Ethics: Arkansas Blog, Arkansas Times

The rise of 'dark money' in politics

Max Brantley — Fri, 03 May 2013 11:48:00 -0500

Money, like water, always finds an outlet. Rulings like Citizens United have aided the flow of unaccountable money into political races, but there are other outlets. One is the rise of largely unaccountable 501c4 nonprofit organizations, that enjoy favored tax status even as they are able to spend some money in direct political activities (unlike rules that apply to 501c3 organizations.)

State officials are starting to take notice. Talking Points Memo writes here about a conference call that included people from 10 states about the growing influence of independent spending by such groups. Arkansas has felt the money, too, but didn't apparently have a representative in this talk.

Ironically enough, a new stab at "ethics" in Arkansas is seen by at least one political operator I know as likely to be counterproductive thanks to the 501c4s. He refers to the legislatively proposed constitutional amendment that allows for legislative pay raises, an easing of term limits, legalized junkets and legislative banquets and also a small change in an ethics rule or two.

One new ethics rule would ban direct corporate contributions to political candidates. Corporations still could contribute to PACs of all sorts. Isn't this limitation good? Well, a little bit good. Corporate spending on legislative races is relatively small, though $2,000 can be a lot of money for a state House candidate. It's far more important in statewide races. Think of multi-million-dollar races for governor and sometimes offices like attorney general.

If the corporate money is cut off, it will go somewhere. My friend bets, if the ethics amendment passes, it will supercharge movement of corporate money to the shadowy 501c4 organizations. I actually don't think we're going to have to wait long for such a catalyst to see this money play an even uglier role in state politics. If it doesn't show up in bundles for state Supreme Court races in the future, count me surprised.

What to do? Some states have moved to at least require reporting of politically related expenditures by independent groups. Others are pressing for federal investigations to see whether these "social welfare" groups are stretching tax law beyond its limit in political spending.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Regnat Populus plans lawsuit over petition restrictions

Max Brantley — Thu, 25 Apr 2013 09:43:00 -0500

Regnat Populus, the grassroots group that succeeded in putting its ethics initiative in a legislatively proposed constitutional amendment heading to the ballot in 2014, has circulated a statement touting its achievement and defending some of the items grafted onto that amendment to achieve legislative approval, particularly an extension of term limits and a mechanism to raise legislative pay.

There's news in the message of an expected lawsuit over efforts by the business lobby to curtail the ability of Arkansas voters to petition their government:

The now infamous SB 821, introduced by Sen. Ingram of West Memphis, was designed by the Southland/Oaklawn duopoly and the gas lobby to stymie the Ballot Initiative process itself because of Initiated Acts that were attempted in 2012 which would have presented competition/and or cut into profits for their respective businesses. SB 821 imposes restrictions on paid canvassers, makes rules that make it more difficult to petition and shortens the time allowed to petition. We believe SB 821 will be shown to be unconstitutional and are filing suit to fight this measure which infringes upon Arkansas citizens’ ability to petition through this cherished Citizen Initiated process.

Sadly, the legislature has also referred a constitutional amendment on petitions that would make it harder to cure petition drives that fall short at the initial deadline. It could hamper the process even if a lawsuit succeeds in striking the law.

On other subjects:

I take exception to Regnat Populus' benign view of the provision added by the Senate to continue to allow lobby-paid junkets. RP believes the provision allowing travel to conferences means only transportation costs, not food, lodging or other events (say golf tournaments) scheduled as part of the conferences. The amendment doesn't specify this definition of travel. "Travel" by any standard of government reimbursement routinely includes food, lodging, registration fees and other incidentals. We won't know until a court decides. I expect an early test. Legislators won't be traveling if they have to pay for hotels, meals and drinks. And they want to travel.

I also think Regnat Populus is naive in thinking its decision to allow free wining and dining of official groups can't and won't be abused. To continue to allow fancy swillathons for the whole legislature is pernicious enough. But the amendment allows banqueting for an event to which a "specific governmental body" is invited. What is a "governmental body?" The amendment definition [and it's more important than any previous law or rule] includes an "office" or "other establishment" of the "legislative branch." Got a truck? I see a loophole big enough for any lobbyist or legislator to drive an officeholder in the legislature through. Or the Payday Lenders Caucus, at least.

But for now celebrate some elements in the amendment that represent a step forward. The Regnat Populus message follows:

Dear Friends,
This legislative session has been a busy one and now that it has ended we can apprise you of the long process that culminated with the passage of the Arkansas Elected Officials Ethics, Transparency and Financial Reform Amendment of 2014 to be placed before the Arkansas voters in 2014.

In mid-February of this year, members of Regnat Populus were contacted by Rep. Warwick Sabin with regards to a proposed comprehensive ethics amendment that he wanted to introduce. During the following month, Paul Spencer and David Couch collaborated directly with Rep. Warwick Sabin and Sen. Jon Woods to produce the first iteration of the Arkansas Elected Officials Ethics, Transparency and Financial Reform Amendment of 2014.

During the chaotic final week of the legislative session there were some reactionary inaccuracies that were perpetuated about the Amendment and we would like to take this opportunity to present the process to you, our supporters.

This proposed amendment was initially introduced into Committee by Rep. Sabin (who repeated stressed that Regnat Populus was currently running a ballot initiative with a Class A misdemeanor that could possibly be invoked if a legislator took food or drink that was offered at a public gathering sponsored by a corporation and noted that our Ballot Initiatve “will all but certainly become law in 2014”). After some deliberation, the final product that was passed in Committee contained all three provisions of Regnat Populus’ Campaign Finance and Lobbying Act of 2014. The first two provisions, a complete ban on direct corporate contributions to Constitutional Officers and members of the General Assembly and an increase in the “revolving door” (through which a legislator becomes a lobbyist) from one year to two years remained unchanged.

The third provision, the gift ban from lobbyists to legislators was modified with three exceptions:

1) Anything of value that is readily available to the general public. (A member of the general assembly can take a free sample at Wal-Mart or Riverfest without fear of prosecution.)

2) Food or drink available at a planned activity to which a specific governmental body or identifiable group of public servants is invited.

“Specific governmental body” is a term that is defined in existing law in Arkansas and other states and is the subject of an opinion of the Arkansas Ethics Commission.

A lobbyist cannot, as it has been suggested, select certain members of the General Assembly and invite them to dinner at Doe’s. Examples of identifiable groups would be the entire Senate Judiciary Committee or the House State Agencies Committee — every committee member would have to be invited. With the well-defined parameters of this limitation, we felt it was a legitimate issue on which to compromise.

Please note that the usual lobbyist-sponsored daily lunch and dinner during the legislative session and even a CUP OF COFFEE are still explicitly banned with this legislation. These prohibitions will fundamentally change the culture of “business-as-usual” at the Capitol.

3) Payments by regional or national organizations for travel to regional or national conferences at which the State of Arkansas is requested to be represented by a person or persons elected to an office under subsection (a) of this section.

This permits an organization to pay for TRAVEL to a regional or national conference. It does NOT allow for the payment of any additional expenses like lodging, food or drink, or golf outings (or JUNKETS as has been suggested). While this was not included in our preliminary discussions and was added at the last minute by the Senate, we don’t believe it should be a deal-breaker. The exception is narrow and limited. While the way it was included was disturbing, we don’t believe that it should have caused us to denounce the entire amendment, whose reforms are sorely needed in Arkansas.

In addition to our original proposal, Rep. Sabin and Sen. Woods brought up two other proposals-modifications of term limits and the establishment of a Citizens’ Commission to establish legislator pay. Regnat Populus considered these additions to be good government measures and have the effect of limiting outside influence in the political process (inexperienced legislators needing to rely on lobbyists’ broad knowledge of the legislative process) and can actually create a situtation in which more people (not just the retired or independently wealthy) can be involved in public service by being paid a living wage. Regnat Populus’ position is that the three exceptions made to our original Act were worthwhile compromises to have such a bold and comprehensive initiative presented to the people at the ballot box.

After the Amendment was voted upon and passed by the entire House, Rep. Sabin and Sen. Woods still took into consideration suggestions made by Scott Trotter, a former activist with Common Cause in Arkansas ethics reforms in the past, and heroically worked through the last weekend before the end of the session with David Couch and Paul Spencer (with much thanks to Matt Miller from the Bureau of Legislative Research) to further tighten up the language and close loopholes that were not previously foreseen.

Of the final changes to HJR 1009, Scott Trotter noted “The amendments result in substantial improvement to HJR 1009 that include (a) enhanced restrictions on gifts from lobbyists to public officials, (b) the potential for adoption of needed adjustments to the salaries of state officials and judges through a measured process open to the public, and (c) the revision and inclusion of definitions and other terms that clarify and strengthen the key provisions of HJR 1009.” These amendments were then REINTRODUCED and were, in the end passed by both houses and signed by Governor Beebe on April 22nd.

Unfortunately, we suffered some legislative set-backs as well. The now infamous SB 821, introduced by Sen. Ingram of West Memphis, was designed by the Southland/Oaklawn duopoly and the gas lobby to stymie the Ballot Initiative process itself because of Initiated Acts that were attempted in 2012 which would have presented competition/and or cut into profits for their respective businesses. SB 821 imposes restrictions on paid canvassers, makes rules that make it more difficult to petition and shortens the time allowed to petition. We believe SB 821 will be shown to be unconstitutional and are filing suit to fight this measure which infringes upon Arkansas citizens’ ability to petition through this cherished Citizen Initiated process.

In conclusion, Regnat Populus is pleased that the people of Arkansas will have the opportunity to approve the Arkansas Elected Officials Ethics, Transparency and Financial Reform Amendment of 2014 in about 18 months. It was a very long journey to get to this point. We would like to take the opportunity to first of all thank YOU, our many supporters.

Those of you who donated money which allowed us to print copies of petition sheets, pay for gas, supplies, etc. in our initial efforts, those of you who canvassed from Eureka Springs to Texarkana in punishing heat and were threatened with arrest and still came back day after day, also travelling to far away counties-you made the political system stand up and pay attention to an authentic movement for reform arising from the people.

To Brent Bumpers who single-handedly got many of his influential friends and associates to form into a cohesive group called Better Ethics Now to financially back our efforts culminating with a large fund-raiser at Rep. Vic Snyder’s house (to whom we are also very greatful) and demonstrated the political will of those within Arkansas politics for these reforms. It is all of these efforts that gave us the credibility to be taken VERY seriously at the legislative session this year.

And lastly, to Rep. Warwick Sabin (D-Little Rock) and Sen. Jon Woods (R-Springdale) who initiated this legislation, then took the public brunt of loud and sarcastic criticism, and then worked tirelessly to perfect this Amendment along with Matt Miller and Scott Trotter up to the last minute in order present the best piece of legislation possible to the Arkansas voter in 2014, we thank you.

Regnat Populus is pleased that this Amendment now has a chance to accomplish the goal of a government that is more responsive to the needs of its citizens than the wishes of special interests. These changes being passed in the legislative session will now free up Regnat Populus to continue to work on new and exciting future ventures in the upcoming election cycle that will build upon our belief that in Arkansas, THE PEOPLE should RULE.

Stay tuned! The best is yet to come!

David Couch and Paul Spencer
Co-Chairs

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Ethics update: Amending the amendment

Max Brantley — Sun, 14 Apr 2013 08:39:00 -0500

I've done some emoting on the blog and in my column about the proposed constitutional amendment, SJR 9, crafted by Rep. Warwick Sabin and others to incorporate some of the Regnat Populus ethics initiative into a multi-pronged proposal with some benefits for legislators.

Maybe ranting is a better word than emoting.

I felt the tradeoffwas no bargain for the public. Legislators would have to give up corporate contributions to individual campaigns (though not to PACs). Lobbyists would be restricted in gifts to legislators, whether it be George Strait tickets or lunches at Doe's.

But ... the amendment provides constitutional protection for lobby wining and dining, so long as clearly identifiable groups are invited to the hogslops. The whole House. The whole Senate. All of a critical committee. And who knows what other identifiable groups could be identified — the Black Caucus, the Republican Caucus, the Shale Caucus, the God Caucus? The provision inserted to protect legislators' mealtime pleasure (not a feature of the Regnat Populus initiative) guarantees continuation of the nightly special interest feeds that are a standard feature of a legislative session. General public not invited.

The amendment also provides constitutional protection of travel junkets provided by lobbyists or groups affiliated with lobbyists, so long as a formal invite to the state is issued. This is another loophole begging for a highballing wide load to barrel through.

Also: The amendment sets up a commission (with majority of seats controlled by the legislature) to vote pay raises for legislators, judges and statewide elected officials. This provides all of the desired pay raises with none of the political guilt that comes from the legislature having to set its own pay.

Also: The amendment significantly waters down term limits, giving a legislator the ability to serve 16 years in a single chamber. Time enough to become very powerful.

In a session where constitutional amendments have had rough sledding — even the chamber of commerce lost a tort reform amendment drive — this one has met wide approval. The pay raise and term limit dilution have plenty to do with it. Few public criticisms have been registered.

But Scott Trotter, a Little Rock lawyer who worked with Common Cause when the state approved an ethics initiative decades ago, did have objections last week

He listed them in this memo.

At first, it appeared it was too late in the process to address any of Trotter's concerns. But Sabin went to work on it.

There's now an amended proposal here.

The Senate committee will consider the amended version next week. That's always perilous. Some of the sleazier lobbyists have really been raising hell about even the modest limitations this proposal would put on their routines. They could derail the measure yet.

Trotter, having seen the revision, has given sponsors a statement that says in part:

“The amendments result in substantial improvement to HJR 1009 that include (a) enhanced restrictions on gifts from lobbyists to public officials, (b) the potential for adoption of needed adjustments to the salaries of state officials and judges through a measured process open to the public, and (c) the revision and inclusion of definitions and other terms that clarify and strengthen the key provisions of HJR 1009.

Significantly, I'd note, the changes don't address a problem Trotter cited. The amendment removes a constitutional provision on per diem and expenses from the Constitution and leaves these matters to the legislature. The legislature has a rich history of abusing per diem and expenses as a means of salary supplement. Why not turn per diem over to the pay commission, too, Trotter had asked? Why not indeed?

The revisal tightens some definitions on lobbying to cover all bases of sources of gifts. It adds some language to encourage transparency in the salary commission's actions, specifically FOI application. It would limit terms of the pay commission to two terms.

I had a long chat with Warwick, a former colleague and friend, about the effort Saturday. He's had the frustrating experience of being banged from many different directions. I've never doubted his good intentions or those of the others working on the measure, including backers of Regnat Populus. It is true the amendment makes some small ethical steps forward. Trotter's suggestions have produced technical improvements.

I'm trying hard not to be reflexively negative. But it is only fact that the amendment remains a proposal that eases term limits, provides a political escape route for legislative pay raises and provides constitutional protection for lobby-paid legislative banqueting and travel junkets. The givebacks, particularly on term limits, may make it harder to pass and thus again kill some modest ethics advancements.

Lobbyists are said to be unhappy about the proposal. That's definitely a point in its favor.

But there's this:

You know how all the Republicans in favor of Medicaid expansion are telling Democrats and liberal columnists to shut up and stop saying they support the "private option" plan? How their support is a disincentive to holdout Republicans?

I feel the same way about hearing that legislators support something called an "ethics" amendment.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

The legislative pay raise and junket protection amendment passes

Max Brantley — Tue, 09 Apr 2013 14:14:49 -0500

The fix is in. When the deeply split Arkansas House passes something 71-12, you know something is amiss.

This would be the proposed constitutional amendment to open the door to a legislative pay raise, enshrine expenses-paid junketing and lobbyist-financed dining in the Arkansas Constitution, exempt current legislators who don't run again from a revolving-door lobbyist rule and, oh yeah, do a little something or other about ethics.

They call it ethics reform. It pretty well craps on the citizen-initiated ethics reform statute passed a couple of decades ago, something one of the architects of that law told legislative sponsors in a detailed memo this week. They instantly disregarded the input. Too late to make good law.

In honor of this bait-and-switch, I give you my column this week early on the jump. With the payday lending blood-suckers' friend, Sen. Jon Woods, as sponsor, it'll be excreted by the Senate swiftly. Will the chamber of commerce provide some money to pass this Trojan horse when it hits the 2014 ballot? Rent-to-own is their motto, so I'd say so. I guess I'll be bedding down with a few principled teabaggers and the term limits lobby on this one. Hell, I'd take Nate Bell's symbolic gun nuttery amendment over something like this, which does actual ill.

Greed rules

The Arkansas legislature earns its low regard daily, last Friday with committee approval of a constitutional amendment labeled “ethics reform.”

It’s sponsored by freshman Rep. Warwick Sabin, a proven progressive, fine fellow and former Times colleague. It was endorsed by Paul Spencer, leader of the Regnat Populus grassroots effort to pass a ballot initiative to tighten ethics rules.

To win approval from the legislature, the ethics measure was amended into worthlessness. It gives constitutional protection to junkets and expense account dining on the lobby’s tab and it also gives legislators a way to stay longer in the legislature at higher pay.

Sabin started with a measure to fulfill Regnant Populus’ aims of outlawing corporate campaign contributions, requiring a two-year waiting period before a legislator could become a lobbyist and prohibiting gifts from lobbyists to legislators.

The measure still retains the corporate contribution ban (nice, though typically a factor in only a minority of races. Plus, the U.S. Supreme Court may soon strike down such limitations.) That lobby cooling-off period? It won’t apply to current legislators if they don’t run again. That ban on lobbyist gifts? It gets way worse.

The amendment incorporates a huge loophole in existing ethical rules. It says lawmakers still may partake of "food or drink available at a planned activity to which a specific governmental body or identifiable group of public servants is invited."

This provides constitutional cover (out of reach of future legislatures) for all the hog slopping by the lobby during a session, including big balls for legislative leadership and lesser nightly parties for invited guest lists. The amendment provides no bar for tightly targeted guest lists — a soiree for select members of a committee considering tort reform, for example. The nightly round of lobby-paid social activities would continue, with constitutional protection.

It gets worse. The amendment also now gives constitutional protection to junkets. It makes legal forever “Payments by regional or national organizations for travel to regional or national conferences at which the State of Arkansas is requested to be represented ….”

If the electric co-op throws a conference in New York, all it takes for a legislator to get a free plane ticket, Ritz-Carlton room, meals, drinks and a round of golf or two is an official invite requesting the presence of Arkansas at the event. Remember the big Turkey junket that produced a legislative resolution in support of Kazakhstan? It, too, could be constitutionally protected if this amendment passes.

And I still haven’t gotten to the worst of it.

In return for empty nods in the direction of better ethics, greedy legislators also insisted on some kickbacks. 1) The amendment would establish a commission (a majority named by legislative leaders) to set legislative pay. This would take the political hot potato out of legislative hands. Pay raises could be expected to follow forthwith. 2) Term limits would be eased considerably. Where lawmakers now may serve no more than six years in the House and eight, generally, in the Senate, a lawmaker could choose to serve 16 years in either the House or Senate. That functionally neuters term limits. With 16 years in a single chamber, a lawmaker can acquire immense power.

A sound argument can be made for higher legislative pay and an end to term limits. But no argument can be made that the legislature is giving back anything of significance to get these benefits.

The legislature has killed meaningful ethics legislation this session, such as a move to end logrolling of campaign contributions from one candidate to another and to stop multiple donations from the same corporate source. This same legislature, furthermore, is spoiling to make citizen ballot initiatives just about impossible.

If this amendment passes, we could be stuck with it forever.

Free meals, free junkets, higher pay, longer time in office. Only an Arkansas legislator would call this “ethics reform.”

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

The Sunday night oily ethics line

Max Brantley — Sun, 07 Apr 2013 17:20:40 -0500

The line is open. Finishing up:

* IN THE OIL SPILL ZONE: Some young activists from the Tar Sands Blockade, a group that opposes the Keystone XL pipeline, is ranging all over the Mayflower oil spill zone to document the mess left by the Exxon Pegasus pipeline rupture that spewed Canadian tar sands on a Mayflower neighborhood and significant amounts of nearby wetland. The group has corrected earlier reports about movement of spilled oil to a wetland area, but the videos show clearly enough that the sticky residue is turning up in all kinds of places. Not pretty. Still no word if Faulkner County officials ever plan to retake control of public matters from the giant international oil company that has run the show to date. (This, by the way, is chump change stuff from the company that gave you the Valdez disaster. A few million dollars worth of headache in backwoods, energy company-loving Faulkner County is peanuts to them; they have no reason to be any less condescending and controlling than they have and plan to be.)

* COMPLAINT AGAINST SEN. BOOKOUT ON CAMPAIGN SPENDING: Interesting story in the Jonesboro Sun about an ethics complaint filed by a Jonesboro resident against Sen. Paul Bookout (Is he still in the Senate? You could hardly tell it.)

Bookout was unopposed for re-election. Nonetheless, he raised more than $80,000 and spent more than $50,000, a whopping $29,000 of it in unitemized "entertainment" expenses. Fun fellow. He says he followed the law. He didn't provide any details on that entertainment to the inquiring Sun reporter, however.

The complaint pends. Surely to goodness the state Ethics Commission will, in term, issue a stern cautionary message and a $100 fine.

This is but another good example of the utter emptiness of state ethics laws.

1) They are not very tough to begin with.

2) The legislature controls the budget of the agency that enforces the law.

3) The agency that enforces the law has a tiny staff.

4) Ethics laws are only enforced in the breach, in response to complaints. There's no systematic review of campaign filings for gaping questions such as this one.

5) Lobbyists and greedy legislators have wormed around the rules and law in such a way as to make a mockery of the idea of clean government. Group events, ticketed events, splitting, stacking, simple failure to report. All these things are the lingo of a system that not only doesn't discourage corruption, it eoncourages creative corruption. The ethics law is meaningful only for the honest and careful. Diogenes would need a pretty big effin' lantern to find many of those under the Capitol dome.

Thus it is that an absolutely well-meaning effort to improve things — the proposed constitutional amendment I wrote about yesterday — already has lobbyists laughing up their sleeves. Enshrining free banquets and junkets in the Constitution, beyond reach of statute or neutered ethics regulators is ethics reform? A pay raise and longer time in office is ethics reform?

Only in Arkansas.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

The price of ethics: more payola for Arkansas legislators

Max Brantley — Sat, 06 Apr 2013 09:50:00 -0500

I reported yesterday that a constitutional amendment modestly addressing state ethics law was approved by both the House and Senate committees that clear the three proposed constitutional amendments that the legislature may send to voters every two years.

A key sponsor is former colleague and reliably progressive Hillcrest Democratic Rep. Warwick Sabin. An advocate of the cause is Paul Spencer, who's labored long and hard for the grassroots Regnant Populus group to initiatie ethics reform.

I credit them with the best of intentions. The measure contains some advancements.

* It bans corporate contributions to political campaigns. It is unclear, however, if it bans the slimy practice perfected by Republicans in 2012 by which unopposed legislators sitting on fat campaign accounts spread the money around to other candidates. It's wrong. It's an end-run around campaign limits because special interests can load up candidates with money they'll in turn pass on to candidates who've already received maximum contributions from the same special interests.

* It forces public officials to wait two years, rather than one, to become a paid lobbyist after working for lobby interests as a legislator in hopes of future work. But ... The current batch of legislators is not covered by this new rule unless they are elected again in 2014. So, big whoop. Current legislators can continue to head to the lobby after a year off.

* It supposedly bans gifts by lobbyists to lawmakers. But, a last-minute addition to the measure created a loophole big enough to drive a corporate jet and a Rolls Royce through, along with an addition to the amendment from existing law that is widely abused.

FIRST: If I'm reading the various amendments correctly, lawmakers still may partake of "food or drink available at a planned activity to which a specific governmental body or identifiable group of public servants is invited." This was NOT part of the Regnat Populus proposal.

Let us say Stephens Inc. invites the Republican members of the Insurance and Commerce Committee to dinner in the Capital Hotel wine cellar. This "identifiable" group of legislators may freely partake, right?

Let us say the Electric Co-op, Entergy, some big insurance companies and other corporate interests pay so that members of the legislature may attend a big dinner honoring the House speaker, with lobbyists on hand to kiss the right rings. Wouldn't they still be able to freely partake?

There are so many ways to slice and dice "identifiable groups" that I don't see a way in the world the amendment would prevent a lobbyist from hosting, say, those State Agencies members still undecided on the tort reform amendments from convening in the backroom of Doe's for martinis, steaks and cabernet.

It would give constitutional protection to hog slopping.

* But this isn't even the worst exception thrown into this amendment Get a load of this 11th-hour exception, pushed into the amendment by a Republican leader:

(vi) Payments by regional or national organizations for travel to regional or national conferences at which the State of Arkansas is requested to be represented by a person or persons elected to an office under subsection (a) of this section;

Free junkets to Turkey? Keep them coming. All's needed is a formal invitation for the state to send a representative. You may be sure special interests have some letterhead stationery for the invites. The proper legislative officials will know which individual members would be best able to represent the state in New York, San Francisco, Paris or wherever.

Once more: If a conference is important to the state, the state should pay to send someone to attend, not grovel for handouts.

Ethics amendment? I call it the Junket Amendment. Woefully lacking, too, is any protections that would assure the hog slopping and junketing get fully reported to the public.

The continuation of hog slopping is not the real reason that parasitic legislators like Sen. Jon Woods jumped on this bandwagon. The bigger reasons are much more important:

1) The amendment provides the tools for pay raises for legislators outside the political arena. It would turn public official pay raises over to a citizens commission. They are fully expected to look at the low level of official pay and readily recommend higher pay for these hard-working public servants (many of them not otherwise employed). A majority of the members of this commission will be appointed by leaders of the legislature. Unlike the lobbying provision, put off effectively for two years, this baby will be put into motion 45 days after adoption. Pay raises will be self-executing. The legislature need not vote on them and give opponents campaign fodder.

2) Term limits. With an arcane exception related to decennial redistricting, members are currently limited to six years of service in the House and eight in the Senate. This amendment would give legislators a 16-year term limit, however they'd like to use it. Can you say potentate? A legislator can commit to a full 16-year run in either the House or Senate, by which time they'd be modern-day versions of the long-serving dinosaurs of the pre-term limits days like Knox Nelson and Max Howell. I opposed term limits. I still oppose term limits. But this is a way to give the new majority Republicans an effective end-run around term limits without seeming to do so. Of course the new limits apply to currently serving members, not just those elected in 2014 and beyond, as with the lobbying restriction. Pick your worst nightmare for a 16-year run in the House or Senate, say a Nate Bell or Bryan King. Imagine what such bullies could do after accruing that sort of tenure.

Bottom line: Turns out serving in the legislature is pretty sweet when you have power. What's not to like about a proposal that allows you to serve longer, make more money at it and keep the junkets and special interest dinners coming? Particularly when you can tell the voters it's all in the name of "Ethics Reform."

Remind me again what's being traded off for this.

I hate dropping any rain on the diligent work by good people on a tough subject. I favor higher pay for legislators and an end to term limits. But I don't think they've traded off enough in this measure to earn these significant benefits.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Ethics group fights measure to limit referendum process

Max Brantley — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 07:58:00 -0500

I wrote yesterday about the effort backed by Arkansas's duopoly casinos at Southland and Oaklawn, Attorney General Dustin McDaniel and others to cripple the referendum process by, among others, severely limiting signature gathering by paid canvassers.

Paul Spencer has written an e-mail to supporters of Regnat Populus about the group's objections to the legislation. His group has been working on a petition to improve the state ethics law. The vested interests hate that, too.

His detailed objections follow on the jump.

They are not the only issues that contribute to a potential legal challenge of this law if it passes the House as it has the Senate. The Arkansas Constitution raises questions about placing new hurdles on the referendum process as well.

Details aside, the Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce, the casinos, their high-dollar attorneys and the business lobby generally don't want the people to have ready access to the ballot to change their laws.

UPDATE: An opponent of the bill tells me it was pulled down after being introduced in House committee this morning. Some "changes" are contemplated.

SIDE NOTE: David Couch, a lawyer who's worked on initiative campaigns, testified against the bill today. He has noted, among others, that the review process worked. No flawed petitions reached the ballot. And he also noted, significantly, that the law is aimed at statewide ballot measures, but wouldn't affect, for example, the Walton-financed campaign that ultimately legalized package alcohol sales in Benton County. Couch said some of the same paid canvassers worked on that campaign that worked on some statewide petition campaigns. Laws with stiff penalties already exist to punish fraud in the petition process, he said.

FROM PAUL SPENCER:

Friends,

We have sent earlier notices about the problems with SB 821 (Suppression of Citizen Initiated Acts and Referenda) noting our general dismay with this bill. The bill was passed in the Senate last week with sadly only one NAY vote. We can only assume they did not fully appreciate how this bill will materially harm Citizen Initiated Legislation. SB 821 will now be going to the House very soon. Now is the time to contact your Representatives to bring this issue to their attention and insist that they represent citizens' interests over special interests and to protect the right of citizens to exercise their First Amendment right to petition.

Thus we have spelled out in detail the specific problems with SB 821 and how this legislation will materially suppress the Initiative and Referenda Process.

Problems with SB 821.

Onerous

1. (Section 3) Requirement of paid canvassers to register with Secretary of State (SoS) and electronic registration is disallowed.

2. (Section 18) Disallows electronic transmission of blank petitions to other parts of the state during a Ballot Initiative Campaign. Mind you, there is a 15 county geographic distribution requirement.

3. Disallows paid canvassers that do not have a permanent physical address.

4. (Section 13) Prohibition on soliciting sigs after turn in while waiting for the Secretary of State to verify sigs (“cure period”). This is a crucial “make-or-break” time during the Citizen Initiated legislative process. This is an up to 30 day prohibition on signatures which could stymie any and all Citizen Initiated Legislation (CIL) except those very well-funded by outside groups.

5. (Section 15) Requirement to have an additional REDUNDANT statement identifying the paid canvassers by name and registration # (which is already on the petition). Currently, petitions are sorted by county. This will require them to also be sorted by canvasser within that county.

6. (Section 21) Disallows payment per signature. Requirement to pay hourly will cost exponentially more and will exclude small grassroots organizations from CIL, allowing only those acts funded with large amounts of money to viably participate.

Affront to First Amendment Speech and Petition Rights

1. Disability Clause-Canvasser can fill in info. other than signature for disabled persons.

a. Excludes the rights of functionally illiterate citizens to participate in the CIL process (tantamount to “literacy tests”).

2. General requirement of registering with the Government to exercise 1st amendment right to petition. What next: requirement to “register” with the Government to assemble, conduct political speech, etc? America has traditionally granted great latitude in the area of protection of speech (Westboro Baptist Church etc.). Shouldn’t the protections afforded to those who disrupt soldier’s funerals with hate speech also extend to those who see to participate in CIL?

Dangerous Vagueness of Terms

1. . Means by which “valid” signature is determined.

a. What does “legible" and “material defect” mean? These, amongst other terms, are not defined in SB 821 and are inherently subjective. These terms allow anyone with a political motive to invalidate an initiative by disallowing numerous signatures with this vague and subjective terminology as a basis.

2. The Preamble conflates INVALID signatures (signatory’s registration cannot be verified by address) with FRAUDULENT signatures (those copied out of a phone book, Mickey Mouse, signatory is deceased, etc), by insinuating that 44% to 69% of the previous year’s signatures were FRAUDULENT. When dealing with a scale of 100,000 signatures, it is logistically impossible to have zero INVALID signatures. This is why there is a verification process that excludes all invalid and fraudulent signatures that works quite well with the SoS. In fact, none of the aforementioned measures in the Preamble made it to the ballot, thus validating the efficacy of the safeguards in place with the current system.

Orwellian

1. . Disturbing “State of Emergency” Clause

a. This assumption is based on the belief that 44-69% of sigs were FRAUDULENT instead of INVALID and therefore asserts that the public well-being, safety and peace is compromised. This clause would make SB 821 take effect immediately and "coincidentally" apply to the ongoing Regnat Populus Initiative which would ban direct corporate contributions to the legislators.

2. It is a disturbing Orwellian precedent for a special interest (Oaklawn and Southland Racetrack) to undermine the democratic process ITSELF in order to protect its own interests by the MEANS of the legislature at the EXPENSE of the people.

Paul Spencer

Regnat Populus

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Connectivity: Business and governance by citizen legislature

Max Brantley — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 06:47:00 -0500

Little attention has been given to an interesting little story Michael Cook wrote about the other day in Talk Business.

He wrote about SB 797, which is a tax increase on cell phone users to pay for improvements in rural broadband service and some 911 system improvements. The tax is a charge up to 40 cents a month on all cell phone users to subsidize rural telephone companies. It could raise $20 million a year.

Could be a good project. It's still a tax increase — even on the poorest of the poor and on tens of thousands who'll see no benefit from it. But it passed with virtually no disssent in both houses in a legislature where the Republican majority has vowed not to increase taxes. Sen. Michael Lamoureux of Russellville, the Republican leader in the Senate and the body's president pro tem, pushed hard for the legislation.

Might a contributing factor be that Lamoureux has done private legal work for rural telephone companies that will benefit from this legislation?

Lamoureux was his customarily acommodating self in answering questions about his relationship to beneficiaries of the legislation that he worked to pass.

He confirmed that he'd done some private work for a rural phone company in his district and took on representing some others in a Public Service Commission case related to federal rules that had harmed soe school broadband projects in his district. He filed no notice with the Senate on that representation, but said he didn't think it was required.

I did meet with our general counsel Steve Cook and seek guidance on how to deal with any legislation that affected any of my clients and followed that.

For example, I also represent defendants in criminal cases but I still vote on bills regarding crime and punishment issues.

I said the analogy didn't seem particularly apt in that Lamoureux surely wouldn't legislate a financial payment or a reduced sentence for a criminal defendant. He responded:

I didn't mean it as perfect comparison. I often oppose increased punishments like I did today or like last session on act 570.

I think your questions are fair. I have spoken openly about my representing some of these guys. Some documents I have filed [at the PSC] are publicly posted.

These issues arise frequently if you are a small solo practice. Much of what we do impacts clients.

True enough. And it's an age-old legislative concern, up to and including the current governor, who got rich in private law practice while a senator. The suspicion has always been that corporate political players can put legislators on retainers or otherwise funnel lucrative work in ways not readily apparent to the public at large, but immensely influential in other ways.

Lamoureux says his initial work, later broadened to other companies, was for P.T Sanders, a friend for 15 years, whose family owns Arkwest in Danville. "He was a constituent prior to redistricting, He has had me do some legal work for him for years, There was an issue that was common to the other companies so they asked me to help as well since I was handling for PT."

I jump to no conclusions except the usual one: Transparency is a great cure for ill appearances. Routine disclosure by lawyer legislators of clients with pending legislative interests would be a public confidence builder. Until that sunshiny day, newspapers will just have to depend on the kindness of friends to learn about such things.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

State Rep. John Hutchison before Ethics Commission

Max Brantley — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 16:10:21 -0600

The state Ethics Commission has found probable cause that freshman Republican Rep. John Hutchison of Harrisburg violated campaign finance law in some of the money he drew from campaign funds to pay for personal expenses during the campaign.

We'd reported earlier that lawyer Scott Troutt had filed a complaint over Hutchison's report of use of campaign money for living expenses. Candidates are allowed by law to recoup money up to the amount of personal income lost from time off work. Hutchison said he took off from a $500-a-week job on his brother-in-law's farm to campaign.

The Ethics Commission apparently found that Hutchison ran afoul of the law that law prohibits use of campaign money for personal expenses. The statute defines personal expenses as including "Morgage, Rent and Utility Payments — This includes any payments with respect to a personal residence of the candidate of his or her family..." Hutchison paid rent for use of his mother's house and for her utility bills. Hutchison was given an offer to settle the case, but declined it and asked for a public hearing. It's set for a meeting of the Ethics Commisson tomorrow morning.

This letter lays out the allegation against Hutchison.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

UPDATE: Ethics bill will combine with legislative pay, term limits expansion

Max Brantley — Wed, 13 Feb 2013 12:27:23 -0600

Regnat Populus, the organization pushing a ballot initiative for stronger ethics laws in Arkansas, says a "comprehensive" ethics reform bill is expected to be filed today. The group will still be at the Capitol canvassing lawmakers for signatures on the initiated act to prohibit lobbyist freebies for legislators; impose a two-year waiting period (the Gilbert Baker rule) on moving to the lobby, and to prohibit direct corporate contributions to individual campaigns (but not to or from PACs).

Paul Spencer, head of the committee, says a filed bill is not a passed bill. Canvassing will proceed. Call the roll on signatories.

UPDATE: The legislative effort is going to be a constitutional amendment. It was filed in shell form today by Rep. Warwick Sabin.

He promises more information later, but says there's emerging bipartisan legislative consensus in support of the Regnat Populus measure, in combination with changes in the existing term limits law and putting legislative pay in the hands of a citizens commission. The last would provide a way to pay increases on which the legislature itself didn't have to vote.

Republicans such as Sen. Jon Woods, also a sponsor of the amendment, are, in other words, supportive of better ethics if they can have higher pay and stay in office longer. The pay commission will come in separate legislation Woods plans. Term limits light would give this bunch 16 years or so total, where the limit is now six years in the House and eight in the Senate (with vagaries of reapportionment allowing some senators a few more years depending on the luck of the draw). A having-it-both-ways kind of measure. Stick around long enough to accrue all the power and all the perks, from pay and retirement to solid gold health insurance, while still claiming you support term limits.

As a matter of principle, I've always opposed term limits and supported higher pay for public service. As a matter of politics ....

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Legislative ethics: If lawmakers won't, the people must

Max Brantley — Tue, 12 Feb 2013 06:36:50 -0600

Between abortion and guns and defeating health care for working poor, the legislature hasn't had much time to devote to government ethics. Despite loud talk about good government from the new Republican majority, little has emerged to demonstrate a commitment to that.

So, after some talk that ethics legislation might actually emerge from the legislature, the Regnat Populus ethics initiative has decided to move on its own.

Earlier this year, we were very excited that there had been talk of the legislature making an attempt to introduce some sort of Ethics Reform legislation. While at first it seemed that progress was being made, the initial momentum now seems to be stalling. This has prompted Regnat Populus to take the following action.

On Wednesday, the 13th of February, Regnat Populus will kick-off canvassing efforts beginning at the State Capitol. We will be encouraging our fellow Arkansans in the State House and Senate to take a position on our ethics measure by asking them to sign our petition. All are invited to attend, including the media. We will begin at 12:00 and canvass until 3:00pm. Canvassers please meet us at 11:30 on the ground floor of the Rotunda to get petition sheets. Of course their responses will be made public record, so even those of you who cannot attend will know if your Representative or Senator supports the measure.

We also wish to invite all of you to contact your State Legislators and ask them to continue to move in the direction of introducing and supporting meaningful ethics reform.

On Thursday, February 14th from 9-3pm, Regnat Populus will pay another visit to the Capitol for Advocacy Day. Volunteers will be on hand to enroll those wishing to help in this important effort and answer any questions regarding R.P. Stop by and see us!

In closing, it should not be forgotten that there will be ethics reform in Arkansas. We continue to be willing to work with the General Assembly in the spirit of compromise and unity. However, should this avenue yield no or substandard results, we stand ready, willing and able accomplish the task at hand. There will be ethics reform in Arkansas-we are not going to go away.

Best Regards,

Paul Spencer

The tally of legislative signers will be interesting. Do they support an end to lobbyist handouts? An impediment to instant moves to fat lobbying jobs, such as former Sen. Gilbert Baker just executed? An end to direct corporate contributions to campaigns?

Call the roll.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Ethics Commission fines state representative Lowery

Max Brantley — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 07:45:54 -0600

The state Ethics Commission has settled a complaint over state House candidate Mark Lowery's failure to file campaign finance reports in a timely manner with an agreed letter of caution and $150 fine.

Here's the outcome of the case.

Lowery failed to file a final report for his primary campaign and three monthly reports during the critical period of the general election campaign. This denied the public any knowledge of who was paying for his campaign. Reports eventually filed showed he was almost entirely financed by corporate interests. He also benefitted from one of those "ticketed event" scams in which other Republican legislators wrote him checks from campaign funds, generally prohibited by law, under the guise that they were attending a political event that might benefit their campaigns. Might not have made a difference had voters known this. It might have. He won a hard-fought race for the Maumelle seat against Kelly Halstead.

FOR EXAMPLE: Check out the special interest money that paid off his campaign debt, in a report filed just this week.

Still: a $150 slap on the wrist for a corporate toady for intentional disregard of campaign finance laws for a period of four months in the heat of a campaign? Why should anybody obey the law if this is the consequence?

David Trussell, who filed the complaint, comments:

I received the attached public disposition from the Arkansas Ethics Commission regarding my complaint against Representative Mark Lowery for his late filings of four Campaign Contribution and Expense Reports. As you can see from the letter, Mr. Lowery admitted his transgressions and paid the whopping sum of $150.00, which he should have no trouble paying with the Koch Brothers’ money.

My biggest regret is that I did not file the complaint in time for a disposition prior to a very close election. Of course, one would have hoped that Lowery’s obvious violations would have resulted in summary disposition by the Ethics Commission, but it appears that justice requires time, even when evidence of guilt is obvious. Sadly, I cannot help but feel that justice delayed was justice denied in this case.

Let me first emphasize that I have no complaints about the Ethics Commission’s director or his staff. They were helpful in the claim’s filing, and carefully assembled the readily available evidence, including Lowery’s previous letter of caution from his lobbying days, in a way that no reasonable defense was possible. Despite the staff's efforts, the Ethics Commission’s members neglected to assess the maximum applicable fine, even when Lowery admitted guilt and skipped the hearing on the matter. Truth be known, however, even the maximum possible fine would have seemed like peanuts compared to the prize of winning a seat in the legislature.

At times I’ve considered whether it was wishful thinking to believe that a finding prior to the election that Lowery repeatedly violated the state’s election laws may have persuaded some voters that Lowery wasn’t very business like in sharing information about his contributions. Some may consider it just as naive to hope that Lowery could surprise us with his upcoming votes and disprove the suggestion that he was bought and paid for by the Koch Brothers.

What is not subject to dispute is that the state’s election laws are a toothless tiger. Furthermore, any help that voters may have expected to receive from the Fourth Estate was largely diminished when newspapers like the Maumelle Monitor and the Democrat-Gazette refused to publish overwhelming evidence of Lowery’s guilt without a formal finding by the Ethics Commission. In this case, you were the media’s only representative to share publicly available information that voters had a right to consider before casting their ballots.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Maloch files bill to curb misuse of campaign money

Max Brantley — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 14:42:35 -0600

As promised. Sen. Bruce Maloch has filed a simple one-paragraph amendment to existing law to bring a screeching halt to a growing abuse of campaign finance rules.

His bill would end the spending of campaign money on other political campaigns, by terming expenditures on tickets to campaign fund-raisers a prohibited personal expenditure. Which of course they are.

Democrats and Republicans alike have abused this law, though Republicans were in the forefront in 2012. The history is that legislators begged an Ethics Commission exemption for use of campaign money to buy tickets to "pie suppers" and the like. A candidate argued that he or she was well-served politically by going to the church hall for a charity pie auction. Buying a ticket for such an event was a legitimate campaign expense, they argued, and won the exemption. Then came the semi-truck-sized loophole. Political candidates began holding "ticketed events" for their fund-raisers. There'd be tickets. But the event might be nothing more than lunch at Doe's attended by only legislators, who wrote checks from their campaign accounts to another campaign account. Incumbents with no true campaign expenses are most frequently the source of this money. It's an abusive practice. It provides an end-run around campaign limits for contributors who can launder money through candidates paying at "ticketed events." It is cheap influence peddling by legislators with their colleagues.

Good for Bruce Maloch. Can he get a second?

UPDATE: He at least has a House co-sponsor — Freshamn Rep. Warwick Sabin of Little Rock. They'll need a two-thirds vote to amend an initiated act.

AND SPEAKING OF NEW BILLS:

Sen. Johnny Key, with support from Sen. Fireball Holland and Rep. Bourbon and Bacon Biviano, has filed his bill to open the door to virtually unlimited school transfers. It removes all consideration of impact on segregation in transfers except when a proposed transfer "results in a conflict with an enforceable judicial decree or court order remedying the effects of past racial segregation." If, for example, the Pulaski County School District can get released from federal court supervision, then every white student in Jacksonville could transfer to Cabot. Or, though not likely, vice versa.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Nate Bell finds an acorn

Max Brantley — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 10:42:30 -0600

I get lots of opportunities to make cracks about right-wing Republican legislator Nate Bell of Mena. But credit where due. I liked his Facebook post today on distribution of free passes to Oaklawn Park, a long custom of the legislature. It is so ingrained that the legislature even passed a bill years ago to exempt their receipt of thousands of dollars worth of track passes from a state ethics law that otherwise prohibited them from taking gifts worth more than $100.

Wrote Bell as Oaklawn opens another season of horse racing to add a little blood sport to its lucrative casino operation:

Every year at this time I get many requests for the Oaklawn passes traditionally given away by legislators. As a general rule, I don't accept event tickets/passes from organizations offering them and do not have any to distribute. If you REALLY need $2 so you can watch a horse race let me know. I'll try to help out.

No freebies. Good rule. Good for Nate Bell. Give the honorable Mena legislator today's Duncan Baird Good Government Trophy .

Interesting thought. Would the proposed Regnat Populus ethics initiative, with its absolute ban on gifts from lobbyists or "anyone employing a lobbyist" end this pernicious practice? I think so. Meanwhile, more Nate Bells could de facto end it.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Attorney general certifies ethics petition

Max Brantley — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 11:07:32 -0600

How's that for service? (I'm sure the office would say it is only coincidental.)

This morning I reprinted a little snark from Paul Spencer, who's leading the Regnat Populus ethics initiative campaign, about the attorney general's office's slowness in certifying the form of their measure so that signature gathering can begin.

Just now, I got news that the attorney general's office issued an opinion today certifying the form of the most recent revision of the proposal.

Let the people rule. Let's get this on the ballot and add at least a bit more oomph to ethics regulation in Arkansas.

To recap, the measure:

* Prohibits direct corporate contributions to political candidates.

* Imposes a two-year waiting period for legislators to become lobbyists.

* Makes it a misdemeanor for legislators and statewide elected officials to take gifts from lobbyists.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Sen. Jeremy Hutchinson's slap on the wrist UPDATE

Max Brantley — Thu, 03 Jan 2013 06:03:26 -0600

The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported this morning (pay wall) that Sen. Jeremy Hutchinson of Little Rock had settled his self-reported campaign finance violation with the state Ethics Commision. He got a $500 fine and a warning letter, but no criminal prosecution, for the unreported expenditure of at least $2,700 in campaign money on his former girlfriend, Julie McGee. You can't use campaign money to support a mistress, it should go without saying.

McGee pretty well predicted this outcome to me weeks ago. By self-reporting and admitting improper actions, Hutchinson short-circuited an in-depth examination of his campaign spending. It narrowed the focus to $2,700 directly linked to McGee's bank account. He says he did not "authorize" the checks.

Absent from the D-G account is an answer to this question: Did the Ethics Commission talk to Julie McGee about this matter and do a full review of Hutchinson campaign expenditures? Or did it simply take Jeremy Hutchinson's word for the core events and buy his story that McGee improperly obtained campaign checks and forged them? She has said he was fully complicit with this and other misuse of campaign resources.

McGee is itching to talk at length about her long and stormy relationship with Hutchinson, which ranges from the police report of her alleged assault of him with a stuffed alligator head to the eviction of her from a River Market condo love nest amid disputes over property in the condo and damage to the premises. Her credibility is not high, having been challenged by, among others, a close relative in various media looks at her time with Hutchinson. McGee has compiled a voluminous record of her time with Hutchinson in phone text and photographs. It is replete with allegations about how Hutchinson managed to support their lifestyle while also supporting a former wife and children. You can see why a full discussion of that in an adversarial proceeding would have been a less desirable option for Hutchinson than surrendering to a quick slap on the wrist by the Ethics Commission and a declaration by him that the subject was closed.

Full disclosure or no, the episode nonetheless delivers a political blow to Hutchinson, who had dreams of higher office in 2014.

Media side note: Stephens Media did groundbreaking reporting on the Hutchinson misdeeds. It was the first to report diversion of campaign money to McGee. The Democrat-Gazette got the break on the resolution of the matter. That might simply be good followup work by the hardworking and comprehensive D-G Capitol bureau. But you have to wonder if Hutchinson gave a headsup to the D-G to build at least a touch of goodwill with the state's largest and most influential news outlet. He's a politician who's definitely in need of some.

UPDATE: Here's the probable cause finding and the letter of warning. This is the only part of the case currently open to the public. 30 days after Hutchinson agreed to the deal, meaning Jan. 28, the investigation on which the probable cause finding was issued will be open to public inspection. We'll know then how deeply his spending and reporting was reviewed. But the documents released so far indicate that they looked only at the two checks Hutchinson self-reported. Did it occur to anyone that these might not have been the only two "oversights" of which the campaign was guilty?

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Ethics Commission opens door to campaign spending abuse

Max Brantley — Sat, 17 Nov 2012 06:34:00 -0600

The Arkansas Ethics Commission moved ahead yesterday with plan to close a gaping loophole I identified in the law on reporting spending on issue campaigns. It will ask the legislature to make clear the law intends for spending to be itemized on ballot issue campaigns. The practice, including in the recent campaign for a highway sales tax, has been to write checks to campaign consultants - Craig Douglass was the conduit for the highway money - and that would be the end of disclosure. How the turn-key consultants spent the money, more than $1 million on the highway tax, was their business as far as the public was concerned.

But Stephens Media reports that, while that good news developed, far worse news was happening with little notice. It reported that the Ethics Commission had decided to dismiss a complaint against Republican Rep. John Burris. The complaint alleged that he'd made personal use of campaign money by making contributions to other Republican candidates, roughly $200 each to 17 candidates. The law prohibits use of campaign money to contribute to other candidates. But ....

“Evidence gathered during the course of the investigation reflected that your attendance at the fundraising events in question furthered your own campaign by allowing you to gain access to crowds of people which included legislators, lobbyists and political activists, all of whom were potential contributors to your campaign,” Ethics Commission Director Graham Sloan said in a letter to Burris notifying him of the dismissal of the complaint.

So much is wrong about this, beginning with the fact that Burris was unopposed for election and thus did not need to raise any money for his campaign. The element of Arkansas law that allow incumbents to hang onto campaign surplus is another outrage of so-called ethics law in Arkansas.

The big thing wrong with this practice - and Republicans are by no means the only ones who engage in it - is that these "ticketed events" to raise campaign money can often be shams. They may consist of unopposed legislators meeting for lunch at Doe's with candidates who need money. They duly print up tickets for these events, which are nothing more than check-swapping parties, from one legislator to another.

The law should speak for itself. But the Ethics Commission has created an enormous exception that 1) benefits entrenched incumbents 2) allows a way for corporate interests to exceed campaign contribution limits. They give to the contested candidate. They give money to an uncontested candidate who can then launder money back to the same person on whom a contributor has maxed out.

If this new Republican majority is serious about good government, it will close this loophole. No campaign money to other candidates, period. Simple. But since Republicans across the board were the biggest abusers of this loophole in 2012, I won't hold my breath.

If you don't believe there's a personal benefit to this sham, take a look at how many times recipients of Burris money vote against his interests in 2013.

Unbelievably, with encouragement from the greedy Republican Party, the Ethics Commission also signed off on use of campaign surplus to attend national political conventions with their special interest throwdowns, travel now to be financed by special interests.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Sen. Gilbert Baker lands UCA lobbying job at $132,000 a year

Max Brantley — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 13:23:11 -0600

Outgoing Republican Sen. Gilbert Baker, with a retirement plan under his belt from the University of Central Arkansas already thanks to time on the music faculty, is heading back to the campus in more rarified territory. UCA release:

University of Central Arkansas President Tom Courtway announced today that Gilbert Baker will be joining the UCA executive staff effective January 15, 2013. Baker’s title will be Executive Assistant to the President and his salary will be $132,000 per year.

Baker’s duties will include work on special projects; university development and communications; community outreach throughout Arkansas; government relations on the federal, state and local levels; and other matters.

“Gilbert Baker knows the University of Central Arkansas very well”, Courtway said. “For over twenty years, he was a valued employee of UCA until his election to the Arkansas State Senate in 2000. Although he began his service at UCA as an instructor in the music department, and later was granted tenure as an Assistant Professor, he also served UCA as an academic adviser, Associate Dean, and was a member of the UCA Faculty Senate. I am very pleased that he has agreed to come back to UCA. He is coming back home.”

Government relations. That's a euphemism for lobbying, whether Baker tries to distance himself from direct bill advocacy or not. (He claims he won't be technically lobbying for a "cooling off" period, but he's already been making nice to elected officials with friendly phone calls, just don't call it lobbying. He didn't promise not to set foot in the Capitol during the coming legislative session as far as I know.) Baker, please note, was part of the 2011 legislative majority that exempted current members of the legislature, such as himself, from a new ethics law. It allows people like himself to go to the lobby immediately after leaving their legislative jobs this year. There's a one-year delay for future members. That was called ethics reform by this gang of boodlers.

Baker, former Joint Budget co-chair who worked in political organizations to support the agenda of the new Republican majority, undoubtedly will have lots of friends to meet and greet in the Capitol hallways. I had asked him several times this year about everyone's expectation that he was heading to the lobby. He never would respond.

It stunk when sitting Democratic U.S. Rep. Mike Ross took a government relations job. It stinks when Gilbert Baker does it. Surely nobody will say this deal wasn't discussed WHILE BAKER WAS STILL A MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATURE. Baker, of course, sponsored UCA spending legislation in the last session, plus the state funding formula for all colleges, plus support for more charter schools (a key focus of an organization based at UCA).

LuCA lives.

Remember Gilbo stinks already from the Lu Hardin era. His kid got preferred housing one of several inside special cases uncovered and the school also provided crew and tents for a campaign fund-raiser at a UCA trustee's house when Baker ran for U.S. Senate. He also drew some pay working for a private foundation that raised some of ITS money from, where else?, the UCA Foundation.

Sorry, Tom. You don't get sainted on this one.

Debra Hale-Shelton, where are you?

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Sunshine on Wisconsin records, but no luck in Arkansas

Max Brantley — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 16:21:44 -0500

Common Cause is trumpeting a legal victory in Wisconsin, where a lawsuit has forced Republican legislators to turn over e-mails with the American Legislative Exchange Council corporate lobby. The legislators had shifted that sensitive correspondence with the legislation-influencing lobby to private e-mail to get around the state Freedom of Information Law.

Didn't work. They'll have to come clean about their collusion with the corporate power brokers like the Kochs who are using ALEC and willing state legislators to shape local laws to their advantage.

News release on the jump. But bad news for you in Arkansas.

Legislative correspondence is exempt from the open records law. Hey, maybe the transparency king, Republican Lt. Gov. Mark Darr, will add this to his legislative agenda. You think?

NEWS RELEASE

Five Wisconsin state legislators have agreed to turn over any correspondence and documents with or related to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and held on their personal email accounts; the action settles a lawsuit brought by the Center for Media and Democracy and Common Cause.

The Attorney General’s office will conduct the agreed-upon document search.

"As part of the settlement agreement, the five legislators admitted that ALEC-related records were held on their personal email accounts and are covered by the Open Records Law," said Center for Media and Democracy Staff Counsel Brendan Fischer, who filed the complaint. "They are finally complying with the law and agreeing to release those records to the public."

The five legislators — Representatives Jeremy Thiesfeldt (R-Fond du Lac), Tyler August (R-Lake Geneva), Dan Knodl (R-Germantown), Tom Larson (R-Colfax), and Pat Strachota (R-West Bend) — also acknowledged they have a duty as elected officials to fully comply with records requests from the public. They will pay $2,520 in court costs and attorney’s fees involved in bringing the lawsuit.

The legislators also acknowledged they have a duty as elected officials to fully comply with records requests from the public. They also will pay $2,520 in court costs and attorney’s fees involved in bringing the lawsuit.

"Elected officials have a responsibility to be transparent about their official activities," said Nick Surgey, staff counsel for Common Cause. "This settlement is a reminder that they cannot evade their responsibilities under the Open Records Law by moving their official correspondence onto a personal e-mail account."

CMD and Common Cause filed the suit Oct. 1 after the lawmakers repeatedly refused to comply with lawful requests for public records, including records held in personal email accounts. The groups received strong evidence that some legislators had intentionally shifted correspondence with ALEC to their personal Gmail or Hotmail accounts. In press statements, some legislators implied they had no responsibility under the Open Records Law to release e-mails dealing with official business kept on personal accounts. The complete correspondence with each legislator can be viewed here.

"This agreement should put to rest Rep. Pat Strachota’s ridiculous assertion to the press that the suit was a 'political witch hunt,' and ALEC’s absurd claim that seeking its communications with lawmakers was 'abusing' the open records law," said Lisa Graves, Executive Director of the Center for Media and Democracy, which publishes PRWatch.org and ALECexposed.org.

"It is ALEC and its legislative members that have disrespected the rule of law and tried to turn legitimate requests routinely made by Wisconsin journalists into a political football to cloak ALEC's secret influence on Wisconsin lawmaking. We know that politicians have told the public that ALEC plays no role in legislation; ALEC's secret emails to legislators reveal that the opposite is true."

Past open records requests by CMD and Common Cause helped uncover the ALEC "scholarship" scheme, through which corporations have funded legislators' flights and hotel rooms at posh resorts for attendance at ALEC-sponsored “conferences.”

The scholarship program is detailed in a newly released report by CMD, Common Cause and DBA Press, Buying Influence: How the American Legislative Exchange Council Uses Corporate-Funded "Scholarships" to Send Lawmakers on Trips with Corporate Lobbyists. That report found that legislators in Wisconsin received $116,700 in corporate-funded scholarships over a three-year period, ranking fifth among the 50 states. On Sunday, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel featured an op-ed by Graves discussing CMD's complaint with Wisconsin's Government Accountability Board alleging the scholarships violate the state's ethics and lobbying laws.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

How ALEC slops legislative hogs to push corporate agenda

Max Brantley — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 11:31:18 -0500

Common Cause has produced a great report on how the corporate-financed American Legislative Exchange Council spends millions on "scholarships" to take state legislators to posh resorts. There, in addition to food, drink and golf, they are filled with ALEC propaganda and cookie-cutter legislation to take home to pass to aid the corporate cause.

Lower taxes, voter ID laws, anti-regulation bills and roadblocks to national health legislation are among pet ALEC causes. Republican legislators are particularly likely to join ALEC activities. One Arkansas Republican, Sen. Missy Irvin, even used ALEC staff to testify for her cookie-cutter legislation in 2011. Writes Common Cause:

Corporate backers of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) have funneled more than $4 million in gifts to state legislators for travel, hotel rooms and meals at posh resorts since 2006, according to estimates based on internal ALEC records. The corporate lobby front group is already facing an Internal Revenue Service review of claims that it violated federal law by posing as a charity.

A report by DBAPress, the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) and Common Cause says hundreds of “scholarships” provided to lawmakers by ALEC were actually expense-paid junkets to resorts where ALEC hosted meetings to advance its pro-business legislative agenda. The report reflects ALEC’s complete record of travel-related payments to lawmakers from 2006 through 2008, when the group was spending about $600,000 annually on the trips, and partial data for the years since then, a period when ALEC has increased its membership by several hundred legislators.

“ALEC has created a scheme to funnel money from corporations to pay for legislators’ trips, amounting to a million dollar-plus slush fund that leaves constituents in the dark about who is really footing the bills for their representatives,” the report said.

The top 10 corporate contributors to ALEC is heavy with drug, tobacco and telephone money. Amazingly, the top 10 recipient states do not include Arkansas, but if the Republicans can snare a majority, a lot more ALEC travel will certainly be in the plans.

“The audacity of ALEC and its corporate sponsors continues to amaze,” said Common Cause President Bob Edgar. “They have the right to lobby for laws they believe will make their businesses more profitable, but when that lobbying includes expense-paid weekends at posh resorts, concealed from but subsidized by the taxpayers through a cynical manipulation of the tax code, they go too far.”

The report said ALEC promotes its meetings at resorts “in vacation-like terms.” And, ALEC meetings regularly include special and exclusive events for lawmakers such as cigar parties or tickets to the party deck of a Major League Baseball game with special food and drink.

The Regnat Populus measure to end gifts of any sort to legislators would prevent this scam in Arkansas. That might help you understand why so many Republican legislators opposed it, particularly those who don't have other gainful employment.

Here's the full report.

And here's a good appendix. It shows the state-by-state contributions from corporations and lobbyists to this travel — and to the extent possible in a three-year period — the names of legislators who benefitted. Most from Arkansas are Republicans, but not all. There's about $20,000 worth of travel in the 2006-08 period in Arkansas.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Regnat Populus lives, plans 2014 ethics law drive

Max Brantley — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 11:12:51 -0500

Good news today from Paul Spencer, the Catholic High teacher who led the truncated petition drive for a state ethics law. Regnat Populus is back. It has mailed a new ballot proposal to the attorney general's office for approval. It's identical to the earlier petition, but adds state constitutional officers to the measure, which had applied only to state legislators. (CORRECTION: I wrote originally in error that the measure covered judges.)

UPDATE: Here's the latest proposal.

The measure is simple, worthy and needed.

* It bans corporate and union contributions to political campaigns of those covered.
* It ends gifts by lobbyists to these public officials. The so-called Walmart rule, in honor of that company's ban on its employees taking gifts from vendors.
* It imposes a two-year waiting period before covered politicians can become a lobbyist after leaving office.

Spencer and David Couch, a lawyer who was active in the effort earlier this year, will co-chair the drive. A new organization and website are in the works.

Spencer said he hopes the attorney general can complete certification of the measure — it adds only about two sentences of new information — in time for a token showing of canvassers at the November general election polls. But that will just be symbolic. The drive will need the same 62,507 signatures to get on the 2014 ballot.

"We do have the luxury of time," Spencer said. "And we have that taste of defeat still in our mouth. We went in last time with no experience, no time and now money. Now we have a lot of time and a lot of experience." Regnat Populus finished its campaign with $385. But a supportive committee, Better Ethics Now, which formed to raise bipartisan support for a paid canvassing drive, ended with money in the bank, almost $40,000 according to its last report. Spencer said it would be presumptuous for him to say what it might or might not do.

Spencer's group got a late start and began gathering petitions around Memorial Day. Better Ethics Now formed to help the struggling petition drive, but it folded its effort in early July before the end of the canvassing period because of the failure of a paid canvassing firm to deliver on promises. Nobody has ever figured where the group ended up, but Spencer said he knew the effort by his mostly volunteer committee had a much higher rate of "good" signatures than many of the paid drives held in Arkansas this year.

Spencer said he also was working separately with public interest groups on other potential measures addressing the fallout from Citizens United.

Democrats generally favored this measure last time (Dustin McDaniel, initially cool, finally came on board.) Several Republicans, who depend on lobbyist handouts, were openly antagonistic. Ask your local candidates where they stand. Maybe Americans for Prosperity's Teresa Oelke, whose Koch patrons throw all kinds of gatherings for legislators at their front groups, has some mail money handy. Or ask lobbyist-in-the-making Sen. Gilbert Baker, who is currently waving a flag for the forces of morality in Arkansas. He didn't like this idea much either, particularly the part that could have delayed a lobbying career.

Good government? Accountability? Who's for it?

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

The push for more campaign disclosure

Max Brantley — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 06:08:32 -0500

The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported today on a subject Stephens Media reported Saturday.

It's about the state Ethics Commission's move to correct a shortcoming I highlighted in the law on disclosure of spending on ballot issue campaigns. I lost the battle but may have won the war on a complaint that the Little Rock Regional Chamber of Conmerce-run campaign for a Little Rock sales tax increase had failed to disclose specific spending in the campaign, instead only reporting payments to a turnkey political management firm.

There's general agreement that the law intended more disclosure; that other states make sure there's more disclosure, and that Arkansas law needs to be improved to require this disclosure. Even a Republican legislative candidate has supported this premise, though given the lack of transparency in other Republican campaign activities, I'll believe that vow if I see it in action.

It's worth a mention that the Little Rock sales tax campaign was not unique, but a representative of the pattern in "issue" campaigns.

Take the fat cat-funded effort to increase the state sales tax, primarily to pay for a four-lane highway construction program.

The Move Arkansas Forward Committee has already spent almost $1 million (raised mostly from the highway construction industry). In its most recent monthly report, it reported spending $323,000. It took four lines to disclose how that money was spent — more than $298,000 in two checks to consultant Craig Douglass and $25,000 in two checks to the Markham Group, another political firm. Fairly opaque, I'd say.

Much as I'd like to see this little crusade bear fruit, time probably would be better spent pushing Arkansas to more disclosure of fund-raising and spending by the "independent" efforts by which billionaires such as the Kochs in their Americans for Prosperity threaten to buy the Arkansas legislature by almost wholly invisible means. It's happening nationwide. If the fat cats are successful, get ready for a long ride. Between Voter ID laws and unlimited secret spending, the chance that the great unwashed could ever improve the rules will be nil. Which is the idea — a thousand-year plutocracy.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

It's official — ethics drive falls short

Max Brantley — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 11:25:18 -0500

As I indicated earlier, the drive for a better ethics law has fallen short. The release:

Little Rock - The Better Ethics Now Committee announced today that the effort to get 62,507 signatures necessary to get the Campaign Finance and Lobbying Act of 2012 on the ballot has fallen short.

Co-chairs Brent Bumpers, Jim Keet and Baker Kurrus offered the following statement:

“Because we began our efforts very late, we knew that gathering the signatures necessary to place the ethics measure on the ballot would be a daunting challenge.

Although we are disappointed in this result, we are gratified and encouraged about the future of ethics reform in Arkansas. We now are certain that meaningful ethics reform is coming, either through direct legislative action or through a future initiated act.

We are especially appreciative of the volunteer efforts that supported this endeavor. Volunteers produced about twice as many signatures as we expected them to be able to obtain in the time allotted. We thank all of the volunteers who donated their time, resources and energy to this effort. It is certain that this type of reform will bear fruit in the future when given the time to succeed.

While this Initiated Act was immensely popular among the masses we were in fact a bit dismayed on occasion by a degree of either apathy or opposition from certain quarters. That was not a factor however in the failure to obtain the needed signatures. The shortfall in the necessary signatures resulted from the lack of performance by the professional canvassing firm which we hired.

The public sentiment expressed during the short period of this campaign shows that ethics reform is not only popular, but ultimately inevitable. Virtually the only criticism of the initiated act was that it did not go far enough, and that it did not apply to more elected officials. The level of public discourse on this issue has been elevated, and we believe ethics reform will and should be an issue in every race this fall and the future as well. We hope that it will be the subject of legislation in the next general session of the legislature. We have learned a great deal from this effort, and we will use what we have learned to press on to reform the legislative and lobbying processes in Arkansas. We are encouraged by the bipartisan nature of our work, and we plan to continue this productive cooperation.

Although the precise timing and final substance of the ethics reforms are not clearly defined now, we believe that the efforts of the last sixty days will be the foundation upon which that change is based. We are certain that the landscape of Arkansas politics will be changed very soon and this issue will be part of that change."

It's not clear yet — and may never be — how short the campaign fell. As Marie O'Connell mentioned earlier, the hope was to get 49,000 from the professional canvassing firm. The volunteer effort got 15,000, at least. The paid effort only had about a month to work after money was raised. It's not clear exactly how many signatures the paid canvassers got. Part of their pay was based on expected performance, which didn't happen. But, Kurrus noted that, in a compressed time frame, it's hard to make allowances when signature gathering is falling behind. He said the canvassing firm worked until the end, and was paying canvassers on July 4, but "yesterday it became very problematic."

Kurrus, who carried petitions himself, said, "The issue is so popular I don't think it can be tamped down." He said one of the first items of consideration at the legislature ought to be the trips that legislators take that are financed by corporate interests. He's disappointed, he said, but "in an odd way, encouraged" by public reaction and all that his group had learned.

Paul Spencer, the Catholic High teacher who founded the effort, distributed this statement:

My dear friends,

It is my sad duty to inform you that Terra Strategies has failed to produce the contracted number of signatures agreed upon by Better Ethics Now. As a result, the Campaign Finance and Lobbying Act of 2012 will not be on the November ballot. However, it should be noted that our core volunteer canvassers of Regnat Populus have met their canvassing goals, bringing in over 15,000 signatures and meeting the minimum requirement in over 20 counties. For this, you should be very proud of yourselves.

As I watched this campaign morph and evolve, oft times not knowing exactly what lay around the next turn, the one constant was you. You, the volunteers, have amazed me with your resourcefulness and hard work and humbled me with your conviction and resolve. I am deeply moved by your dedication in working towards a more representative democracy: one in which the people truly do rule.

Regnat Populus will continue the struggle we've begun-a little bloodied and bruised by the experiences we've shared, but more importantly a great deal wiser. With this wisdom and a redoubled resolve, we will emerge from the crucible; composed of a stronger alloy of solidarity and purpose, determination and longing.

As the committee reconstitutes and begins to plan our new direction, we will call on you again. Although I've only personally met a fraction of our statewide volunteer canvassers, I hold you all in great esteem within my heart.

Paul Spencer
Chairman, Regnat Populus

Here's what another volunteer, David Couch, said about the final count:

I really don’t know. Once Terra told me that they were going to be short they didn’t turn in to me any more petitions to be counted. That would have been all that they collected in the last week or so with the big push for petitions that involved all the paid canvassers for all the initiatives and any petitions collected outside of central Arkansas. We were half way there without those petitions so I think perhaps the best response would be we collected tens of thousands of petitions from all over the state and we exceeded the minimum requirement required by law in over twenty counties. People should know that we were close and we can get this done if we try again.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Ethics initiative appears to be falling short of signatures

Max Brantley — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 08:54:00 -0500

The morning news on the drive for the ethics initiative isn't good (except for clean government foe Lt. Gov. Mark Darrand other Republicans and Kochites who've done the most complaining about clean government). It's not over until it's over this afternoon, but Sen. Gilbert Baker's coming lobbyist job (he was grandfathered in the so-called ethics reform of last legislature) appears safe. This went out last night from Marie O'Connell, who's been one of the leaders in the volunteer Regnat Populus 2012 drive:

Dear Canvassing Friends,

I’m afraid the news is troubling this evening. Despite promises, it looks like our paid canvassing team from Terra Strategies is struggling to reach their goal of 49,000 signatures in order to submit our initiative to the Secretary of State on Friday. I’d encourage those who have cleared their schedules for Friday afternoon to keep them clear, as we’ll plan to convene at Vino’s in Little Rock for afternoon commiseration regardless of the outcome. You'll receive another email at noon. I’d also like to encourage all who pray to do so, and anyone with caches of signatures to bring them forward now. The silver lining on this storm cloud is obvious though; we have built a powerful coalition of passionate, interested people who all believe in this needed reform.
—
Peace, and you'll hear from us soon,

Marie Mainard O'Connell

Still have petitions? Bring them in. But realistically, if the paid group fell short, the drive will fall short and others in the drive now tell me they expect it to happen because of misleading estimates from the company being paid to help gather signatures. I'd been getting cautious optimism each day the last week, but volunteers say they learned yesterday from Terra Strategies, the paid canvasser, that its representations were short of what the volunteers had been led to expect.

Let's find a silver lining.

A cadre of idealistic, dedicated people — at a minimum — learned a lot and achieved a lot in a very short period of time. (First that gathering 70,000 signatures needs more than a few months.) They could be mobilized again and be better informed. We know from Lt. Gov. Mark Darr's alarum and the grumbling corporate community that corporate Arkansas fears the people and loves how cheap it is to buy the Arkansas legislature.

Dare I say it? If the drive falls short — as I now expect based on comments from others in the drive — might there be elected representatives who'll put their names on the line in the legislature for ethics reform? Let's call the roll in the General Assembly on giving government back to the people.

Said David Couch, a Little Rock lawyer who's been working in the campaign:

Our volunteers did a fantastic job and given another chance to do this and with more time we can get this or any other semi-popular measure on the ballot. The good thing about this effort is that we have established a solid grass roots organization that can be used to hold the General Gssembly accountable to the people. We are not going to let it fade away.

I expect a formal news release shortly. Go to Vino's this evening to commiserate with these idealists. They battled a two-month work period, heat, the Little Rock police at Riverfest and on July 4, reps of the state's largest newspaper to try to petition government to better itself.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Sign those ethics petitions

Max Brantley — Sat, 30 Jun 2012 06:21:07 -0500

Another update follows on the jump of petition gathering for the Regnat Populus 2012 campaign to improve the state's ethics law. The growing unhappiness about the progress of this effort among the bad guys in Arkansas corporate-driven politics is sign enough that the fairly modest measure is a worthy step.

The proposal eliminates direct corporate contributions to political campaigns, imposes a Walmart rule (no freebies of any sort from lobbyists to lawmakers) and puts a two-year cooling-off period on the movement of legislators to the lobby. Simple common sense.

I ran into the amazing Robert Nunn, the kind of volunteer who lifts hope about the future, on Friday. He told me he'd gathered more than 1,100 of the needed 62,000-plus signatures himself. A handful of counties are still short under the rule that requires minimum percentage showings in 15 counties. In or near these counties? Get some signatures. The day to turn in signatures is July 6.

Hot Spring, Newton, Monroe, Lawrence, Arkansas, Columbia, Lafayette, Jackson are still a bit short.

This group had a late start against nearly insurmountable odds. Do you believe in miracles?

Dear Canvassing friends,

AMAZING NEWS: In the last few days we've had a ton of signatures arrive, and after last night's tremendous meeting (over 1600 signatures alone!) we're closer than ever to reaching our minimum in 15 counties! We have reached minimum in these counties: CARROLL, DESHA, FAULKNER, JEFFERSON, PULASKI, PERRY, RANDOLPH, CLAY, and PRAIRIE!!

And I just heard from canvassers in the field that we've claimed the bare minimums in WOODRUFF and LITTLE RIVER, and the signatures will arrive Monday morning—that's 11 counties so far!

Here is what we still need from at least four counties THIS WEEKEND!
HOT SPRING COUNTY still needs 99! We thought we had this one nailed, but it's proving elusive. Malvern is a lovely town. Can you go?
NEWTON COUNTY needs 67. I hear the northern part of the state is less hot than the central areas.
MONROE COUNTY needs 104 Clarendon's a small town of only 2 sq miles, with over 2000 people! And we only need just over 100 to sign.
LAWRENCE COUNTY needs 112 Although the Portia Picnic just finished, they're still in a good mood.
ARKANSAS COUNTY needs 164 Stuttgart and DeWitt are here.
COLUMBIA COUNTY needs 279 — but this weekend is the amazing Purple Hull Pea Festival and Tiller Race in Emerson! Magnolia nearby.
LAFAYETTE COUNTY needs 82 Lewisville and Stamps are here, just a stone's throw from the Tiller Race.
JACKSON COUNTY needs 150 Newport is a lovely town, as is Tuckerman.
**Where can you go??

Don't forget that we need NOT ONLY our minimums, but as many signatures as we can get. It might be hot outside—but so is this initiative!
— 6/28-30 Red, White and Blue Festival in Mountain Home
— 6/29 Freedom Fest in West Memphis
— 6/29-7/1 Arkansas Big Bass Bonanza, Regional Park Pine Bluff
— 6/30 Purple Hull Pea Festival in Emerson. Meet up with the team from Little Rock—Kaitlin, Caleb, Greg, Trey and more!
— 6/30 World Championship Annual Tiller Race in Emerson (and it's pretty awesome)
— 6/30 Farmers Markets Saturday: Little Rock Rivermarket, Hillcrest Little Rock, North Little Rock/Argenta, Fayetteville and lots of other places close to you!
— 6/30 Run for Veterans 7:00am, Veterans Memorial Park, Fayetteville
— 6/30-7/1 Little Rock Gun Show at the State Fairgrounds
— 6/30 Buckin in the Ozarks Rodeo, 6pm Fayetteville

Please mail notarized signatures to Regnat Populus P.O. Box 1087, Little Rock AR, 72203 or come by David Couch's office, 2nd floor of the Prospect Building, 1501 N University Ave, Little Rock, 72207 by Monday, 7/2.

You'll note that we're pushing to get all signatures notarized and in hand by MONDAY. We have ONE more major notarization and turn in date: Monday 7/2 at 8pm at First Presbyterian Church in Little Rock, 800 Scott St (with snacks!). We are requesting that ALL signatures be turned in by Monday, 7/2. (Yes, we do plan to canvass the 4th of July too—we're just concerned that those signatures might not make it back by Friday the 6th...when we turn in to the Secretary of State!) After Monday we'll have a nice email explaining our "cure" strategy for July...but until then...we need four more counties!

We can do this. We can get the "Campaign Finance and Lobbying Act of 2012" on the ballot. We WILL get it on the ballot!

Purposefully,
Marie Mainard O'Connell

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]