Chenoweth Finance Report Raises Questions Democrats Accuse Lawmaker Of Paying Her Salary At Defunct Consulting Firm With Campaign Funds

A newly revised campaign finance disclosure statement shows the 1996 campaign of Congresswoman Helen Chenoweth paid up to $4,600 to a firm she was once a partner in nearly eight weeks after the state was notified that the company was no longer in business.

The third and fourth amendments to the disclosure statement for the second half of 1995 along with a third amendment to the statement for the first six months of 1995 and the initial statement for the first three months of this year were all filed after 5 p.m. Friday with the secretary of state’s office. All were dated on Thursday or earlier.

An attempt to contact the Chenoweth campaign for an explanation of the latest financial discrepancies reached only its telephone message recorder late Friday. The message was not returned.

The latest changes to the 1995 disclosures showed that the campaign paid Consulting Associates Inc. $4,560 and $541.81 on Dec. 29, 1995, for consulting work on the 1996 primary race. Consulting Associates is the firm Chenoweth operated for years with associate Vern Ravenscroft.

But Ravenscroft filed a declaration with Secretary of State Pete Cenarrusa on Nov. 5, 1995, in which he said Consulting Associations “is no longer an active business” and was being liquidated. Chenoweth was still listed as the company’s registered agent on that declaration.

Earlier reports on that period showed payment at the same time of different amounts that corresponded with outstanding bills the campaign said it had with the company. The latest revision, however, dramatically reduced the amount of cash the campaign admitted owing.

The state Democratic Party has filed a formal complaint with the Federal Election Commission, accusing Chenoweth of funneling cash through her campaign to Consulting Associates so it could pay her salary as one of its officers. She has denied the charge.

Past reports have also raised questions about rental payments the campaign made to Consulting Associates and its office-space landlord during the 1994 race. Chenoweth has denied any impropriety there as well.

The July-December 1995 report only changed the questions about financial transactions Chenoweth reported previously with Consulting Associates. According to past reports, the Chenoweth campaign opened 1995 owing the company just under $5,850 for work done during the 1994 campaign. The original and first amendment to the January-June 1995 report showed she paid $2,028 on March 13 to cut the debt to just over $3,800. The figures on a second amendment do not add up, but it also shows the debt at the end of June at $3,800.

But then the third amendment filed Friday reduced the debt on Jan. 1, 1995, to $3,800 and deducted the March 13 payment from that total leaving only $1,800 outstanding at the end of June. The campaign shows that was repaid with $500 on Nov. 30, 1995, and $1,300 on Dec. 29., 1995.

None of the statements indicates how the debt dropped from more than $5,800 on Dec. 31, 1994, to $3,800 on Jan. 1, 1995, according to the latest amendment, creating the questions about payment for work by a company that has been out of business for nearly two months.

In an April 9 letter to the federal commission, campaign treasurer Wayne Crow said the discrepancy was “due to a clerical error in coding the $2,028 payment” that was not what he called a debt/obligation expenditure.

That same letter also addresses the controversy over an unsecured $40,000 West One Bank loan to the campaign that Chenoweth had represented for eight months as a personal loan. Banks are precluded from giving special treatment to congressional candidates.

Chenoweth eventually acknowledged the source of the loan and paid the money back by taking out a second mortgage on her Boise home. She still owes nearly $28,000 on that mortgage as well as $55,500 in a personal loan she made to the 1994 campaign nearly two years ago.