Favorite

McDaniel's manna gets more criticism 

An appearance of a groundswell emerges against Attorney General Dustin McDaniel's getting to divvy up large sums of legal settlement dollars that occasionally flow to the state.

The practice just doesn't seem right, at least to me and to a more liberal pundit like Max Brantley and to assorted more conservative ones, not to mention, of course, every Republican in sight.

The statewide newspaper did a takeout Sunday, almost seeming to invite a lawsuit about whether this practice, hardly a new one and hardly unique to Arkansas, is constitutional.

The appropriation of state money is supposed to be the legislature's exclusive purview under the state constitution. But, for a recent example, a lawsuit settlement payment of $18.5 million by Eli Lilly to the state for overstating the benefits of a brain drug was actually distributed outside the legislative process, essentially by McDaniel's dictates as laid out in the consent decree.

By his office's negotiation and by rounding: Eli Lilly wrote a $15 million check to the state's Medicaid Trust Fund, another $1 million for Medicaid separately and $2 million to the attorney general's office. McDaniel used a little of that $2 million to buy computers and software for his office so his people can do stings of Internet sex predators of children, a program he ballyhooed in a recent news conference.

State Rep. Jane English, Republican of North Little Rock, proposed a bill in the recent session to direct such settlement funds into the state treasury, where the legislature could distribute them. McDaniel ramped up his lobbying and held off the bill. It sounds as if the measure will come up again, with a tad more impetus next time.

My view of all this is more expansive and far, far more controversial.

I believe legal settlement money ought to go into the state treasury for legislative distribution. But then I also argue that the same goes for all these regulatory agencies that collect their own cash, from licensing and so forth, generating what gets known either as "cash funds" or "special revenue."

Typically, these regulatory agencies get the Legislature to approve their budgets with authority for them to spend their own cash funds or dedicated revenues. But it seems to me that all state agency money ought instead to go directly into the state treasury to await legislative appropriation by policy priority.

Just because an agency collects certain money doesn't necessarily mean it needs all that money operationally.

No longer, for example, should the Real Estate Commission get to keep its own cash and build its independent office palace. That money ought to go to the state general fund. The Real Estate Commission ought to rent spartan office space.

I say that even if the Legislature gives every cent to, say, the Arkansas Sports Hall of Fame, as, heck, it might. At least I could rail against that and constituents could have the opportunity to consider it in their votes next time.

I acknowledge that my view is rather impractical in its breadth.

What's different about the attorney general's settlement money is that, unlike agency-generated cash and certain dedicated revenue streams, it gets disbursed without even a perfunctory review by a Legislature signing off on an authorizing line item in the budget.

Are there arguments for continuing to let the attorney general handle the money this way?

The main one seems to be that a defendant like Eli Lilly might be less inclined to settle if, in the interest of its public relations, it couldn't be party to binding negotiations with the attorney general directing how the dollars would be spent.

The other is a judicial doctrine that settlement dollars ought to be used to address needs revealed in the lawsuit. But that gets us into a Norman French phrase, "cy pres," derived from Latin and made into a legal doctrine by the English.

We'll delve into that kind of thing in this space only under the greatest duress.

Favorite

From the ArkTimes store

Speaking of...

Comments

Subscribe to this thread:

Add a comment

More by John Brummett

  • Obstruction is the preferred conservatism

    Is there greater conservative virtue in opposing federal health reform, period, or in saying it ought to be implemented locally instead of from Washington in the event we are unavoidably laden with it?
    • Oct 5, 2011
  • A fate not quite as bad as prison for Lu Hardin

    There is no crime in being overly and transparently solicitous for the purposes of aggrandizement and personal political advancement. That's simply acute neediness, a common and benign human frailty.
    • Sep 28, 2011
  • Can we talk? Can we get anywhere?

    Dialogue is good. It would be even better if someone would venture off script every once in a while.
    • Sep 21, 2011
  • More »

Most Shared

Latest in John Brummett

  • Gone to the DoG

    We're now longer carrying John Brummett's column in this space.
    • Oct 12, 2011
  • Obstruction is the preferred conservatism

    Is there greater conservative virtue in opposing federal health reform, period, or in saying it ought to be implemented locally instead of from Washington in the event we are unavoidably laden with it?
    • Oct 5, 2011
  • A fate not quite as bad as prison for Lu Hardin

    There is no crime in being overly and transparently solicitous for the purposes of aggrandizement and personal political advancement. That's simply acute neediness, a common and benign human frailty.
    • Sep 28, 2011
  • More »

Event Calendar

« »

December

S M T W T F S
  1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31  

Most Viewed

  • Gratitude

    Now, more than ever, I find myself thankful for those who resist. Those who remind us of our higher common values. The fact-checkers and truth-tellers. Those who build bridges in communities instead of walls to segregate. The ones who stand up and speak out against injustice.
  • A difference

    How low can a columnist go? On evidence, nowhere near as low as the president of the United States. I'd intended to highlight certain ironies in the career of U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.). The self-anointed moral arbiter of the Senate began her career as a tobacco company lawyer — that is, somebody ill-suited to demand absolute purity of anybody, much less Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.).
  • Money talks

    Democratic candidates face a dilemma in Arkansas. To take on the GOP members who are firmly entrenched in the state Legislature and Congress, they will need lots of money and lots of votes. The easiest way to get more votes is to spend more money. Obscene amounts of money. And thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United decision and President Trump's judicial appointments, this will be our reality for a long time. The six Republicans who make up our congressional delegation have stopped pretending to care about their constituents. They vote in line with the interests of big corporations and lobbyists. They know what side their bread is buttered on.

Most Recent Comments

  • Re: A difference

    • History is likely to move with light speed in concluding that in late 2017 society…

    • on December 14, 2017
  • Re: A difference

    • Gillibrand is a tough chick, and she knows she is a political whore, like 95%…

    • on December 14, 2017
  • Re: Cats and dogs

    • I miss my wolves. It has been over five years since the last of my…

    • on December 12, 2017
 

© 2017 Arkansas Times | 201 East Markham, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201
Powered by Foundation