Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Judge faces new election charges

Did $95,000 John Renke III spent on his campaign came from earned income or was it donated by his father?

By COLLEEN JENKINS
Published February 19, 2005

More than 90 percent of the money John Renke III used in his successful run for a circuit judgeship came from an illegal campaign contribution from his father, the Judicial Qualifications Commission charged Friday.

If true, said Tallahassee lawyer and lobbyist John French, "That's a world-class election law violation."

The JQC previously had accused Renke III of eight campaign violations. Those charges said Renke, 35, misrepresented his qualifications and endorsements during his 2002 campaign. A proposed settlement for those charges - involving a monthlong suspension, a $20,000 fine and a public reprimand - was rejected by the state Supreme Court last summer.

On Friday, after investigating the matter further and questioning the judge under oath, the JQC added two new charges to its earlier complaint:

The first added a new element to the case. Renke III reported giving loans totaling $95,800 to his own campaign. "But in fact these monies," the JQC said, "in whole or in substantial part, were not your own legitimately earned funds but were in truth contributions to your campaign from John Renke II (or his law firm) far in excess of the $500 per person limitation on such contributions imposed by controlling law."

The allegation, said Renke II, is ridiculous.

"All his money came from me," said the elder Renke, pointing out that until the campaign, his son was a lawyer in his office.

John Renke II is a Republican state committeeman and a former state representative. He oversaw his son's campaign.

Perhaps too overtly, according to the JQC. The commission's investigative branch continues to hold that the younger Renke or close family members publicly identified him through campaign literature as a member of the Republican party. Judicial races in Florida are nonpartisan.

That, when viewed together with the earlier accusations of "a deliberate effort to misrepresent your qualifications for office and those of your opponent," amounted to the other new charge. Which is: the "cumulative misconduct constitutes a pattern and practice unbecoming a candidate for and lacking the dignity appropriate to judicial office . . . bringing the judiciary into disrepute."

Renke III, who has accepted responsibility and apologized for the earlier alleged rules violations, wouldn't comment on the latest development Friday. He will have 20 days to file a written answer to the charges.

"There really isn't anything he can say right now," his judicial assistant said.

Renke's attorney, Scott Tozian, and former opponent, Pasco attorney Declan Mansfield, could not be reached.

But Renke's father, an attorney in New Port Richey, was passionate in defending his son. The JQC, he said, has only one witness: Mansfield.

"He's the little fruitcake bringing this up," Renke II said.

The elder Renke said it is Mansfield who misled voters as to his legal experience and later made a complaint to the JQC after losing the race.

If he gets deposed, Renke II said he'll tell the JQC that his son received the $95,800 as compensation for his work on several class action suits won by Renke II's firm.

"Does anyone else know what I paid my son or what work he did for me during the year? No," Renke II said.

Financial disclosure forms filed during the election shed some light. As of May 2002, Renke III described his net worth as $158,418, the bulk of which was contained in stocks.

His legal salary: $53,402.

Renke III spent $105,550 during his campaign. If allegations prove true, Renke II's money made up 91 percent of the total.

A candidate is allowed to give or loan as much of his own money as he wants to his campaign. But if someone else contributes, that money is subject to more rigid campaign finance laws.

French, who helped write Florida's election laws, said there also might be grounds for an elections complaint against Renke III if his father, in fact, contributed so much money.

"If someone files a complaint, he's in for a long several days," French said.

What the amended charges mean for Renke's judgeship will be up to the JQC and, ultimately, the Supreme Court. When the court sent the case back last year to the commission, it ordered "further proceedings on the merits of the issues of misconduct as well as the appropriate discipline."

In past cases, a rejection of a JQC recommendation has generally resulted in stiffer penalties.

But Renke II believes the Supreme Court's rejection indicated its skepticism of the charges.

"They're making charges on garbage stuff here," the elder Renke said, "and I think the Supreme Court is saying, "What are you talking about?"'

Colleen Jenkins covers courts in west Pasco County. She can be reached at 727 869-6236 or cjenkins@sptimes.com

[Last modified February 19, 2005, 00:57:17]