blow the whistle
$show the love

let the records reflect

Sen. Millar refunds $2,100 to state for ‘donations’ to campaign


Millar check $2123By JIM WALLS

Oct. 18, 2014 — Sen. Fran Millar reimbursed the state last week for more than $2,100 taken from his legislative expense account that wound up in his campaign fund.

Millar wrote the check a few days after Atlanta Unfiltered asked him about several unusual 2012 donations to his campaign — four checks, all disclosed as coming from the Georgia General Assembly.

The senator’s campaign account had paid $1,900 to social media consultant Newsblasters LLC in mid-2012 and $195 to Landmark Communications for website and email hosting. After the invoices were submitted to the Legislative Fiscal Office, the reimbursement checks for the expenses were deposited in his campaign account.

“There’s no doubt that the expenses were valid,” Millar told me. “The problem was the way I paid for it.”

A note in Millar’s file at the Legislative Fiscal Office said he was reimbursing $2,123 “after discovering an error in his campaign disclosures.”

Legislators who tap their state expense accounts sign a statement acknowledging they can’t be reimbursed for expenses paid with campaign contributions. Those seeking payment for constituent newsletters sign a second statement swearing the communications are not political.

Millar’s Tweets for the period in question including items critizing Obamacare, promoting Republican candidates Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan and announcing Millar’s own bid for re-election. I copied them Friday night; today they seem to have been deleted from his Twitter feed.

On Facebook, he posted items discussing public policy issues but also touting his conservative credentials and defending then-Senate Majority Leader Chip Rogers against criticism for ties to gambling interests — ties, incidentally, that were first reported by Atlanta Unfiltered.





Print Friendly, PDF & Email


One Response to “Sen. Millar refunds $2,100 to state for ‘donations’ to campaign”

  1. Dave Bearse says:

    I’m glad there’s someone reviewing and then inquiring on such things. Isn’t this the kind of thing that a Transparency Commission that actually examined reports should be uncovering?