State ethics commission finds reasonable grounds in Anna McCoy preliminary hearing on multiple reporting violations

The State Ethics Commission on March 24, 2025 voted that there are reasonable grounds to believe Anna McCoy violated multiple campaign finance and disclosure statutes, after staff presented an audit and a record of attempted resolution.

The determination followed a preliminary hearing for case number 24-0108C. Commission staff attorney Baywell told commissioners the office notified McCoy at the address she used to register with the commission and described six alleged missed campaign contribution disclosure reports (CCDRs) covering non-election filing periods and one late personal financial disclosure statement (PFDS). Baywell said staff had discussed a consent agreement with McCoy in late 2024 and sent a draft consent agreement for signature but had not received a signed document or other contact after early January 2025.

The commission’s finding matters because a preliminary hearing determines whether there is sufficient evidence to proceed to a formal enforcement stage. If probable cause is later established following the commission’s procedures, the matter could be resolved by consent order or scheduled for a hearing.

Baywell told the commission the staff’s analysis identified the following alleged violations by statutory citation: failure to file the 12/31/2021 election-year CCDR (OCGA 21-5-34(c)(2)(A)); failure to file non-election-year CCDRs for 6/30/2022, 12/31/2022, 6/30/2023 and 12/31/2023 and 6/30/2024 (OCGA 21-5-34(c)(1)(B) as presented); and a late PFDS for calendar year 2021 (OCGA 21-5-50(a)). Baywell said the initial complaint followed an internal audit and an addendum filed Feb. 20, 2025 corrected a statutory citation error in the original complaint.

Commissioners debated whether the apparent pattern reflected misunderstanding of the $2,500 affidavit rule. Commissioner Thompson and others noted that a $2,500 affidavit applies only to the election cycle in which it is filed and that candidates sometimes misunderstand whether that affidavit carries filings forward; staff said the commission’s statutory scheme requires the reports that were missed. Baywell told the commission McCoy had reported no post-2021 campaign receipts or expenditures in discussions with staff and said the campaign account reportedly still held $50.

Richard Dawson made seven separate motions — one for each alleged violation — to find there were reasonable grounds to believe McCoy violated the cited sections. Each motion drew a second and carried on voice vote; the chair called the question on each motion and commissioners answered “aye.”

The motions recorded by the commission: find reasonable grounds for (1) failing to file the 12/31/2021 election-year CCDR (OCGA 21-5-34(c)(2)(A)); (2) failing to file the 6/30/2022 CCDR (OCGA 21-5-34(c)(1)(B)); (3) failing to file the 12/31/2022 CCDR (OCGA 21-5-34(c)(1)(B)); (4) failing to file the 6/30/2023 CCDR (OCGA 21-5-34(c)(1)(B)); (5) failing to file the 12/31/2023 CCDR (OCGA 21-5-34(c)(1)(B)); (6) failing to file the 6/30/2024 CCDR (OCGA 21-5-34(c)(1)(B)); and (7) failing to timely file the calendar-year 2021 PFDS (OCGA 21-5-50(a)). All seven motions carried.

Commission staff and some commissioners noted the commission can consider misunderstandings about affidavit timing as mitigation when penalties are set, but that does not remove the commission’s obligation to determine whether reporting statutes were violated at the time alleged.

The commission recorded that the preliminary-hearing phase for case 24-0108C concluded with the seven reasonable-grounds findings; the record now proceeds under the commission’s enforcement process.

The meeting then moved on to other agenda items.