Ellis’ Campaign Fund Paid for Health Exam

Sen. Jim Ellis used his campaign fund to pay for a physical examination last year after the state attorney general’s office told him that such an expenditure would violate state law, campaign finance records show.

Ellis, a San Diego Republican who announced Feb. 2 that he will retire from the Senate rather than seek a third term in 1988, said he used the campaign money to pay the $805 medical bill after seeking a second legal opinion from Bion Gregory, the Legislature’s lawyer.

Gregory told him the item was justified as a campaign expense, Ellis said.

Ellis said he did not want to use his personal funds to pay for the checkup because he expected results of the medical tests to help him decide whether to remain in public office.

To Determine Candidacy

“I was getting the examination to determine whether I would be a candidate this year,” Ellis said. “That’s what it was for.”

Ellis, 59, said two weeks ago that he was leaving the Senate because he had lost the enthusiasm--he called it a “fire in the belly”--that legislators must possess to be successful. He reacted angrily Tuesday when asked how the results of the physical examination contributed to that decision.

“If I have a health problem, I don’t think it’s your business or the public’s business,” he said. “You’re poking around too much in people’s personal affairs.”

A state law enacted in 1981 forbids the expenditure of campaign funds for personal purposes. Violation of the law is a civil matter punishable by a fine of up to two times the amount of the unlawful expenditure. The law is enforced by the state attorney general’s office.

Deputy Atty. Gen. N. Eugene Hill, the office’s spokesman on matters involving the use of campaign funds, could not be reached for comment Tuesday.

First Sought Advice

Copies of letters supplied by the attorney general’s office show that Ellis first asked for advice on the matter in early November, 1986.

“I am soon to enter Scripps Clinic in San Diego for physical tests,” Ellis wrote to Deputy Atty. Gen. Ted Prim. “The results of the tests will determine whether or not I will be a candidate for reelection in 1988.

“I intend to use my campaign funds for payment. Will you please advise if you consider this to be a lawful expenditure of campaigns funds.”

The answer was no.

In a response sent to Ellis over the name of Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp, Prim wrote that Ellis’ case was similar to another one in which the office had concluded that campaign funds could not be used for costs related to treatment of a lawmaker’s stress brought on by political activity.

In that case, Prim wrote: “We concluded that expenditures of campaign funds to pay for health and medical needs constituted a violation of the prohibition against the personal use of campaign funds. Accordingly, the cost of your upcoming medical tests should not be paid from campaign funds.”

Didn’t Take No for Answer

But Ellis did not take no for an answer.

In a brief interview Tuesday, Ellis said he went to Gregory, the legislative counsel, for another opinion. He said Gregory told him the expense was a permissible use of campaign funds.

Ellis declined to supply documentation of Gregory’s advice, and Gregory said any counsel he supplied Ellis was a confidential communication between an attorney and a client.

“I wouldn’t be able to comment one way or the other on whether we gave advice on that,” Gregory said.

In any case, Gregory added, his office would not be able to defend Ellis if the attorney general’s office decided to prosecute him. Without discussing the Ellis case, he said the same would be true of any legislator acting on the advice of the legislative counsel.

“If the attorney general’s office is going to bring an action against him, he’s going to have to go out and get his own counsel,” Gregory said.

Neither Opinion Binding

Neither opinion--from the attorney general or the legislative counsel--is binding on a legislator.

The attorney general’s office does not audit campaign statements to find violations and has never prosecuted an elected officeholder for violating the law on the personal use of campaign funds.

But the office is frequently asked by legislators about the propriety of specific expenditures.

The office, for example, has ruled that legal fees are a permissible expense if the costs are connected to a legislator’s role as an officeholder or are related to the campaign. But the office also ruled that a former mayor could not use campaign money to pay for her defense on federal embezzling charges.

Prim also concluded that campaign money could not be used to pay for funeral expenses. And in a letter responding to a query from Republican Assemblyman Bill Bradley of San Marcos, Prim said campaign contributions could not be used to pay health club dues.

Bradley said Tuesday that he continued paying his $40-a-month health club expenses out of his own pocket after being told not to use campaign money. He said he never considered seeking Gregory’s advice on the subject.

“One opinion was good enough for me,” he said.