Ethics commissioners vote to hear campaign finance complaints from D7 election

The Ethics Review Commission voted unanimously this week to advance two campaign finance complaints to final hearings, determining that there are reasonable grounds to believe that violations of the city’s campaign finance rules may have occurred during a recent City Council election.

Both complaints were filed by local advocate Adam Haynes and center on activities during the District 7 runoff election. One complaint targets Council Member Mike Siegel for allegedly exceeding contribution limits and filing incomplete or inaccurate finance reports. The other names Zachary Jon Scott Faddis, president of the political advocacy group AURA, for alleged failures in reporting campaign-related activity and expenditures.

In the first complaint, Haynes alleged that Siegel accepted campaign contributions in excess of the city’s $450-per-person limit and failed to disclose complete donor information in required filings. According to documents presented at the hearing, Siegel initially reported multiple contributions that exceeded the limit, including individual donations of $650 and $900.

Haynes also pointed to errors and omissions in Siegel’s campaign finance reports, including donor names and contribution details. Although Siegel later submitted amended reports, Haynes contended that the corrections did not follow the city’s required procedures, particularly regarding the documentation of returned contributions to account for a change in total contributions reflected in the amended report. The complaint argues that failure to properly categorize and report these changes constitutes a continuing violation of campaign finance rules.

Siegel did not appear at the hearing but had previously submitted a written response requesting dismissal of the complaint. Haynes had to refile both complaints after the initial versions were dismissed when he failed to appear at the hearings, which he said was due to an administrative error.

After hearing testimony from Haynes and discussing the substance of the filings, commissioners voted 8-0 to schedule a final hearing on the matter.

The second complaint focused on campaign activities conducted by AURA, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit that endorsed Siegel during the runoff. Haynes alleged that AURA engaged in direct campaign advocacy without registering as a political action committee or appointing a campaign treasurer, in violation of city code.

According to the complaint, AURA organized and promoted events that supported Siegel, including rallies, block walks, and volunteer activities, while distributing campaign materials identifying him by name.

Haynes argued those activities constituted direct campaign expenditures and electioneering communications under Austin’s campaign finance laws, and therefore should have been reported. He further claimed that AURA failed to disclose any related financial activity, even in cases where volunteers produced and distributed printed campaign literature.

In response, Faddis told the commission that all political activities were conducted by the 501(c)(4) entity known as Austin AURA, not the newer 501(c)(3) organization named AURA for Austin. He maintained that expenditures were minimal and primarily related to volunteer coordination, coffee and snacks, totaling just under $70. He also stated that any printed materials were paid for by individuals and properly reported as in-kind contributions to campaigns.

Commissioners questioned whether the value of coordinated volunteer activity and campaign material production could constitute reportable contributions. After deliberation, the commission voted 8-0 to move this complaint to a final hearing.

“All of the activities described here fall well within lively political discourse and effective community engagement … this distinction between $67 or somebody’s doing an individual action while being part of a group really gets to the core of why we have political action committees and why we track them,” Commissioner Adam Materne said.

“This, to me, sounds like a group of people came together with a common purpose, raised money, and gave things of value, including money and their own time that was organized.”

Photo made available through a Creative Commons 2.0 license.

The Austin Monitor’s work is made possible by donations from the community. Though our reporting covers donors from time to time, we are careful to keep business and editorial efforts separate while maintaining transparency. A complete list of donors is available here, and our code of ethics is explained here.

Posted In: Elections, District 7