Alabama’s ethics laws rely heavily on disclosure and public trust. When campaign finance reports leave key questions unanswered, voters are left to interpret the record themselves.
What should voters think when a campaign finance report lists payments labeled “Fed Income Tax” and “Est Fed Income Tax,” yet provides no explanation of what those payments represent or how they relate to campaign activity?
That question sits at the center of Alabama’s campaign finance system — a system built largely on self-reporting, self-certification, and public trust.
Under Alabama law, candidates raise campaign funds for political purposes and disclose them so citizens can evaluate how political money is used. Candidates document their own spending. The public reads the filings. Lawmakers designed the system to rely on transparency, rather than constant enforcement, to provide accountability.
As part of a routine review of campaign finance disclosures, Alabama Political Reporter examined recent filings submitted by State Rep. Arnold Mooney, R-Indian Springs, who represents Alabama House District 43. Before publication, APR emailed Rep. Mooney a detailed list of questions seeking clarification about several expenditures that were unclear based on the public reports.
Rep. Mooney responded at 7:48 a.m., minutes before deadline, stating: “Everything that was reported to the Secretary of State was filed correctly and in compliance with the Alabama Fair Campaign Practices Act. Please feel free to call Mr. Jeff Elrod, the Director of Elections for the Office of the Alabama Secretary of State, for further information.” The statement did not address the specific questions submitted regarding individual expenditures.
That absence of explanation matters because Alabama’s system depends on disclosure doing more than checking a legal box. It must allow voters to understand what they are seeing.
When disclosure leaves gaps
Campaign finance disclosures reviewed by APR include more than $3,500 in payments made to federal and state tax authorities. Two entries are labeled “Fed Income Tax” and “Est Fed Income Tax,” while another payment to the Alabama Department of Revenue is categorized as “Administrative.”
Beyond those labels, the filings provide no explanation of what obligations the payments satisfied or how they relate to campaign activity or duties of office. The reports include no additional description.
The filings show that money was spent. They do not explain why.
Campaign finance reports are intended to provide clarity. When entries appear without context, voters must interpret the meaning on their own — the precise situation a disclosure system is meant to avoid.
Transparency is not measured by how much is reported, but by how well the public can understand what is reported.
That is the principle at stake.
Transportation and vehicle spending
The filings also reflect substantial transportation spending, including repeated fuel purchases and more than $2,600 in vehicle repair and maintenance expenses at automotive service providers such as Pep Boys, Susan Shein Automotive and 280 Paint and Body.
Campaign funds may properly cover travel connected to campaign activity or duties of office. Alabama Ethics Commission guidance, however, stresses the importance of clear documentation when expenses involve a vehicle that could serve both campaign and noncampaign purposes.
The reports do not indicate whether the vehicle associated with these repairs was owned by the campaign or personally owned, nor do they explain how campaign use was separated from other use.
Again, the filings disclose expenditures but leave interpretation to the reader.
Meals, administrative spending and limited descriptions
A review of reported food expenditures shows numerous restaurant purchases categorized simply as “Food,” without identifying meetings, events or campaign activities connected to the spending. Administrative expenditures include retail purchases, event-related payments and a $200 gift card transaction reported without detailed explanation.
One entry lists a $40 payment to a Birmingham nail salon categorized as an administrative expense. The amount is modest, but the example illustrates a broader problem: disclosure must provide enough context for ordinary citizens — not accountants or lawyers — to understand how political funds are used.
When descriptions remain broad — “Food,” “Transportation” or “Administrative” — voters are asked to assume compliance rather than evaluate it.
Alabama Ethics Commission advisory opinions often reference what is known as the “but-for” test: campaign funds generally should be used for expenses connected to campaign activity or public service rather than costs unrelated to those purposes. Public disclosure allows voters to see how that distinction is applied in practice — but only when filings provide sufficient detail.
The reality of self-policing
Alabama’s campaign finance framework places primary responsibility for lawful spending on candidates. Regulators typically act only after someone files a complaint. As a result, transparency becomes the system’s primary safeguard.
Self-policing can work. But it works only when disclosure is accompanied by explanation.
Reviewing campaign reports is not about declaring misconduct. It is about examining whether the public record fulfills its intended role: giving citizens enough information to judge how campaign funds are handled.
When reasonable questions arise and remain unanswered, the system relies on trust alone.
Why this matters
Donors fund campaign accounts because they believe their contributions support elections, communication with voters and democratic participation. Alabama law gives candidates wide discretion in spending those funds, but that discretion carries an expectation of openness sufficient for public understanding.
Campaign finance laws exist not merely to prevent corruption but to sustain confidence in public institutions. Disclosure is meaningful only when it answers the questions an ordinary reader would naturally ask.
Alabama’s ethics framework ultimately depends less on investigation than on transparency — and transparency requires more than filings. It requires explanation.
Self-policing works only when candidates embrace transparency rather than merely submit reports.
Campaign finance reports are more than accounting documents. They are promises — promises that political funds are handled in a manner worthy of public trust.
When reports raise questions without answers, responsibility does not rest solely with regulators or reporters. It rests with the system itself — and, ultimately, with the voters who must decide whether transparency has been met with transparency in return.
Editor’s Note: This column has been updated to include a statement from State Rep. Arnold Mooney that was received shortly before publication and reviewed after the column initially posted.
