Ellis’ Use of Campaign Funds for Health Exam Legal, State Now Says

Sen. Jim Ellis’ use of campaign funds to pay for a medical examination did not violate state law, because Ellis feared he had cancer at the time and did not want to run for reelection if he was at risk of dying in office, the attorney general’s office ruled in an opinion disclosed Wednesday.

The opinion, written by Chief Assistant Atty. Gen. Richard Martland, reverses one issued 16 months ago, when the office advised Ellis that paying for his health care out of campaign funds would violate state law prohibiting the personal use of such money.

Ellis, a San Diego Republican, received a second and conflicting opinion from the Legislature’s lawyer and then paid the $805 bill at Scripps Clinic from his campaign fund. Although Ellis properly noted the expenditure on campaign finance reports he filed a year ago, the attorney general’s office did not look into the matter until Ellis’ payment was reported by The Times on Feb. 17.

Ellis, 59, announced Feb. 2 that he will retire from the Senate when his current term expires in December. He could not be reached for comment Wednesday.

Submitted a Letter

Martland said the office decided not to prosecute Ellis after the senator spoke with Atty. Gen. John Van de Kamp and submitted a letter explaining why he thought his use of campaign funds was warranted.

In the letter, Ellis said he was suffering “severe pain” during the fall of 1986 and feared he had cancer. He said he decided to undergo a medical exam then to help him decide whether he should prepare to seek reelection this year.

“My campaign account was nearly depleted, and I had to make decisions as to whether to hold fund-raisers,” Ellis wrote. “Also, I did not want to be reelected, then die or leave office in midterm, subjecting the citizens of my area to a very costly special election.”

Ellis said the exam revealed that he had a polyp in his colon that was too small to remove at that time. Further tests, which Ellis paid for himself, determined he did not have cancer, but Ellis said he continued to suffer pain, ranging from “mild to severe.”

“In December, 1987, I made the decision to not seek reelection,” Ellis wrote.

Martland, in a letter to Ellis, said the office reconsidered its opinion after learning of the close tie between the health problem and Ellis’ status as a lawmaker.

“We remain of the view that, ordinarily, general health and medical needs are a personal matter,” Martland wrote. “We also remain of the view that incidental effects on political, governmental or legislative purposes do not authorize personal obligations to be paid out of campaign funds.

“Here, however, we believe you have established more than an incidental relationship between your medical tests and a political purpose.”

Single Exam Was Key

In an interview, Martland said the key factor in the office’s decision was that Ellis paid for a single medical examination and not for ongoing care. He said the Ellis case is so unusual that it should not provide a precedent for other lawmakers to begin using campaign funds to pay for health care.

“Our view is that this is the exception rather than the rule with respect to the personal use of campaign funds,” Martland said.

No legislator has ever been prosecuted under the 1981 law that prohibits the use of campaign funds for any personal purpose that does not have “more than a negligible political, legislative or governmental purpose.”

Violation of the law is a civil matter punishable by a fine of up to two times the amount of the unlawful expenditure.