Chenoweth Revises Financial Data Campaign Accused Of Funneling Money Through Business

The congressional campaign of Republican Helen Chenoweth has filed a new round of amendments to its financial disclosure reports in another attempt to silence questions about its transactions with a business Chenoweth was a partner in.

The latest revisions essentially rewrite the last 18 months of financial transactions between the campaign and Consulting Associates Inc., which Chenoweth ran with longtime associate Vern Ravenscroft.

Up until the new revisions, the financial statements indicated that the campaign was paying excessive amounts of cash to Consulting Associates - at one time apparently by simply double paying invoices and at another by paying for consulting work on the current campaign after the business notified the state that it had dissolved. Those discrepancies have been blamed on clerical errors.

The state Democratic Party has filed a 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.

Campaign spokesman Graham Paterson said the numerous discrepancies in past reports were in many cases inexplicable. He blamed much of the problem on the campaign staffer responsible for the reports but who apparently did not have a real grasp of the accounting system required to keep them straight.

The Federal Election Commission has officially sought information on the post-election unsecured $40,000 West One Bank loan the campaign misrepresented for eight months as a personal loan not subject to strict bank loan restrictions. Chenoweth finally refinanced that loan last November with a second mortgage on her home. That loan might be an illegal corporate contribution.

The disclosure reports also suggest the campaign paid Consulting Associates two to three times the value of its actual office rental to use part of the space for the campaign. Paterson said proof to rebut the charge was being gathered.

The campaign now says that $8,400 it ran up with Consulting Associates in the month after Chenoweth’s 1994 election was not for consulting for the May 1994 primary as it had stated for over a year.

Instead, officials say it was for various charges between March 1993 when the campaign began and the end of 1994 that had not been billed before.

And the nearly $10,000 in payments the campaign made in 1995 to Consulting Associates - almost half of that seven weeks after the company said it was out of business - was not for consulting for the May 1996 primary as had been claimed in 1995 disclosure statements.

About $5,400 retired what was left of the $8,400 bill the campaign received at the end of 1994, $1,300 covered what Paterson said were the campaign operating expenses of Consulting Associates during January 1995.

, DataTimes