> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.theamericanquorum.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Arizona Judge Weighs Bid to Block Campaign-Fund Recovery
- URL: https://www.theamericanquorum.com/state-news-arizona-2026-09-26-a/
- Published: 2026-09-26T04:23:58.000Z
- Updated: 2026-09-26T04:23:58.000Z
- Description: An Arizona judge is weighing whether two statewide Green Party nominees can stop regulators from pursuing repayment of public campaign money while a $4.7 million funding investigation continues.
- Author: News Desk
- Tags: Politics, Arizona

An Arizona judge is considering whether two statewide Green Party nominees can stop the Citizens Clean Elections Commission from pursuing repayment of public campaign money while regulators investigate how the candidates qualified for funding.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Melissa Iyer Julian heard arguments Thursday from attorneys for gubernatorial nominee Risa Lombardo, secretary of state nominee Duwayne Collier and the commission. According to a courtroom [report](https://azmirror.com/2026/09/24/clean-elections-fraud-fight-goes-to-court-as-green-party-candidates-seek-to-block-repayment/?ref=theamericanquorum.com), Julian took the dispute under advisement and said she hoped to rule early next week.

The candidates contend that the commission is exceeding its authority and chilling their political speech by warning that they may have to return money. Their Sept. 10 [lawsuit](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/28617986-lombardo-collier-sue-clean-elections/?ref=theamericanquorum.com) asks the court to block decertification and repayment, arguing that the secretary of state—not the commission—decides whether candidates submitted enough valid $5 qualifying contributions.

The commission responds that no final repayment order exists and that state law gives it responsibility to investigate possible violations of the voter-created public-financing program. Its published [meeting record](https://www.azcleanelections.gov/commission-meetings?ref=theamericanquorum.com) shows that the five-member body has repeatedly considered the investigation in public sessions, including meetings Aug. 27 and Sept. 24\. Commission attorneys say the inquiry may continue through Oct. 29.

At issue is $4.7 million collectively provided to Lombardo, Collier and former Republican gubernatorial candidate Scott Neely. Axios [reported](https://www.axios.com/local/phoenix/2026/08/27/clean-elections-candidates-repayment-investigation-lombardo-collier-neely?ref=theamericanquorum.com) that Lombardo and Neely each received $1.1 million for the primary, while Collier received about $296,000; general-election funding raised the total. All three deny fraud or wrongdoing.

Commission Executive Director Tom Collins has cited overlapping donor lists, lump-sum bank deposits and alleged gaps in campaign-finance reporting. Separate reporting found nearly 4,000 voters listed as giving to multiple campaigns, including more than 2,600 listed as contributing to all three. Six people identified on contribution forms told the Arizona Mirror they had not donated to the candidates. Those allegations remain under investigation and have not produced a final commission finding.

The candidates’ lawyer, Tim La Sota, says the commission’s warnings effectively froze their campaigns because they stopped spending funds rather than risk a repayment bill. Commission counsel counters that participation is voluntary and that staff advised caution but did not order the campaigns to halt expenditures.

The timing gives the procedural dispute immediate electoral weight. The commission’s outside deadline falls five days before the Nov. 3 general election. If the judge allows the inquiry to proceed, Lombardo and Collier could remain financially constrained during the final campaign stretch. If she blocks it, the ruling could limit how the commission responds when eligibility concerns arise after the secretary of state has approved funding.

The case does not determine whether any candidate committed fraud. Its immediate question is institutional: whether the commission may continue toward a possible recovery order before completing its administrative process, or whether the court should intervene now to protect candidates from an action that has not yet been formally taken.