To some watchdog advocates, the move is problematic -- and it's one that has become a bit of a headache for the Independent Ethics Commission, too.
Gessler, the state's chief election officer and the subject of last week's cover story, has faced a great deal of scrutiny for using state funds to go to Florida last summer for a trip that involved two GOP-related events.The accusations that he should not have spent state money eventually prompted the Denver District Attorney's office and the Independent Ethics Commissions, or IEC, to launch full investigations -- both of which are ongoing. Gessler, a Republican, has always maintained his innocence, arguing in official filings that he only used his office's funding for official business and that the accusation is an unmerited attack from a liberal group.
Despite Gessler's requests for dismissal, the Ethics Commission is pushing forward with its inquiry this month.
One of his most recent filings with the IEC was a request for an "advisory opinion" regarding the establishment of a legal defense fund that would help him pay his attorneys in the criminal investigation. In the ethics case, Gessler has hired his own attorneys, but he was able to use his office's official legal budget to pay them. In the criminal case, Gessler also hired private attorneys, However, he has been paying them out of pocket.
A legal defense fund, his office argues, would allow him to collect donations to help cover legal fees for his criminal defense. There's not much of a precedent for this kind of fund and there are questions around whether it could violate Colorado's Amendment 41, which prohibits gifts to public officials.
An opinion from the IEC saying that this is allowed would essentially protect Gessler from accusations of further unethical acts if he were to create the fund.
Suthers, a Republican who has supported Gessler in other controversies, sent a short letter on January 8 to the IEC, saying that he believes this legal defense fund would not constitute a violation of Amendment 41.
The letter, on full view below and first reported by the Colorado Independent, reads:
Contributions to a legal defense fund would not per se amount to an attempt to influence an official act. Id. Moreover, the risk or perception of undue influence associated with a contribution to a legal defense fund may be mitigated by eliminating the possibility of quid pro quo contributions. The Attorney General submits that an arrangement that: (1) places appropriate limits on the public official's solicitation of contributions, and (2) either ensures transparency or establishes a blind trust would be consistent with the concerns that Amendment 41 identifies.Signed by Assistant Attorney General Matthew Grove, the letter functions as an official statement in support of Gessler's request -- and the IEC can take it into consideration as it debates the merits of the fund.
Carolyn Tyler, a spokeswoman for the Attorney General's office, tells us that Suthers wanted to weigh in because this is a situation that has wider implications than this single request from Gessler.
"He believes the issue of whether a public official can raise funds for a legal defense...for a criminal investigation or prosecution has ramifications far beyond this particular case," says Tyler. "It was appropriate to inform the Independent Ethics Commission of the AG's [opinion]."
Continue for response from the IEC and Colorado Ethics Watch.