Former state Rep. Pam Stanley of Atlanta is trying to make a political comeback in next month's Democratic primary, but she's got some heavy financial baggage left over from her decade in office.

Stanley last week signed a proposed Ethics Commission consent decree agreeing to pay back nearly $40,000 in campaign donations from 1999 to 2002 that she couldn't account for spending on her campaign. In the agreement, obtained by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution using the Open Records Act, Stanley also agreed to a $26,250 civil fine.

The proposed agreement will go before the State Ethics Commission for final approval in the next few months.

Officials say the restitution and fines would add up to the largest penalty levied by the commission against a legislative candidate.

It is illegal for candidates to spend campaign money on anything other than running for office or maintaining their elected position.

Over the course of three years, state investigators said Stanley converted about $40,000 worth of campaign donations to cash without disclosing how the money was spent.

Stanley, a caregiver to her ill mother, said the money went for legitimate campaign expenses, such as paying staff, buying equipment and other needs. But she acknowledges she did not keep records and failed to file campaign reports mandated by law.

Ethics Commission records show she still hasn't filed reports from her unsuccessful 2002 re-election campaign detailing what money she raised and how it was spent.

"I didn't keep good records and didn't file reports," Stanley said in an interview with the newspaper. "It was something I should have done that I didn't do. I wasn't just taking the money, no."

The State Ethics Commission referred her case to the attorney general's office for possible prosecution. The attorney general's office, in turn, asked Fulton County officials to look into it. Fulton County officials determined the violations were so old the statute of limitations had run out on them.

The winner of next month's Democratic primary between Stanley, who served in the House from 1993 through 2002, and lawyer/homemaker Elly Dobbs will replace Stanley's sister, LaNett, who is not seeking re-election. No Republican signed up to run for the seat.

Pam Stanley said she thinks the poor state of the economy is what most folks in her district are worried about, not her problems with the Ethics Commission.

"It's out there ... but I don't think it will resonate much with my constituency," she said. "They're about representing them, and everybody knows not everybody keeps great records. It's human error."

Stanley said she stopped filing campaign reports because she was "disgusted" with politics after her loss. However, she was converting campaign checks to cash well before her 2002 defeat, according to an Ethics Commission investigation. Between 1999 and 2002, commission investigators say about two-thirds of the money Stanley withdrew from her campaign account was converted to cash. She didn't report much of that spending on campaign disclosures, the Ethics Commission said.

Under the consent decree, Stanley will either have to return about $38,000 in contributions to contributors or give a like amount to charities or other nonprofit entities. The $26,250 fine would go into the state treasury.

The consent decree requires Stanley to pay $100 per month toward the fine and $100 a month to contributors or charity. At that rate, it would take her more than 20 years to pay the fine and more than 30 years to return the contributions.

Ethics Commission investigators would likely not have looked into Stanley's finances if she had filed campaign disclosure reports. However, the commission keeps close tabs on candidates who fail to file reports disclosing who contributed to their campaigns and how they spent money. The commission went through Stanley's bank records to reconstruct contributions and spending patterns.

"This consent order demonstrates the magnitude of the dedication the commission and its staff devotes to each case regardless of the lack of cooperation of some respondents," said Rick Thompson, executive secretary of the commission.

"The Ethics in Government Act's stated purpose is to 'protect the integrity of the democratic process and to ensure fair elections,' " he added. "Some people may not understand why it is important to pursue unsuccessful candidates who are nonfilers, but this case shows why it is important to require everyone to file. Disclosure reports are necessary for voters to make informed decisions."