The Citizens Clean Elections Commission temporarily delayed its vote on a proposed rule that will clarify what constitutes a political committee under Arizona’s campaign finance statutes and possibly require disclosure from some dark money organizations due to last-minute changes that threw the commission’s meeting into confusion.

Tom Collins, the commission’s executive director, proposed what he described as several minor changes to the proposed rule, which has undergone several major revisions over the past several months. But after a commission moved to adopt some, but not all of Collins’ recommended changes at its Oct. 29 meeting, some members of the panel were unclear exactly what they were voting on.

As a result, the commission recessed to draw up a clean version of the rule and decided to postpone the final vote until 2 p.m. on Friday, Oct. 30. The final version of the rule was posted on the commission’s website shortly after the meeting.

The proposed changes to the rule, which was already on its third version, have been available since last week on the commission’s website as part of a memo Collins wrote to the commissioners. But that version struck out several sections and added new language. On top of that, Commissioner Mark Kimble moved to adopt version three of the rule change, with Collins’ proposed changes, except for a provision that would have added language on the disclosure of materials obtained during investigations.

At that point, Commissioner Mitchell Laird was unclear about exactly what the commission would be voting on. After an explanation of the proposed changes, Laird said the public should have some time to consider the revisions.

“If we’re making a bunch of changes that we only got out a week ago and we’re making more changes today, I would rather err on the side of openness and disclosure and put out exactly what we think ought to get a thumbs up or thumbs down vote,” Laird said. “Now we’re proposing a draft three of version three, which is deleting the last paragraph of version two.”

The proposed rule would clarify the statutory definition of “political committee” that the Legislature enacted during the 2015 session.

That law states that a qualifies as a political committee that is subject to registration and disclosure requirements if it raises or spends at least $500 to influence an election and has the primary purpose of electioneering. The commission’s proposal is meant to remedy the lack of a definition of “primary purpose,” and consider a group to have met that threshold if it more than half of its expenditures during a two-year election cycle went toward influencing elections.

Secretary of State Michele Reagan, Attorney General Mark Brnovich, business groups and numerous Republican lawmakers dispute the commission’s authority to regulate independent expenditure groups in the first place, saying the CCEC’s authority extends only to Clean Elections candidates and races involving them. Some have raised the possibility of litigation if the commission pushes forward with its proposal.

The commission’s delay won’t be nearly long for critics of the rule change, with the Secretary of State’s Office first and foremost among them. Reagan and her staff have vociferously criticized the commission, which they said is overstepping its authority and creating a confusing and overlapping system of campaign finance enforcement.

Assistant Secretary of State Lee Miller urged the commission to table its consideration of the proposed rule so that the commission, the Secretary of State’s Office and the Arizona Attorney General’s Office can collaborate on proposed legislation to settle the issue during the upcoming 2016 legislative session. Miller said the current proposal would leave unanswered important questions about who is subject to the rules.

“I think it is quite achievable goal for our three organizations … to work together in preparation for this upcoming legislative session in January to draft a universal definition of who is a political committee so everybody’s operating under the same rules of the road,” Miller said. “If we solve that question, then the quarrels evaporate.”

The Arizona Chamber of Commerce also urged the commission to put the proposed rule change on hold. Chamber spokesman Garrick Taylor echoed concerns that the changes were confusing and proposed that the commission table the proposal and submit to the public for 60 days of comment.

“We don’t believe there’s a need to rush into amending these rules,” Taylor said.

However, Collins and some commissioners pointed out that the CCEC has been debating the proposed rule change for nearly 180 days. The commission was poised to pass the rule in August, but submitted for 60 days’ worth of public comment after making substantive changes.

“When you look at the totality of time that we have spent on this subject matter, it has been about 168 days total. It has been 60 days since version three circulated,” Collins said.

Reagan suffered another defeat at the meeting as the commission formally rejected a petition she submitted in August that essentially asked it to disavow its authority of non-Clean Elections campaign finance statutes.