Arizona Commissioner Seeks End to Improper Campaign Contributions
The Arizona Corporation Commission’s ethics code should address campaign contributions, Commissioner Bob Burns said Thursday as he proposed several amendments less than a week before commissioners vote on the document. The ACC is to vote at its Tuesday open meeting on a Feb. 28 draft code (see 1803010028) that would create an ethics officer and clarify rules on conflicts of interest and financial disclosure, but didn’t specifically target campaign contributions. Commissioners "will consider and comment on the amendments" at the open meeting, an ACC spokeswoman emailed.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
“There is a concern among many Arizonans that there could be possible undue influence on Commissioners from contributions by people and entities having dealings with and before the Commission where the Commission will decide a disputed issue,” said Burns, proposing two alternate approaches to an amendment on the subject. An amendment would “eliminate or at least reduce any possible impropriety (perceived or actual) that could result from these contributions by making the Commission process as transparent as possible.” Arizona is one of 11 states where public utility commissioners are elected; they are appointed in the other 39, according to Ballotpedia.
Commissioners would have to declare ahead of voting “any known campaign contributions or contributions of any kind which directly or indirectly benefit that Commissioner, that Commissioner’s immediate family … and/or that Commissioner’s personal interest/cause,” said one version of the amendment. Under an alternate approach, commissioners would have to recuse themselves from participating or voting on any such matter.
The recusal language “is also meant to influence parties that know or think they will be appearing before the Commission on a disputed issue, to refrain from making any contributions of any kind and in any way, that could even remotely be perceived as influencing how a Commissioner may vote on a disputed issue; regardless whether that contribution actually did or did not influence the Commissioner’s vote,” Burns wrote. It doesn’t stop them from contributing but describes how commissioners will respond, he said.
Each Burns proposal would cover aggregate contributions from business parties of $1,000 or more and from individual parties of at least $100, received while a commissioner was in office or within 18 months of a commissioner joining the commission. They would apply to not only regulated entities but also all entities with “dealings” before the ACC. The declaration proposal would apply “even if the contribution is returned to the donor,” while the recusal amendment would exclude contributions returned to the donor prior to the commissioner being elected or within 10 days of a sitting commissioner learning about the contribution.
The Burns amendment requiring recusal "is precisely the type of reform that is most needed" for the ACC, emailed Craig Holman, Public Citizen government affairs lobbyist. "Campaign contributions by outside groups with a vested interest in actions taken by the Commission has tarnished its credibility -- and for good reason. Campaign money may indeed buy votes; and taking formal actions that directly favor a campaign contributor certainly creates at least the appearance of corruption." Holman said the alternate "disclosure-only amendment is constructive, but it falls far short of the recusal rule."
The code should specify that the agency’s chief counsel will be its ethics officer, said another Burns amendment. The draft code more broadly says the commission would choose the officer from among its existing employees. Another would strengthen a drafted line saying, “Commissioners shall not with corrupt intent use their political influence or position to cause the firing, promotion, or demotion of any Commission employee or the hiring or failure to hire any applicant for employment with the Commission.” The amendment would add "malicious, unscrupulous, unethical, or intimidating" to “corrupt” and define all five adjectives. Another proposed amendment would prohibit in the code harassment based on political affiliation in addition to the other listed reasons.
Burns earlier voiced doubts that an ethics code would make a difference (see 1712010034). Two workshops last year exploded into argument when Burns raised concerns about alleged misconduct toward staff by other commissioners and called for investigation (see 1709150051).