From the Arizona House Democrats blog, Dark money is shady business:
Dark money is shady business. Although this type of political expenditure has been around for a long time, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United opened the floodgates. Some reports indicate $8.6 million in dark money seeped its way into Arizona’s election process.
“That is an incredible sum of money,” Assistant House Democratic Leader Bruce Wheeler, D-Tucson (District 10), said. “Money influences elections and people have a right to know who spending in our state.”
But dark money makes that difficult. This kind of campaign spending allows certain entities to spend money in political causes without revealing where the money came from. It is clouding the election process. Right now, Arizona has few restrictions on dark money. Democrats at the Arizona Legislature have proposed some reforms that will help shed some light on this shadowy subject.
Wheeler and Senate Democratic Whip Martín Quezada, D-Phoenix (District 29), are introducing a package of identical reform bills in the House and the Senate. These bills were developed from recommendations from former Attorney General Terry Goddard.
HB2546/SB1206 Independent expenditures; corporations; funding disclosures
This legislation would require the four largest contributors and any large contribution from out of state to be included and clearly displayed on the disclaimer statement of corporate independent expenditures. It would also require corporations, limited liability companies and labor organizations that make independent expenditures to file campaign finance reports if they receive contributions for their expenditures. This is what political committees must do.
HB2547/SB1207 Campaign finance disclosures; corporations; entities
This reform would revise the “paid for by” disclaimer for political committees to include the names and telephone numbers of the three largest contributors including corporations, LLCs and labor organizations. Currently, the law only requires the disclaimer to include the three largest political committees.
HB2548/SB1208 Foreign nonprofit corporations; foreign LLCs
This legislation would change the definition of “conducting affairs” for out-of-state businesses to include spending money for the purpose of influencing the outcome of an election in Arizona. It would prohibit foreign companies from spending money to influence elections until they are authorized to do business in Arizona and would place the same restrictions on an LLC. The purpose of this legislation is to require any out-of-state entities to register with the corporation commission before they make independent expenditures.
HB2549/SB1209 Independent expenditures; corporations; unions; audit
This reform would authorize the Citizens Clean Elections Commission to conduct random audits of corporations, LLCs and labor organizations that make independent expenditures. The audit would include a review of notifications, related documentation and other financial records to determine whether the entity is complying with Arizona law related to corporate independent expenditures. The audit would be confidential unless the commission finds that a violation has occurred, in which case the commission shall notify the Secretary of State’s office of the violation. This audit provision is intended to ensure corporations are complying with current law and mirrors the audit process that the Citizens Clean Elections Commission conducts for candidates.
“With the recent judge’s ruling that throws out the state’s definition of political committee, we have the opportunity to make meaningful changes to our disclosure laws,” Quezada said. “Voters are tired of the presence of anonymous money in their elections and they deserve to know who is buying their elected officials. The sad reality is that our proposed legislation to eliminate dark money from our state will most likely never see the light of day – kept in the dark just like the people of Arizona.”
Senator Steve Farley, D-Tucson (District 9), introduced SB1101, which is identical to the bill that Secretary of State Michelle Reagan introduced as SB1403 last year when she was still in the Senate.
ASU’s Morrison Institute for Public Policy described that bill in a February 2014 report:
“(It) would require independent expenditure committees in state and local elections to reveal the “identifiable contributors” to their campaigns, even though these funds came to them through a chain of organizations. The “identifiable contributor” noted in the bill is the specific person(s), corporation(s), or union(s) from within or outside of Arizona that makes the initial donation, not some vaguely named entity that passed the funds along. The independent committee would also be required to reveal the name of the leading three financiers in its campaign advertisements, literature and similar materials.
“A central focus of SB1403 is on Arizona’s many shell corporations or “convenience corporations” that seek to influence elections without revealing the identity of their funders. The bill outlaws attempts to hide the identity of donors by the creation of such entities and by funneling funds from one organization to another. To enforce the law, the Secretary of State, acting upon a complaint, would have wide authority to determine if a group or organization is primarily engaged in electioneering. If so, it would be regulated as a political committee and be subject to disclosure,” Farley said.
Additionally, Rep. Ken Clark, D-Phoenix (District 24), has introduced a bill, HB2533, that would require utility companies to disclose contributions made to influence an election. Clark said this reform is necessary because of “what was very likely an unprecedented shift” from utility companies. Many believe that the utility companies were contributing heavily in the 2014 Corporation Commission elections.
“This raises many questions about potential corruption,” Clark said because the Corporation Commission regulates the utility companies. “Regulated monopolies were very likely spending money aggressively in our Corporation Commission election. The public was understandably outraged.”
Clark added that his bill, and the legislation Quezada and Wheeler are offering, would help increase transparency.
Secretary of State Michele Reagan claimed that she supported several of these measures during the campaign. Well it’s time to step up and make it happen, lady.
I’m thinking of setting up a lottery in Arizona. Everyone that lives here would be eligible to win. Ten days after the election we would draw a name. If that person voted, they would win. If they didn’t vote, they wouldn’t win.
Not sure how much to offer, thinking of starting with $10,000.
Odds of winning are probably a lot better than playing the regular state lottery.
That’s an interesting idea. But wouldn’t that just bring out completely uninformed voters to check anything on the ballot just to enter the the lottery? That would make make whoever was elected a bit of a lottery, as well. Although, on second thought, that might not be all that bad. ;o)
I am pretty certain it would get the vote out. The odds would be much better than the regular lottery.
Republicans have always said that they support transparency — except when faced with bills that would actually yield transparency. These bills are as important for Republican voters as Democratic voters, as well as Greens and Libertarians. Everybody who wants to declare their independence from money should support these bills — if they don’t then by default they are declaring themselves bought and paid for, or at least on the market and willing to be bought and paid for. And they should suffer those accusations during the next election. Salute to the Democratic members and Terry Goddard for doing this for the people of Arizona!
“Everybody who wants to declare their independence from money should support these bills…”
No one wants to declare themselves independent from money. As the original post stated, dark money has been around for a long time. The complaint Democrats have with it now is that after the Supreme Court made it’s decision, the advantage with dark money switched from Democrats to Republicans. Once that happened, Democrats “saw the light” and became near religious about the evil of it.
It is a silly tantrum that obsesses Democrats. I say “God Bless ’em and let ’em charge on” as long as it keeps them from doing anything productive.
You’re out of step with even your own party. Republicans and Democrats alike are disgusted by the amount of money in politics.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/17/AR2010021701151.html
and, we’ve had 5 more yrs to hate it even more.
Very astute observation, Patricia!
I know what they say, but I also know what they do about it. For all the hoopla, nothing has been done. That says more than their words.
I find it very satisfying that Democrats in Arizona – in that peculiar way that Democrats in Arizona have of not being able to see the forrest because the trees are in the way – continue to focus on that hobgoblin of “dark money” as a major cause of all their problems. I think it is a wonderful way to waste time, energy and effort in a pointless chase that allows them to blame their failures on something other than the reasons they actually fail so consistently. It’s like watching a dog chase his tail: entertaining to watch, but not very productive.
Why do you say that Democrats fail so consistently? What do you think the Democrats could do to be more competitive in statewide races?
Sarah, you are a very nice person, but it isn’t my place to suggest to Democrats what they should do. Besides, there are Democrats on this blog that have posted what the Democrat Party needs to do in order to start having a better chance at winning. Doing the same thing election after election is not going to do it. This obsessive focus on dark money is a colossal waste of time. Knowing where the money comes from won’t stop a dime of it from coming into the state and it won’t change a single vote. But Arizona Democrats have an obsession about it, so I say more power to them. While they are busy with this, they can’t be creating mischeif elsewhere.
Steve, if this is such a waste of time and energy on our part you will lose nothing and maybe even advance your Party by supporting the bills and allowing us to waste our time and energy on them.
I am very much aware of that. What is funny about the complaints on this site is you have a couple of people who post here – Democrats all – that have made it clear what the Democrats do that dooms them at each election. Their postings receive little response. Instead, it is the same old things, over and over. I don’t intend to point it out because I have nothing to gain by doing so, but the answers are right here on this blog. Well, I will give you one hint: dark money isn’t the boogey man this site makes it out to be. But it IS an easy thing to blame.