Toronto Mayor Rob Ford will soon learn if his image receives a fresh insult: the sorry distinction of having his actions investigated by a special prosecutor. A three-person committee is to consider the matter on Monday and — given the damning results of an audit into Ford’s election finances — it’s hard to see that panel doing anything other than opting for prosecution.

Under these circumstances, anything less would be an affront to democracy. Ontario’s Municipal Elections Act exists to provide fair contests for civic office and it’s a serious matter when its rules are breached. The public’s democratic choice is diminished whenever candidates disregard or deviate from the law for their own gain.

That’s why the findings of auditor Bruce Armstrong, of Froese Forensic Partners, make such worrisome reading. His 50-page analysis of Ford’s campaign contributions, fundraising and expenses in the 2010 election reveal a long list of “apparent contraventions” of the law.

These rules aren’t mere technicalities. In an attempt to provide at least the semblance of a level playing field, they require a candidate’s spending to be capped. That way the rich can’t buy their way into elected office simply by flooding a race with dollars. Toronto’s mayoral contest had a $1.3-million limit for each candidate. According to the auditor, Ford exceeded the cap by more than $40,000, or about 3 per cent.

When candidates borrow money for their campaigns they’re supposed to use a bank or other recognized lending institution. That way all are treated the same way — the rich can’t borrow money from well-heeled friends, or family, at little or no interest. Yet, according to the audit, Ford received “generous credit terms” from a family company called Doug Ford Holdings.

Corporate and union donations are banned in Toronto, limiting the ability of politicians to gain special advantage by leveraging their business and labour connections. Despite that clear prohibition, the Ford campaign accepted 11 corporate donations totalling $6,000. Furthermore, it issued personal receipts for this money to people, including former Ontario premier Mike Harris, as if the contribution had come from their own pockets.

Money spent on campaign fundraising doesn’t count as an expense governed by the cap. And that’s fair. It leaves people running with less cash free to fundraise for more. What’s unfair is when campaign promotional events are wrongly listed as fundraisers, thereby escaping the spending cap. The audit found that the Ford campaign apparently contravened the law because it inappropriately logged almost $33,000 as fundraising costs. That’s the source of most of Ford’s overspending.

There’s more — a lot more — in the special audit. But candidates suspected of wrongdoing cannot be punished on the grounds of an audit alone. After all, they’re innocent until found guilty in court. The city’s compliance audit committee is to decide whether this case warrants appointment of a special prosecutor who, in turn, would choose the charges best put before a judge.

The committee did not shirk from doing the right thing when it voted earlier this month to have a prosecutor pursue a case against Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti, also the subject of a troubling campaign audit. And it must not falter in moving against Ford. Only by putting the mayor’s alleged breach of election law before a court can the public be sure that justice has been done.