Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Enforcement Case topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State Ethics Commission finds reasonable grounds on seven alleged filing violations against Anna McCoy
Summary
At a March 24 meeting the commission voted voice approvals to find reasonable grounds that Anna McCoy failed to file multiple campaign disclosure reports and a required personal financial disclosure, advancing the matter from staff complaint to the next enforcement posture.
The State Ethics Commission on March 24 voted, by a series of voice motions, to find reasonable grounds that Anna McCoy violated state campaign‑finance and disclosure laws by failing to file multiple required campaign contribution and expenditure reports and a late personal financial disclosure.
Staff presented case 24‑0108C and told commissioners McCoy filed a $2,500 affidavit covering the 2021 general election but missed subsequent non‑election CCDR filing deadlines in calendar years 2022, 2023 and a 06/30/2024 report. Staff also said McCoy’s personal financial disclosure for calendar year 2021 was filed 21 days late. The presentation noted the complaint began after an internal audit and that staff attempted outreach and a proposed consent agreement before filing the complaint in October 2024.
Commissioners questioned whether the record showed any campaign spending after the 2021 affidavit and discussed common confusion among local filers about when a $2,500 affidavit remains effective. Staff said the affidavit covers the election cycle when filed and outlined three post‑election options candidates commonly choose: maintain accounts on the default non‑election filing schedule, refile a $2,500 affidavit, or terminate the account.
Commissioner Thompson moved seven times — once for each alleged violation (12/31/2021 election‑year CCDR; non‑election CCDRs for 06/30/2022, 12/31/2022, 06/30/2023, 12/31/2023 and 06/30/2024; and a late PFDS for 2021 under OCGA 21‑5‑58). Each motion was seconded and carried on a voice vote; the transcript records unanimous “aye” responses but does not record a roll‑call tally.
Next steps recorded in the meeting: the matters will proceed according to the commission’s enforcement process (preliminary hearing findings advance cases toward resolution by consent order or formal hearing). The chair noted that if a consent agreement is executed before the June calendar, a preliminary hearing may be avoided; otherwise the case could be set for a preliminary hearing in June.
