OP ED

My Turn: ‘Dark money’ is acid to democracy

Ken Clark
AZ I See It
If "dark money" infiltrates smaller boards, will influencing board members become just the cost of doing business?
  • What happens if “dark money” reaches all the way down to these less-visible elected bodies, such as school boards?
  • Spending cash to influence a small body would be the cost of doing business for some
  • All elected officials should sign a pledge to reject the “dark side” and require reasonable transparency

We have been hearing recently about the influence that Arizona Public Service Co. likely had in the election of Arizona Corporation Commission members who govern what rates APS can charge customers.

We also heard about likely efforts last year by homebuilders and APS to influence the election of the Salt River Project Board.

However, this problem could reach much further than high-profile bodies like the Corporation Commission or the SRP board. Journalists more regularly cover these boards, whereas the myriad of small boards and commissions have fewer independent eyes checking their work.

What happens if “dark money” reaches all the way down to these less-visible elected bodies, such as school boards, water-district boards or community-college boards?

For example, imagine that a private corporation, union or individual chooses to unduly influence a small school-board election. Perhaps a company seeks to get the school board to purchase their expensive products.

Considering that most school-board candidates spend less than $1,000 running for office, some entity could spend multitudes more and quietly take over that board.

Imagine that this happens with a small water-district board somewhere, whose job is to decide the allocation of years worth of water supplies, and the economic impact that follows. Could a private interest that buys water rights unduly influence a board like this?

If APS can spend a few million dollars to influence its own regulatory body, what could other entities or individuals do?

Spending cash to influence a small body would be the cost of doing business for some in a world where our media outlets are having increasing difficulty covering many small, obscure boards and commissions.

This is the acid eating at our democracy.

More than ever, we need Arizona Secretary of State Michele Reagan to stand up and fight for our interests. The secretary, in particular, is in a position to do the right thing. Unfortunately, she is conflicted. She owes her election to dark-money interests.

Reagan has made a point to call public meetings this summer with the stated intent of clarifying our campaign-finance laws. Yet, at the same time, she has said that she does not believe that there is any way to disclose dark money.

How convenient … and false.

I put forward legislation that would have disclosed dark money. Simply, it would have required any union, corporation or individual to disclose when it gives money to any other union, corporation or individual for the purpose of influencing an election or public policy.

Former Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard has contributed other ideas to disclose the sources of dark money, as well. These reasonable approaches went nowhere in our Legislature, where dark money operates with no restrictions.

Ken Clark

To paraphrase conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in the court cases that allowed unlimited campaign expenditures in the first place: We should expect a public right for honest disclosure.

According to the Supreme Court, there is a right to free speech. However, there is no corresponding right for dark-money interests to hide speech when they brazenly spend money to influence public policy for their narrow interests.

If we don’t demand action soon, dark money will cement itself. Please join me in demanding that all elected officials sign a pledge to reject the “dark side” and require reasonable transparency.

State Rep. Ken Clark is a Phoenix Democrat.