, however, does not allow candidates to round off dollar amounts.

The loans were also reported at regular intervals. In 2003, for example, $4,000 was reported every other month the first half of the year and $2,000 the second half.

The state Political Reform Act generally requires officeholders to itemize individual payments of $100 or more and to report them as expenses. They must include the name and address of the recipient, the precise amount and a brief description of the outlay.

The act allows officeholders to spend campaign money on governmental, legislative and political activities, providing they keep receipts for all expenses. Such expenses could include taking a lawmaker to lunch, conference fees and noncampaign travel.

Campaign violations can range from misdemeanors to felonies, state prosecutors said. Reporting violations are usually misdemeanors, but more serious charges could be brought if money paid to an elected official is determined to have been misused as personal income, they said.

The attorney general’s investigation would probably begin in part with an examination of the receipts and other records, as well as interviews with people familiar with the expenses, said Ronald Turovsky, a Los Angeles attorney who specializes in political law.

Turovsky said investigators would have to find strong evidence of “knowing wrongdoing” by Carona or others to bring criminal charges.

Normally, the commission refers criminal investigations to local prosecutors. In this case, Lockyer’s office determined that Schroeder’s roles as an advisor to Carona and Orange County Dist. Atty. Tony Rackauckas posed a potential conflict.

Lockyer spokesman Nathan Barankin declined to discuss details of the investigation. He said the commission asked the attorney general for help about two weeks ago.

Longtime Orange County government watchdog Shirley L. Grindle asked the commission to investigate after reading the Times stories. In a written complaint, she contended that it was impossible to tell from Carona’s disclosure statements whether the expenses were legitimate.

In a follow-up complaint, Grindle said $68,000 to $104,000 that Carona reported as loans was not reimbursed within the 90-day period required under state law. She said that money might have to be returned.

John J. Pitney Jr., government professor at Claremont McKenna College, said Carona still enjoys an advantage over his election challengers in name recognition and campaign funding. But news of the investigation could hurt his reelection effort, especially considering other controversies that have dogged the sheriff, he said.

“You never know when these things reach a tipping point,” he said.

Carona’s former top aide has been indicted on bribery, perjury and other corruption charges, and one of his captains faces misdemeanor charges of illegally soliciting campaign money for the sheriff. Both deny any wrongdoing.

The attorney general’s office is also investigating allegations that Carona sexually harassed two women, accusations he denies.