REP. DOUG QUELLAND, R-PHOENIX, SHOWS OFF THE BICYCLE HE RIDES TO THE STATE CAPITOL. (Jonathan J. Cooper/Cronkite News Service Photo)

What does it say about the long-term viability of Arizona’s system of campaign public financing when one of its biggest champions violates its basic tenets and could be removed from elected office as a result?

The Arizona Clean Elections Commission voted 4-1 Friday to order Rep. Doug Quelland, R-Phoenix, out of office and to pay a $45,000 fine. His mistake? The commission says Quelland paid his campaign manager up to $15,000 from  private business accounts instead of using the state funds assigned to Quelland. That’s the most serious legal violation that a politician can make under the Citizens Clean Elections Act, inviting the ultimate penalty of being ejected from the state Capitol.

Using public funds means abiding by strict spending limits, with the notion that politicians will be elected on the strength of their ideas rather than simply by outspending their opponents on media advertising. A candidate who spends private funds on top of the tax dollars received completely undermines the intent of spending limits.

Quelland’s explanation is so convoluted that even his Republican colleagues have stopped trying to defend him. Quelland claims he did hire Larry Davis to manage his campaign, but then fired Davis 48 hours later because Quelland didn’t like Davis’  tactics. But Quelland says he allowed Davis to stay on as a unpaid campaign volunteer and then paid Davis to work on Quelland’s private business activities.

Davis’ own testimony and bank records obtained by state subpoena flatly contradict Quelland’s statements, according to various media reports.

Former Rep. David Burnell Smith, R-Carefree, was the first lawmaker in the country to be forced out of office for not abiding by rules for taking tax funds for a campaign. Smith never was a big fan of Clean Elections but, like many Republicans, signed up because the law as designed at the time put most privately funded candidates at a lopsided disadvantage.

On the other hand, Quelland became a nationwide proponent of candidates using public funds. It would be absolutely stunning if he so blatantly violated how Arizona’s system is supposed to work.

Quelland is working on an administrative appeal and he also can seek a settlement with the commission before a final order is issued. It will be interesting to see if the experience of Quelland’s attorney, Lee Miller, affects the outcome here. Miller also was Smith’s attorney in the early stages of that case more than three years ago.

Meanwhile, I pointed out recently the entire future of Clean Elections is in doubt because of a federal lawsuit that threatens to strip away access of participating candidates to additional matching funds when opponents or independent groups spend above specific limits. A lack of matching funds could prompt most state candidates to return to private fundraising like they did before the public financing law was passed by initiative in 1998.