On Thursday at 9 a.m., the Alaska Public Offices Commission will consider approving a consent decree regarding a high profile campaign finance complaint that begs some questions and demands some answers.

After a scathing report issued by the APOC staff on June 4, 2009 that alledged a coordinated effort to evade Alaska's campaign finance laws, the full commission is preparing to consider a watered-down settlement that in no way reflects the severity of the offenses as presented by the initial APOC investigation.

On March 20, 2009, an APOC complaint was filed by the Pebble Partnership and the Resource Development Council, an Anchorage business group. The complaint filed against local millionaire Bob Gillam, local advertising executive Art Hackney, and two others, accused them of violating state law by illegally laundering donations through various groups in order to fund an aggressive campaign to pass Ballot Measure 4: the anti-mining initiative that was on the August 2008 primary ballot.

The complaint

The complaint arose after emails surfaced raising questions about the group-coordinating pooling of donations and directing checks that Gillam would write to the various groups.

Interestingly, the numerous emails submitted to raise legal questions probably never would have come into the public domain if not for arrogance.

In Spring 2008, the group hired a political fundraising consultant named Robert Kaplan. Then, after spending four months of helping the anti-mining groups -- they ended up stiffing him.

In September 2008, a month after the anti-mining initiative failed, Kaplan was sent an email saying that his contract was cancelled and his commissions on fundraising would not be paid. Angry, Kaplan decided to collect his balance by forwarding damaging emails from key players to the proper authorities.

On June 4, 2009 the APOC staff issued a damaging 42 page report that among other things found the group had accumulated 18 various violations of campaign finance laws while spreading the cash amongst their various organizations.

The following is an excerpt from the APOC internal investigation report released June 4, 2009.

Despite the fact there were several formal organizations created, these four individuals, acting in concert with one another pulled all the strings, collected and pooled all the money, and determined how that money should be spent on the campaign for ballot measure 4. Under 15.13.400 and 2 AAC 50.290 they were a "group."

There is also a preponderance of evidence to show that Gillam, the Gillam Group, AJS, RRC and AFCW all violated the laws prohibiting the making and receiving of anonymous contributions or contributions in the name of another.

Staff recommends that the four members of the Gillam Group be assessed the maximum penalty for failing to register and report as a group.

Staff recommends that AFCW, AJS, RRC and Gillam be assessed the maximum penalty for making and accepting anonymous contributions, and making and accepting contributions in the name of another.

Staff recommends that RRC be assessed the maximum civil penalty for failing to report campaign expenditures for Ballot Measure 4 and expenses incurred on behalf of AFCW.

According to the APOC staff's report, they even recommended turning the issue over to the Attorney General.

Staff suggests that the Commission consider referring this case to the Attorney General under 2 AAC 50.476(b)(2) to investigate whether violations of AS 15.56 have occurred.

Several emails included in the APOC report highlighted the alledged coordination between the groups.

In response, both Gillam and Hackney said they had no idea how the various groups were going to spend the millions that Gillam donated and that the donations were completely without coordination including one group call Americans for Job Security.

The APOC staff investigator found this impossible to believe.

Even more disturbing than the contributions going through RRC is the enormous amount of money that passed through a group called Americans for Job Security (AJS).