An advisory committee to the Citizens Clean Elections Commission has approved a series of proposed rules changes governing officeholder expense accounts, including what the money can be spent on, when it can be spent, and how much can be contributed to those accounts.

But the seven-member panel, meeting July 5 for the third time, differed over the issue of how to fund officeholder accounts, which are to be used to defray expenses related to holding office, but not for campaign expenses.

Currently officeholder expense accounts are funded with private contributions for participating and nonparticipating candidates and do not trigger matching public funds.

Among the key proposed changes are:

All constituent communications must be completed and paid for by May 31 of an election year, instead of the current deadline of April 30.

The amount that an individual can contribute to an officeholder account is increased to two times the statutory early contribution limit for a publicly funded candidate, roughly $220 for a legislator, compared to the existing limit of $60.

The maximum amount that can be raised for a legislator’s officeholder account is doubled to $11,920.

Existing language opposed by Rep. Olivia Cajero Bedford, D-27, bans the spending of money from the account from the deadline, now May 31, through the end of the calendar year.

“Many legislators like to use the account to send thank you cards and Christmas cards to constituents,” Ms. Cajero Bedford said.

Ban Lifted On Spending After General Election

Panel members agreed and approved lifting the spending ban on the day after the general election.

The committee approved a new rule covering what to do with funds that still remain in the account after an office has been vacated for any reason, including loss of an election or death.

Adopting language from the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, the proposed rule states that within 60 days of an office being vacated, remaining funds must be returned to contributors, donated to a federally approved charity or remitted to the Clean Elections Fund.

Current uses of the officeholder expense account include expenditures for office equipment and supplies, work-related travel, donations to charitable organizations and meeting or communicating with constituents.

The committee added: “Expenditures for items such as plaques, books or other awards to signify honorary recognition of an accomplishment or service,” but deleted an earlier suggestion that such purchases be limited to $10. Also added are expenses for dues, and memberships in professional, civic and nonprofit organizations.

Two new rules would allow spending money from an officeholder account for attending office-related conferences, professional development classes, seminars or training related to the office at any time during an officeholder’s expense cycle, notwithstanding the ban from May 31 to the day after the general election. An expense cycle is defined as the day an officeholder is sworn in until the day the office is vacated.

Before votes were taken on each proposed change, Ms. Cajero Bedford reacted sharply to a proposal offered by Ann Eshinger of the League of Women Voters of Arizona and endorsed by Barbara Lubin, executive director of the Clean Elections Institute and another committee member, Bart Turner. Neither Ms. Lubin nor Mr. Turner was present for the July 5 meeting.

Ms. Eschinger submitted a long-held position regarding special-interest money that she wanted included in the report to the commission, saying she opposes “special interest money going into officeholder expense accounts.”

The printed proposal re-emphasizes support for the Clean Elections Act and its “goal of diminishing the influence of special interest money,” but opposes the present funding method.

“The relationship between a lobbyist and a public official — especially one elected with public funding — should never have a dollar sign attached to it,” the statement reads. “We believe that a simpler solution to funding the reasonable expenses of holding public office is a legislative appropriation from the General Fund, or surplus Clean Elections funds, or a combination thereof.”

Ms. Cajero Bedford glanced at the statement and bristled. “That’s not honest,” she snapped. “You say yes to a lot of the things we discussed and now you say ‘screw it.’” Members of the committee told Ms. Eschinger, who disagreed with Ms. Cajero Bedford’s assessment, that she has every right to lobby the Clean Elections Commission regarding officeholder account funding.

Recognizing that Ms. Cajero Bedford and the other committee members present, Don Goldwater and Rep. Jerry Weiers, R-12, were absolutely opposed to attaching the statement to the proposed rules changes, Ms. Eschinger decided not the press the issue at that time.

In fact, the statement says: “The Clean Elections Institute and the League of Women Voters of Arizona will work to build voter, media and legislative support for legislation introduced to provide this method of funding.”

When the votes were cast on the rules changes, Ms. Eschinger voted against proposals to increase contribution limits and the rule listing permissible uses of the expense funds. Ms. Eschinger argued unsuccessfully against the word “include” before a list of permissible uses. She preferred a more restrictive “limited to.”

The advisory committee also approved seeking a formal opinion from the Attorney General’s Office on whether lobbyists may legally contribute to officeholder expense accounts.

Next Meeting Is July 29

The recommendations will be forwarded to the Clean Elections Commission, which next meets July 29. —