LITTLE ROCK — The Arkansas Ethics Commission has directed its staff to draft legislation to require committees that support or oppose ballot issues and legislative questions to report the payments made by their agents or independent contractors, including payments to vendors and subvendors, acting on the committee’s behalf.
This comes after the commission in December dismissed a complaint against the Committee for Little Rock’s Future filed by Max Brantley, senior editor of Arkansas Times, who contended that the committee should have disclosed who was paid with the money that went to hire campaign organizers.
The committee reported paying the Markham Group $196,253 to run the campaign to raise Little Rock’s sales-tax rate from a half percent to 1.5 percent.
The commission asked for draft legislation Friday.
Graham Sloan, executive director for the commission, said it learned last year that ballot and legislative question committees were hiring political consulting firms to provide “turnkey campaigns” about ballot measures and disclosing only payments to the political consulting firms.
“There was no disclosure of how the money was actually spent,” he told the commission.
Paul Dumas of Morrilton, the commission’s chairman, said he’s concerned that “a group could go to a PR firm or whatever the firm is and say, ‘Here is a ballot question and here’s a check for $100,000, now go and do this turnkey and run a campaign.”
Under state law, “I don’t believe there is a reporting requirement for that firm to actually itemize or detail who they are paying, how much, et cetera,” said Dumas, an attorney.
He said he wasn’t referring to any specific case, although he initially made reference to the Little Rock Regional Chamber of Commerce, whose president testified last year that he received the Committee for Little Rock Future’s contributions and prepared its financial reports.
Sloan said California has a law requiring ballot andlegislative question committees to disclose payments made by agents, independent contractors, and vendors and subvendors that act on behalf of the committees.
Dumas said he feels “very strongly that is something that we should pursue.
“It is not a political issue for me, for one side or the other, and we are a nonpartisan body,” he said.
“I just feel like it is something that is in our interest and is in the interest ofthe public to have full public disclosure,” said Dumas, appointed by then-Senate President Pro Tempore Bob Johnson, D-Bigelow, to the commission in July 2009.
Dumas said the commission “needs to look at this from every angle and structure something that is workable but also provides the public disclosure that I think we have all identified that is missing in the lawas it stands now.”
Sloan said the commission’s staff would draft legislation for the commission to consider during its meeting next month.
Dumas said he asked the staff to provide the commission with laws from other states beyond California and give two or three options for the legislation.
“Theoretically the groupthat is advocating could go to the [consulting] firm, cut them the check for $100,000 and, if the legislation is written in such a way, that firm simply has to report who they pay out to, then in theory they could then take that money or part of it and pay it to another agency that goes out and buys the different things,” he said.
Sloan said an opponent of such legislation might question “do you have to trace that money all the way through the economy until it ends up in some kids’ piggy bank somewhere? Well, no.”
The commission also directed its staff to draft proposed legislation to require public servants and governmental bodies spending public funds supporting or opposing ballot measures to disclose such expenditures if the costs exceed $500.
The draft legislation also would bar a public servant or governmental body from using public funds to expressly advocate the passage or defeat of ballot measures.
Sloan said several attorney general advisory opinions have concluded that a governmental entity may spend funds “in a way that might reasonably be interpreted as supporting or opposing a ballotmeasure, but must stop short of partisan campaigning” for or against the measure.
But, he said, “The trigger for reporting under the Disclosure Act is basically a line a governmental entity is not supposed to cross., i.e. express advocacy of a particular election result.”
The commission’s other members include J. Barrington Minix Sr. of Little Rock, Anna Sue Bray of Benton, William C. Bird III of North Little Rock and Robert McCormack of Conway.
Minix was absent from the commission’s meeting Friday.
Northwest Arkansas, Pages 7 on 09/24/2012