Other articles by Nick R. Martin:

U.S. attorney: No truth to Renzi rumor Mesa detective's hate-group remarks prompted inquiry

Production and Manufacturing
QUALITY MANAGER Sales and Marketing
Town and Country Foods
Sales Manager Driver/Transportation
DRIVERS Driver/Transportation
REPOSSESSION DRIVERS Trades/Construction
SCHMUESER & ASSOCIATES
PRECSION MILLWRIGHTS Technical
Dynamics Information Technology
Systems Engineer Administrative & Professional
Pima Prevention Partnership
Administrative Assistant

Many of Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas' campaign donors are retirees. Some are lawyers. Some are executives.

But to the public, the professions of a large number of people who gave to the re-election campaign of the Valley's top prosecutor remain a mystery.

State law requires political candidates to collect information about the careers of contributors and disclose it to the public.

During the last reporting period, however, that information about a large percentage of Thomas' donors was missing from his public campaign finance records.

In fact, according to a Tribune analysis of the records, about 35 percent of the money Thomas received from January through May came from people whose occupations and employers were not disclosed.

That adds up to more than $13,000 of the $38,676 raised during the period.

The two Democrats hoping to unseat Thomas in the fall say the information is some of the most important a candidate can disclose — just as important as names of donors or the amount of money they gave.

It sheds light on the web of relationships between a politician and his contributors. Sometimes it reveals a motivation for policy decisions.

"The public has a right to know if there's any quid pro quo," said Democratic candidate Tim Nelson, using the Latin phrase meaning "this for that."

For example, during the January through May reporting period, records show seven lawyers from the Scottsdale law firm Bues Gilbert donated money to Thomas, totaling $1,380. During that time, the firm was hired to represent the county attorney in a high-profile case against the State Bar of Arizona.

Those kinds of relationships can be shown and explored when a candidate discloses the professions of his donors, as Thomas did for these seven lawyers and hundreds of other contributors.

But for more than 110 other people, that didn't happen. Their professions were never disclosed.

"I think it raises real questions," Nelson said.

According to a spokesman for the Thomas campaign, there is nothing wrong with missing some of the required donor information.

"If you're writing an article, you should not imply that we did anything wrong," said Barnett Lotstein, a special assistant county attorney and volunteer for his boss' re-election bid. "All we're obligated to do is to try to get the information."

That's true, said Maricopa County elections director Karen Osborne. State law requires a candidate to attempt to get it all, but if a donor doesn't comply, nothing can be done.

As for the unusually high amount of information missing from the Thomas campaign, Osborne said, "They have told me they asked for it and I believe them."

Lotstein said he was unsure if the campaign had anything to document it asked donors for the information.

"I don't know if it's documented," he said. "We send the letters out and I'm not sure we have copies of that."

The other Democratic challenger, Gerald Richard, said he's skeptical Thomas and his campaign even tried to put a profession next to the names of so many donors.

"On some of those checks, they know who it is," said Richard. "I'm confident they know exactly who it is."

When someone sends a donation the campaign didn't ask for, it will gladly accept it, but the staff then has to work hard to get all the required information, Richard said.

"I'm disappointed that we have an individual that's currently in office who's done this," Richard said.

Out of hundreds of donations, Richard was missing the occupation information for 38 contributors.

Out of more than 1,000, Nelson was missing information for eight.

"We made it a priority to follow up with as many people as possible," Nelson said.

In the past, Thomas has not had a problem getting the information.

During other reporting periods, his campaign listed most of the required information on its public campaign records.

Since taking office in 2005, he has put together more than $250,000 for his re-election bid and has more in the bank than either of the other candidates.