Two Democrats who ran unsuccessfully for the Legislature in 2006 -- and who are candidates again this year -- violated minor laws in their printed campaign material attacking opponents in 2006, a state official has ruled.

But Commissioner of Political Practice Dennis Unsworth rejected more serious claims that John Vincent of Bozeman and Margie MacDonald of Billings lied about their opponents' respective records.

Unsworth said while Vincent and MacDonald may have made inaccurate statements regarding their opponents' records or votes, they did not knowingly do so, and therefore didn't violate the law.

"While Vincent arguably could have exercised more care in conducting the research for at least one of his campaign statements, there is insufficient evidence to prove that he violated (the law)," Unsworth wrote.

Unsworth ruled late Tuesday on separate complaints filed by the Republicans who defeated Vincent and MacDonald in close, high-profile legislative races in 2006.

MacDonald lost a state Senate race in Billings to Republican Roy Brown, who is running for governor this year against Democrat Brian Schweitzer. MacDonald also is a candidate this year, running for an open House seat in south Billings.

Vincent, of Gallatin Gateway, lost his 2006 challenge to Rep. Roger Koopman, R-Bozeman, in a House district that covers southern Gallatin County.

This year, Vincent, a former speaker of the Montana House, is running for the state Public Service Commission in District 3, which includes Butte, Bozeman, Anaconda, Livingston and 14 southwestern Montana counties.

Unsworth's ruling said Vincent failed to list specific votes on campaign material blasting Koopman for said votes, failed to list his party affiliation on some ads, and did not include a signed "statement of accuracy," all of which are required by law.

Unsworth also said MacDonald failed to include a statement of accuracy on campaign material criticizing Brown's votes on a bill to set up a small-business health insurance pool.

The violations are misdemeanors. Local prosecutors can decide whether to pursue the case. If they don't, Unsworth's office can pursue some type of penalty.

Vincent said Wednesday he agrees with Unsworth's ruling, but maintained that his 2006 campaign ads and flyers accurately portrayed Koopman's record on a variety of issues.

"What I failed to do, is because I wasn't careful enough, was comply with the (law) for listing the particular votes," Vincent said. "I listed some votes; I just didn't list all of them.

"I take full responsibility for not listing those particular votes."

Koopman, however, said Wednesday that Vincent clearly misrepresented his record in one ad, when claiming that none of Koopman's bills made it out of the House in 2005.

Koopman noted that three of the 18 bills he sponsored in 2005 were approved by the House and two became law, and that someone with Vincent's background should be easily able to determine those facts.

"Vincent either made no effort to verify his maligning assertions, or else he knew all along that he was not telling the truth, but felt certain that he would not be held accountable for it," Koopman said in a letter to Unsworth, asking him to reconsider his ruling on that issue.

Vincent said he did his own research for the ads and campaign material, and that any mistake he made was "inadvertent."

The complaint from Brown, who couldn't be reached for comment, said a 2006 campaign mailer from MacDonald wrongly said he opposed a bill creating a health-insurance pool for small businesses.

Brown said he ultimately supported the measure, although he cast an initial "no" vote against the bill and voted "no" on a later procedural vote.

MacDonald said Unsworth's ruling "vindicated our defense," which was that she merely cited the wrong vote on her campaign mailer. She said the basic claim of her mailer, that Brown initially opposed the bill, was accurate.

"I made it clear in my brochure that he did change his vote ultimately on this issue," she said.