What we need in Arizona’s politics is more out-of-state money, preferably dark and dirty.
We need more George Soros money. More Tom Steyer dollars. More California union dues.
Pour it in — we’re happy to take it.
No, it’s not that rich people or moneyed groups ought to dominate our politics. Nor is it good to have out-of-state interests setting Arizona’s priorities. It’s also bad to have hidden donors worming their way into our elections through dark-money donations.
But we’ve had all of that for years — domination of our state’s politics by wealthy out-of-state interests, often making secret donations. And because the GOP has benefited from it, our laws on campaign finance just keep getting looser and more welcoming.
On Thursday, for example, Gov. Doug Ducey signed a bill that prohibits Arizona cities from requiring groups that campaign in local elections to reveal their donors. Tempe voters had decided by a 9-1 ratio that political donors active in their local elections should be disclosed. The GOP Legislature, led by Rep. Vince Leach of SaddleBrooke, sided with dark money and pre-empted that power for all Arizona cities.
There’s only one way to change the minds of people who have benefited so much from wealthy interests pouring massive, often secret donations into Arizona politics: Use the same weapons against them.
That’s why I’m cheering on Tom Steyer as he violates my values by taking his California billions and dumping them into Arizona’s politics. Steyer uses a group called NextGen America as the principal conduit for his political activities. He at least does not donate secretly.
It’s NextGen that is apparently behind the pervasive signature collectors seen around Tucson and elsewhere in Arizona trying to put an initiative called Clean Energy for a Healthy Arizona on the ballot. The initiative would require Arizona utilities to get 50 percent of their energy from renewable sources like solar by 2030.
I don’t know if the initiative is a good idea. What I know is that Steyer has forced Arizona’s traditional powers, spearheaded by Arizona Public Service, to scramble. They got GOP legislators to put a competing, confusingly similar referendum on the November ballot. They also got legislators to pass a bill saying that if Steyer’s Clean Energy initiative passes, violations of it would only be penalized by a maximum fine of $5,000.
In the floor debate over that bill, Leach, the sponsor, ironically got worked up that wealthy, out-of-state interests were intervening in state politics.
“Arizona’s Constitution is not for sale,” he said. “Take your money and go someplace else.”
In response, Democratic Rep. Ken Clark, of Phoenix, pointed out that the state GOP for years has benefited from support by the political network of Charles and David Koch, who are from Kansas, as well as the wealthy family of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, from Michigan.
“The lack of self-examination is staggering to me,” Clark said.
The Koch brothers, of course, have been America’s first family of dark money, and Ducey has been one of their top achievements. In 2012, Ducey, then state treasurer and the leading opponent of an Prop. 204, used money from the Koch network to help defeat that proposed sales-tax increase for education. The Koch network helped Ducey win in 2014, as he received $3.5 million in dark-money spending on his behalf.
So it’s no wonder that Arizona Republicans have steadily eroded limits on how much individuals and corporations can donate, who needs to disclose their donations, and how money can be moved among political committees, parties and candidates. The erosion has benefited them so far.
Another referendum championed by GOP legislators this year would change the way the Clean Elections system operates, limiting the power of the Citizens Clean Elections Commision to make rules about campaign finance. They would be subject to oversight by the Governor’s Regulatory Review Panel, which of course would tend to reject regulations of dark money.
But now, it appears, liberals are getting into the big out-of-state money game too. Steyer, of course, is the big elephant, but a California-based union is also sponsoring an initiative that would cap the cost of dialysis. And Soros? Well, he hasn’t played a big role in Arizona politics, though he did help Democrat Paul Penzone defeat Republican Joe Arpaio in the Maricopa County sheriff’s race.
Most of these donations have been relatively transparent, though, not funneled through groups that hide their donors. If liberals really want conservatives to see the evil in dark money, they ought to go dark and anonymous as well.
We need the big-money interests to use dirty politics in an effort to kill dirty politics.
Conveniently, the vehicle for starting to impose transparency already exists. Former Attorney General Terry Goddard is leading the Outlaw Dirty Money ballot initiative, which would force anyone who donates $2,500 or more to influence Arizona elections to reveal their identity, among other new rules. The effort needs to collect 225,000 valid signatures by July 5.
Opponents of transparency, like Leach and Ducey, have erected a rickety structure of an argument called “intimidation” to fight for continued anonymity. They say people may be targeted for donating to a given political campaign if their donations are made public.
“I think people have a First Amendment right as well to participate and not be bullied,” Ducey said in explaining his support for the law that killed Tempe’s transparency laws.
The argument is a transparent cover for oligarchy. People like Ducey who were pushed to victory by wealthy interests don’t want the rest of us to know the details of it.
But the argument just needs a little push to collapse. One person who gave such a push was the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote in a 2010 decision:
“There are laws against threats and intimidation; and harsh criticism, short of unlawful action, is a price our people have traditionally been willing to pay for self-governance. Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed.”
If Scalia isn’t enough to persuade conservatives to stand up for donor transparency, then I suggest that rich out-of-state liberals soak them with a firehose blast of dirty money. Then they’ll probably start to grasp the problem.
