"The big problem that I see right now," Monty told committee chair Eddie Farnsworth, "is a consequence of so many investigations that my office participated in is that the low level of contribution limits, both for individuals and in the aggregate creates an environment in which people who want to help to participate in the election process, those who want to advocate on behalf of a particular candidate or to provide information to voters can't really do so in donating directly to a candidate because of...what I would say are unconstitutionally low contribution limits."
A politician shilling for larger campaign contributions? Will wonders never cease?
Thing is, Montgomery is currently pursuing a civil case in administrative law court against Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne, alleging that Horne colluded with his now-employee Kathleen Winn to exceed campaign contributions, by having Winn run an independent expenditure committee on Horne's behalf.
Which is why Winn's lawyer, in a motion to dismiss filed recently, jumped on Monty's statement, pointing out that if Monty is right, then the MCAO "simply does not have a case."
I'm not armchair lawyer enough to know if such an argument will stick. Moreover, it's just one among many that attorneys for Winn and Horne are throwing at Administrative Law Judge Tammy Eigenheer, hoping their clients don't get dinged for upwards of $1 million each.
But Winn's attorney is definitely successful at one thing: Illustrating Monty's haughty "do as I say, not as I do," attitude toward public life.