A Fulton County Superior Court judge indicated Friday that he’ll likely dismiss ethics charges against former Georgia Insurance Commissioner John Oxendine stemming from his failed 2010 campaign for governor.
After a two-hour hearing, Superior Court Judge Henry M. Newkirk did not rule from the bench but asked Oxendine’s lawyer, Douglas Chalmers, to draw up a proposed order for him to consider.
That order will call for the case, which began in 2009 and was revived last year, to be dismissed. If Newkirk signs the order, the state could appeal it, file a new complaint against Oxendine or drop the case.
“Mr. Oxendine should be able to put the 2010 gubernatorial campaign behind him,” Chalmers said, and throughout the hearing, Newkirk seemed to agree.
Oxendine, who served as the state’s insurance commissioner for 16 years, did not attend the hearing.
Oxendine was the early front-runner in the GOP race for governor in 2010, outfundraising and outspending his opponents. But he wound up losing the primary that year, and one of his Republican opponents, Nathan Deal, was eventually elected governor.
At the time, Oxendine already faced an ethics complaint alleging that he accepted $120,000 in illegal contributions from two insurance companies. The ethics complaint against the insurers for giving the money was dismissed in 2014 because the ethics commission’s staff had made so little progress on it. But the commission didn’t dismiss charges against Oxendine, the recipient of the donations.
Still, the case remained largely dormant until The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported last year that Oxendine failed to return more than $500,000 worth of leftover contributions from his gubernatorial bid and spent money raised for Republican runoff and general election campaigns that he never ran because he lost the primary.
Oxendine promised to return the leftover money after his ethics case ended.
Following the AJC report, ethics commission staffers filed an amended complaint against Oxendine, accusing him of improperly spending more than $208,000 raised for the runoff and general elections and accepting more than the legal limit in contributions from 19 donors.
Oxendine accused the commission's staff of wasting taxpayers' money, and the commission dismissed many of the charges in December after Chalmers argued that the statute of limitations had run out on charges involving the 2010 campaign.
But the commission kept alive the allegations that he took illegal contributions from the insurance companies and spent money raised for races he never ran, rather than returning it to donors.
Chalmers told Newkirk that it was “patently unfair” for the state to continue pursuing the charges and that commission staffers were misreading state law. He said state law neither prohibited candidates from accepting such bundled contributions nor from spending money raised for a runoff or general election for legitimate campaign expenses, even if the candidate lost in the primary.
He also accused commission staffers of releasing information to the media to make Oxendine look bad, and he said that the case has hurt the former commissioner’s reputation and business prospects.
Georgia Assistant Attorney General Christian Fuller told Newkirk that Oxendine “continues to keep and spend campaign money that he cannot keep, let alone spend.” Fuller, representing the ethics commission, said state law mandates that he return money to donors that he raised for elections he never ran, or he must give it to charity.
Fuller also noted that the Oxendine case had not yet been adjudicated by the commission, so taking the issue to court was premature.
But like Chalmers, Newkirk responded that the original case had gone on for seven years with no end in sight.
“It just seems that the delay that has taken place in this case is extraordinary,” Newkirk said.
He said the commission’s actions, through delays in the case, “keep a man’s life on hold and under a microscope.”
Newkirk did not say when he would rule in the case.
But some ethics watchdogs said if Oxendine is successful, the case could lead to more politicians asking the courts to interpret state ethics laws, rather than leaving it up to the commission. The ruling could also affect other ethics complaints awaiting commission action, officials said.
About the Author
