State Bill 1516 doesn't make for a gripping read. Line upon line of dry technical text serve to refine Arizona's campaign funding procedure. It’s got a bit of everything, including limits on donation quantity and fund transfers, nearly indistinguishable from the rest of the quotidian scraps of paper that slide across the senate's faux wood desks. The bill was first drafted in February (Febru-any for you Subway fans) of this year, and just finally glimpsed the light of day on March 8. During that time the bill underwent significant amendments, the nature of which is generating tension across the aisle.
In fact, the party lines have never been drawn more clearly. Every Republican senator present voted in favor of S.B. 1516, while the exact opposite happened for the Democrats.
It was a stark contrast, one that prompted quite a bit of discussion on March 8, as several Democrats, including Sen. Andrew Sherwood (D-Tempe) and Sen. Martin Quezada (D- Phoenix) stood up to make their case in front of all 30 senators present. They appeared dumbfounded as they pleaded to a roomful of their peers who silently defied their call to logic. Sherwood and Quezada voiced a clear claim: That the bill as it appeared posed an obvious conflict of interest. The version of S.B. 1516 brought in front of the senate on March 8 contained a clause permitting the transfer of campaign funds from one candidate to another. In other words, the bill allows candidates to treat each other to cash injections whenever they please.
This is quite a loophole. Supposing a candidate is low on campaign funds and in a tight race, they may well compromise with another candidate who offers to fund their ailing campaign. The bill essentially allows candidates to buy each other’s allegiance. Sherwood said it best in an interview with The State Press, claiming that, “Our membership should not be able to vote on legislation that affects our own elections. Voting for this bill presents a direct conflict of interest.” The Arizona House of Representatives just approved a bill about its own personal financial interests, a no-no to anyone familiar with Rule 30 of the senate.
The bill wasn’t always this way. Indeed the first draft very clearly included a contingency for just such a circumstance, stating that the bill “Prohibits a candidate committee from making contributions to another candidate’s candidate committee.” This particular piece of the proposed legislation was later removed by Sen. Adam Driggs (R- Phoenix). While the reasoning for removing the measure seems unclear, the democratic response does not. Of the 30 senators present for the vote, all 18 Republicans voted yea, while 10 Democrats voted nay, leaving just two left-wingers to abstain from the vote.
While the intentions of those who voted in favor the the bill are unclear, they are most likely not malicious. The senate has been itching to pass legislation regarding campaign funds for some time now, but in the words of Sherwood, “Just because we need to do something doesn’t mean we should do anything." The Democratic nay votes seemed to come from a desire to refine the important legislation. Quezada spoke about feeling that a dialogue regarding the bill never happened, that the bill was rushed to vote without ever accounting for the thoughts and feelings of those outside the Republican party. With the state of Arizona basically divided into thirds by Republican, Democratic and Independent party affiliations, passing a bill only appreciated by the right wing doesn’t quite make sense.
It's not clear why the Republican senators are in favor of allowing for shared campaign funds. It seems to contradict the traditional idea of fundraising, which relies on the appeal of a candidate to attract the attention of donations. Now, a candidate who wants to pack his piggy bank can just win the good favor of a peer, rather than the masses. Only one Republican rose to speak during the proceeding on March 8, Sen. Sylvia Allen (R- Snowflake). She expressed her belief that there were no loopholes, that the bill seems efficient and streamlined. Perhaps she simply did not notice the amendment permitting the sharing of funds, or perhaps it seemed a fair decision to her. “I kept thinking, ‘what are they talking about’ because I kept going back to the bill over and over. I think this is a very good bill."
S.B. 1516 still needs to pass through the House Rules Committee, where its constitutionality will be tested. If it somehow navigates the constitutional potholes there, it'll park in the House of Reps, awaiting their approval. Nothing has been finalized, but S.B. 1516 looks poised to make quite an impact.
Related links:
Shedding light on "dark money" would help Arizona
Campaign finance laws: Anti-corruption or anti-free speech?
Reach the columnist at sdeadric@asu.edu.
Editor’s note: The opinions presented in this column are the author’s and do not imply any endorsement from The State Press or its editors.
Want to join the conversation? Send an email to opiniondesk.statepress@gmail.com. Keep letters under 300 words and be sure to include your university affiliation. Anonymity will not be granted.
Like The State Press on Facebook and follow @statepress on Twitter.
