(Caution: 1998 Prop. 105 applies)
A. The civil penalty for a violation of any contribution or expenditure limit in section 16-941 by or on behalf of a participating candidate shall be ten times the amount by which the expenditures or contributions exceed the applicable limit.
B. In addition to any other penalties imposed by law, the civil penalty for a violation by or on behalf of any candidate of any reporting requirement imposed by this chapter shall be one hundred dollars per day for candidates for the legislature and three hundred dollars per day for candidates for statewide office. The penalty imposed by this subsection shall be doubled if the amount not reported for a particular election cycle exceeds ten percent of the adjusted primary or general election spending limit. No penalty imposed pursuant to this subsection shall exceed twice the amount of expenditures or contributions not reported. The candidate and the candidate's campaign account shall be jointly and severally responsible for any penalty imposed pursuant to this subsection.
C. Any campaign finance report filed indicating a violation of section 16-941, subsections A or B or section 16-941, subsection C, paragraph 1 involving an amount in excess of ten percent of the sum of the adjusted primary election spending limit and the adjusted general election spending limit for a particular candidate shall result in disqualification of a candidate or forfeiture of office.
D. Any participating candidate adjudged to have committed a knowing violation of section 16-941, subsection A or subsection C, paragraph 1 shall repay from the candidate's personal monies to the fund all monies expended from the candidate's campaign account and shall turn over the candidate's campaign account to the fund.
E. All civil penalties collected pursuant to this article shall be deposited into the fund.
Notes of Decisions
Smith v. Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Comm'n, 132 P.3d 1187 (Ariz. 2006).
· cites it 5× “A.R.S. § 16-942. ¶2 Following an investigation of Smith’s campaign expenditures, the Commission determined that Smith violated campaign finance rules by spending approximately seventeen percent more on his election than is permitted by law.”
David B Smith v. Clean elections/hon Terry Goddard (Ariz. 2006).
· cites it 5× “A.R.S. § 16-942. ¶2 Following an investigation of Smith’s campaign expenditures, the Commission determined that Smith violated campaign finance rules by spending approximately seventeen percent more on his election than is permitted by law.”
Legacy Found. Action v. Citizens Clean Election (Ariz. 2023).
· cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 16-942(B). The commissioners again found the Commission had jurisdiction, concluded probable cause existed Legacy had violated the Act by failing to comply with reporting statutes, and assessed a penalty of about $95,000.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-942(B) — 1 case
Legacy Found. Action v. Citizens Clean Election (Ariz. 2023).
“See A.R.S. § 16-942(B). The commissioners again found the Commission had jurisdiction, concluded probable cause existed Legacy had violated the Act by failing to comply with reporting statutes, and assessed a penalty of about $95,000.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-942(C) — 2 cases
Smith v. Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Comm'n, 132 P.3d 1187 (Ariz. 2006).
“A.R.S. § 16-942. ¶2 Following an investigation of Smith’s campaign expenditures, the Commission determined that Smith violated campaign finance rules by spending approximately seventeen percent more on his election than is permitted by law.”
David B Smith v. Clean elections/hon Terry Goddard (Ariz. 2006).
“A.R.S. § 16-942. ¶2 Following an investigation of Smith’s campaign expenditures, the Commission determined that Smith violated campaign finance rules by spending approximately seventeen percent more on his election than is permitted by law.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.