Push for transparency focuses on campaign spending, gift giving

In the wake of two of Arizona’s biggest political shake-ups of last year, lawmakers are hoping a little sunshine will help clean up the mess.

Shadowy groups involved in the recall of then-Senate President Russell Pearce brought to light some of the flaws in the current financial disclosure requirements. Meanwhile, the Fiesta Bowl scandal brought to light ethical questions about what should be considered a gift from a lobbyist.

The incidents are prompting lawmakers to trumpet the need for greater transparency. But not all transparency measures are created equal.

The true test, observers say, is whether lawmakers will be willing to pass legislation that may go against their personal interests.

“It will be fascinating to see, over the course of this session, if there’s actually an attempt to change the laws,” said Republican campaign consultant Chris Baker. “Because let’s face it, at the end of the day, most don’t want to make those changes.”

The issue of disclosure when it comes to campaign spending, for instance, is an easy one. Backed by Secretary of State Ken Bennett and Attorney General Tom Horne, Rep. Eddie Farnsworth, R-Gilbert, has already introduced a bill to close some campaign finance loopholes.

Under the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, a corporation, limited liability company or labor union may spend an unlimited amount from their treasury on elections so long as there’s no coordination with a candidate’s campaign. They have to report any expenditures of more than $5,000 in a statewide race, $2,500 in a legislative race, or $1,000 in a local race, but they don’t have to disclose who donated to the group.

But Bennett was concerned that during the Pearce recall, some organizations were forming solely to influence elections, but calling themselves corporations for the purpose of dodging the strict reporting requirements of a political action committee.

“Our office received numerous complaints regarding these entities last cycle and our efforts to bring them into compliance with the state’s campaign finance law proved to be a challenge,” Bennett said in a statement.

Under HB2385, if an organization forms 180 days before an election and spends the majority of its money trying to influence the outcome of an election, it must be registered as a political action committee.

Farnsworth said the bill strikes a balance between letting the groups exercise their freedom of speech without being able to hide under a “cloak of secrecy.”

“We’re saying, if you want to spend the money, that’s fine,” he said. “But if you’re just doing this to influence a political campaign and not operating as a corporation, the state of Arizona requires you to register as a political committee and disclose.”

But Baker points out that it’s easy for a politician to support stricter reporting requirements for political groups. After all, they’re the ones who were likely to find themselves on the receiving end of an anonymous attack advertisement.

“That’s perceived as an advantage to politicians,” Baker said. “If someone’s attacking them, they want to know who exactly is doing it.”

It’s a different scenario when discussing gifts and lobbying laws.

In December, Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery made recommendations to the Legislature for some reforms, including either a complete ban on gifts, or a very low mandatory reporting threshold after his investigation determined 18 current and former lawmakers had received free football tickets and taken out-of-state trips paid for by the Fiesta Bowl, but didn’t report them as gifts on financial disclosure statements.

Montgomery ultimately concluded, however, that he could not prosecute the politicians because Arizona’s statutes regarding gifts are murky.

He said he had spoken to GOP leadership in the House and Senate and made it clear that he was available if they wanted his input, but said this week that they had not yet taken him up on the offer.

House Majority Leader Steve Court, R-Mesa, has taken the lead on the proposal, which he called a “big priority” for this session. While there is one version drafted, he said he will be meeting with the Democrats in the House and leadership in the Senate before a final bill is introduced.

Although he said there is still work to be done on the details, he said the bill would probably be centered on reporting requirements for lawmakers rather than an outright ban.

“A ban would probably be a little too drastic, in my opinion,” Court said, adding that there might not be enough support for a ban to get it passed.

But other lawmakers argue that a ban is necessary.

Senate Democrats have already introduced a couple of proposals banning gifts, and Sen. Ron Gould, R-Lake Havasu City, is also drafting legislation for a gift ban. Senate Minority Leader David Schapira, D-Tempe, said that greater disclosure requirements don’t address the real issue.

Senate Minority Leader David Schapira, D-Tempe, and Sen. Ron Gould, R-Lake Havasu City, have been separately drafting legislation for a gift ban. Schapira has already introduced SB1068, which would remove the exemption from the ban on entertainment expenses if the event is made in connection with a speaking engagement. Now, he said he’s working on a gift ban.

“Transparency is great, but some of the things that are occurring shouldn’t be legal,” he said.

David Berman, a political science professor with ASU’s Morrison Institute for Public Policy, agreed.

If the goal for lawmakers is to prevent another Fiesta Bowl scandal, or to try to clear some of the suspicion from constituents as a result of the fallout, stricter disclosure requirements might not be enough to do it.

But Court pointed out that some things that may be considered gifts or entertainment could be helpful to lawmakers. Too-restrictive limits on entertainment or gifts could put a barrier between lawmakers and constituents, he said.

“The biggest conflict comes when it comes to lunches, or when you’re going to events and meeting people,” he said. “I think it helps as a legislator to go to these events and meet with a group, so when legislation comes, we have a better idea of how to support it.”

And Berman and Baker say that as far as voters are concerned, it might not make much of a difference on how far the reforms go — as long as something is done.

“The average voter brings to the table the idea that most politicians — that’s just how they do business,” Baker said. “They’re already factored that into their decision-making process.”