The so-called “kingmaker” provision in a controversial campaign finance law that takes effect later this year may have to be downgraded to “princemaker” status, thanks to a proposed change being considered by lawmakers.

Under S1516, some candidates are more equal than others

A sweeping campaign finance bill enacted by the Arizona Legislature that critics say will flood the state with dark money in campaigns also removes criminal penalties for various types of political corruption.

Last week, Arizona Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Glenn Hamer bitterly complained about the claim that, under S1516 (campaign finance amendments), the state is ceding its authority to regulate campaign spending to the feds. “This claim is so far off the mark as to make me wonder whether the media doesn’t understand campaign laws or whether it’s choosing just to ignore the facts,” Hamer wrote.

Arizona Chamber CEO and President Glenn Hamer vigorously defended S1516 (campaign finance amendments) against “wildly inaccurate” claims that he said are being perpetuated by the media. “We’re all entitled to our own opinions, but not to our own facts,” he wrote in a blog.

Gov. Doug Ducey signed into law a massive overhaul of Arizona’s campaign finance laws, which opponents fear will usher in a wave of anonymous campaign spending and add to the rising tide of money in politics.

Gov. Doug Ducey signed a bill that completely rewrites Arizona’s campaign finance laws, including a provision that critics say will open the state up to more dark money in elections.

Arizona voters may get the last word on sweeping legislation that alters the rules for “dark money” and other anonymous donations to politicians and ballot measures.

The state House gave final approval Tuesday to a major overhaul of campaign finance laws, including allowing individuals to spend unlimited amounts of money to help raise cash for candidates they like and never have to disclose that to the public.

Arizona lawmakers considering a bill that would reduce regulation on groups that spend money in elections without disclosing the source benefitted by more than $900,000 during the 2014 election cycle, in what’s dubbed “dark money” spending.