State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs-Senate
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (12)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB183
Act 324
· 3 mentions in agenda, transcript, chapter
Matched: “…ILITARY AFFAIRS GRANT PROGRAM; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. SB183 K. Ingram TO AMEND CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW; TO PROHIBIT THE US…”
|
TO AMEND CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW; TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF CAMPAIGN FUNDS OR CARRYOVER FUNDS … | K. Ingram | Notification that SB183 is now Act 324 |
|
SB82
· 3 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “SB82 J. Dismang TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIO…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS; TO ESTABLISH THE PROCEDURE FOR DISTRIBUTION OF CAMPAIGN … | J. Dismang | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1356
Act 276
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1356 Dotson TO AMEND THE PROCESS OF EVALUATION OF STATE BOARDS A…”
|
TO AMEND THE PROCESS OF EVALUATION OF STATE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS; TO REQUIRE SUBMISSION OF … | Dotson | Notification that HB1356 is now Act 276 |
|
SB138
Act 254
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “AGENDA (Revised 2/8/21 @ 3:30 PM) Added SB82, SB138, HB1356, HB1236, and SB141 Senate Committee on State Agenci…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CAMPAIGN FINANCE, CONTRIBUTIONS AND REPORTING; TO REENACT THE REQUIREMENT TO … | J. Dismang | Notification that SB138 is now Act 254 |
|
SB281
Act 494
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ISSION FROM ESTABLISHING OR MAINTAINING AN OFFICE IN CHINA. SB281 T. Garner CONCERNING REPRESENTATION OF A CORPORATE OR BUSIN…”
|
CONCERNING REPRESENTATION OF A CORPORATE OR BUSINESS ENTITY IN A CLAIM OR ACTION FILED WITH … | T. Garner | Notification that SB281 is now Act 494 |
|
HB1112
Act 249
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…OR ACTION FILED WITH THE ARKANSAS STATE CLAIMS COMMISSION. HB1112 Lowery TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VOTER IDENTIFICATION; TO…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VOTER IDENTIFICATION; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VERIFICATION OF PROVISIONAL … | Lowery | Notification that HB1112 is now Act 249 |
|
HB1236
Act 186
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…GENDA (Revised 2/8/21 @ 3:30 PM) Added SB82, SB138, HB1356, HB1236, and SB141 Senate Committee on State Agencies and Governmen…”
|
CONCERNING UNIFIED COMMAND OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES IN AND AROUND THE STATE CAPITOL IN THE … | M. Berry | Notification that HB1236 is now Act 186 |
|
SB141
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ed 2/8/21 @ 3:30 PM) Added SB82, SB138, HB1356, HB1236, and SB141 Senate Committee on State Agencies and Governmental Affairs…”
|
TO AMEND THE EMERGENCY POWERS OF THE GOVERNOR; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ELECTIONS; AND … | J. Dismang | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB163
Act 522
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ULTILANE HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. SB163 J. English TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS MILITARY AFFAIRS COUNCIL…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS MILITARY AFFAIRS COUNCIL ACT; TO ESTABLISH THE MILITARY AFFAIRS GRANT PROGRAM; … | J. English | Notification that SB163 is now Act 522 |
|
SB241
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…G FROM INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1990 AND INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1996. SB241 Caldwell TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE SALE OF STATE LAND…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE SALE OF STATE LAND; TO ESTABLISH A PROCESS TO … | Caldwell | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB252
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…A PROCESS TO SELL STATE LAND; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. SB252 T. Garner TO PROHIBIT THE ARKANSAS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COM…”
|
TO PROHIBIT THE ARKANSAS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION FROM ESTABLISHING OR MAINTAINING AN OFFICE IN CHINA. | T. Garner | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB75
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…IATED ACT 1 OF 1996. REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle SB75 M. Johnson TO AMEND THE PROVISIONS OF ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION…”
|
TO AMEND THE PROVISIONS OF ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENTS 91 AND 101, TO PROVIDE THAT PROCEEDS … | M. Johnson | Sine Die adjournment |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin RTX5060
- Processing date
- October 6, 2026
Chair
Unverified
0:30
Chair sees a quorum. Members just make an announcement. Those of you that are here, we had an elongated floor session today, so we're only going to have about 30 minutes of discussion on bills today. So I would appreciate if you do have a controversial bill or matter and
you know it's going to be, just let the staff know and we'll get you back up when we've got a longer time period to do it. I believe I'm just going to just state that based upon the agenda that we have in the time constriction here for us today, that we're going to have Senator Dismayne. I don't know if you're going to do the last one that's on the list, Senator, if you want to or not. But if there's going to be controversy, I would appreciate you maybe punt to Tuesday or something. But Senator Ingram, I think, is here. And Senator Wallace has got one of Senator Garner.
So with the questions from committee, Senator Dismayne, you're recognized, sir. And if you would, please state your name for the record. Jonathan Dismayne. Thank you, Senator.
Speaker 5
1:51
You're I recognize for Senate Bill 82. 82. Members, so this is the exact same
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:56
bill that we all approved the last time that I was in this committee. With the exception, there was some clarification provided for what a filing meant, and it was stated that it's the filing of the campaign reports because Senator Gardner raised a good question,
and we just wanted to make sure we were clear in that. And then second, we wanted to make sure during the redistrict process if there was some renumbering that did occur, that that did not get contrary to the specific office sought language. And so we provide clarification that redistricting, renumbering would not have an impact on an ability for a candidate if they're running for the Senate, they're running for the Senate, or the House, they're running for the House. And so that language was added. A couple of things. I know there's been a lot of discussion about this bill in the last couple of days.
One thing I'd like to just go back to right now, the law is pretty clear on what you can and cannot do with campaign funds when you withdraw from a race. And it's limited. And the only thing that this bill does is set out the scenario of what you do with those funds and how they should be returned to the donors. Specifically, if you withdraw from a race, it says, let me pull it up here.
30 days after you withdraw, that you have to either give that to the state treasurer, the money left over, state treasurer, political party, non-profit, cities of the first class, or contributors to the candidate's campaign. I mean, it is extremely clear. So we're debating, we've been debating, I feel like, something behind the scenes in the last few days. It's really not a point. At the end of the day, do we approve the methodology of sending the money back pro RADA is the question that's in front of you.
And with that, I'll be happy to take
Chair
Unverified
3:50
any questions. Members, do you have any questions for Senator
Speaker 13
3:58
Dismayne at all? Senator Ballinger? I mean, I think that I'm okay with adding what the conversation is. The question
Speaker 14
4:04
that we're faced with right now is that we have a candidate who just announced that he's
Speaker 13
4:10
switching from one race to another. And typically what we don't do is pass legislation that we're careful about that.
Speaker 14
4:18
Or if we do, we make a point of knowing that we're doing it. And I think that I agree with you that it actually doesn't have an impact on his race. And so it shouldn't be a problem. The problem is I'm not confident in that. And I know he's not confident in that. And so I'm just, I guess, is there some reason why we've got to move forward with it now? It's the only thing that I'm wondering about at this point.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
4:40
Well, I mean, this bill has lingered by accident, my fault, because we passed it out of this committee. I thought
we'd make some adjustments based on the comments in the committee,
and I also want to provide clarification in regards to redistricting, and I failed on my part to send it back to the committee for that amendment. So it kind of floated out in legislative never-never land for a little while, and we finally got it back here. And I would also say that I don't want to write something specifically in this bill that helps or hurts any particular candidate. And so in doing that, again, I think, I mean, there's grandfather issues. I think that whoever, if they're taking care of their business, they're going to be grandfathered in prior to this becoming law.
Of course, that depends how long this process would take. But, again, I mean, I would like to move forward if at all possible. And, again, mainly because we're having a conversation about doing something that the law says we're not supposed to do anyway. I mean, the law says it gives you these scenarios of what you're supposed to do with the money, and the very last one is to return it to the donors. It does not say transfer to another political race. I mean, that's just not one of the options. Now, maybe somehow someone makes a nuanced argument about what withdrawal means,
or someone makes an argument about what transfer means or return means. I don't know. But for me personally, the way that I read it, this bill just provides a clarification that's needed on how the money's returned to the donors. And
Speaker 14
6:08
I think that your point is taken. The problem is, the whole reason why you're bringing this legislation is that that's not how the courts are interpreting it, right? If the courts interpreted it exactly like you just said, where it's got to be returned, that wouldn't be a problem. Historically, we've seen this happen,
where someone dropped down from a governor's race to a lieutenant governor's race and then just took that money and sent out a letter, and I think you even use that as an example. of like how it can happen and not
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
6:36
be uh i don't yeah and and to that i'm not sure that it's ever been challenged at this point and i think that the fact that we're removing the two-year limitation and there's a greater possibility that someone's going to enter to a race and then want to drop
Speaker 24
6:54
are you on i don't know what I don't know why it keeps going off for you. Is there something I
Speaker 27
7:15
can push here to turn him on and off? yeah yeah are
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
7:28
we back on now I would hope well I felt like I was rattling along pretty good there
and I have no idea where we stopped so yeah but again I mean
I don't know that it's something that has been challenged especially with the definition of withdrawal I don't know that the definition of return to donors has been challenged on how that how it's been done amongst different candidates, but again, when I read it plain, I don't think that I'm interfering with anything or the guidance that's in statute, not by the Ethics Commission, but in statute, to candidates that withdraw for an office and opt to run for another. I think what I was saying is I think
this is going to be an increased problem or the likelihood of this being a bigger problem in the future is greater because of being able to essentially run and raise money for a campaign well in excess of two years. We all know that things change rather quickly. I mean, I think we just saw something that changed rather quickly, and I would just, on my own personal view, something I would have never thought was going to happen. So with that, I think we need to have clarity in place. I don't think we should leave it to the Ethics Commission to just provide interpretation, and that's why I bring the bill before you. I've got one question, then I'm going
Chair
Unverified
8:39
recognize Senator English. My question had been earlier on making it easy for people that are involved in the process and so did you entertain or discuss and maybe tell us why is it not possible when you've got people that have donated and clearly shown an intention to support a candidate that there's a process by which they can acknowledge that they would like to continue to have that because what I see from my part of it is, is it is, it's obviously you're
disgorging, you're returning that to the individuals, and it's a process that literally is, is not easy if you've got a large campaign account. So my question is, was there any reason why there couldn't be a factor there of notification to the donors that they could respond, yes or no, that they wish to maintain that, rather than simply saying you've got to send it all back to them and then turn right back around and have different checks. I mean, again, I just go back to the reading. You
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
9:41
know, it says you have to return it to
the contributors of the candidate's campaign. I mean, in my opinion, that doesn't say that you get to have a conversation with the donor and ask for them to, in a non-hands transaction, transfer the money to another campaign, in my opinion. This committee may disagree with that. Well, when you're
Chair
Unverified
10:03
bringing legislation, my point was we're trying to make things better and you're trying to clear things up. So that was my question is, was that not a factor that could
allow that? Because obviously that's where we're getting some questions on that. So that's my point, Senator. If we're making it better and easier for the voters and citizens of Arkansas, that's my point. Would that not make it easier for them
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
10:27
to decide? Well, I mean, I think that's you're putting those donors in a difficult position of having to say yes or no to a candidate that they contributed to for a completely different race. I mean, I think that it's incumbent. I mean, let's just put it this way. There were fundraisers hired in those campaigns
to raise money for a specific purpose that then is going to be altered and used for a different race. They were not paid to fundraise for the latter race. I feel like there's a lot of questions that are raised unless we provide clarity and it's pretty cut and dry and again a pro rata redistribution back out to the the you know contributors I think is cut and dry anything else we're going to get get
Speaker 5
11:10
into some difficult territory. Senator English you're recognized ma'am. So this
Senator Jane English
Unverified
11:14
is obviously not my area of expertise but it seems to me that
we have just passed that law that basically or the court has seen it that you could do raise money anytime, anywhere. So in today's world where politics changes so quickly and the landscape changes, who knows what's going to happen down the road. I personally do not like this. I would prefer that we had something in law that says you can continue to use those funds so
that we don't have this question. I mean, I can see what you're saying, send it all back, but you know if I'm going to be able to raise funds for four or six years I mean I've got money in the bank and then all of a sudden I decide I'm not going to be run for senator anymore but I'm going to run for governor yeah then you know I think there's we've set ourselves up for some other kind of thing with a much longer um thing there so I'd rather see us have something in law that says if you have these
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
12:20
if you change yeah and surplus pretty simple yeah surplus funds you
can contribute those, or, you know, put those into a race for any other state office. I mean, but here's the thing, and it's really, it's really some of the, the words that you just used, mine, you know, I, like,
the question is, this is the fundamental question, you know, who do those campaign contributions belong to, the candidate or the campaign? I mean, and if you feel as though it belongs to the
candidate, as it chases through the candidate, you know, wherever they may go and
whatever decision that they make, then we're probably going to have a different view. If you belong, it belongs to the campaign. So for instance, when someone writes you a check, Jane English for state senate, they didn't write a check that said Jane English for Arkansas or Jane English for everybody she wants to run for. They wrote it for Jane English for senate. And I think that's something that we should respect when that
check and that contribution is made to us as candidates because I believe that it's the campaign that holds those funds,
Speaker 42
13:27
not us as individuals. I don't know anybody that's arguing any different than that, Senator, but Senator, do
Senator Jane English
Unverified
13:34
you have another question? I guess but from that standpoint, I think in many cases people are donating to an individual, to Bob Ballinger. Doesn't matter what Bob Ballinger's going to do, they like Bob Ballinger, they like his principals, they don't care what he's going to run for. They like that. And I think that a lot
of the funds that are raised are pretty much for that person. You would hope it's for that person, not just for some idea, but for that person. And that that person is still supported onto another position. I may be wrong, but I think that's, I mean, people that gave me money or gave her money, gave it because they thought that she represented them, regardless of what she was gonna run for, or be five years from now, it's not what you want to be.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
14:33
Senator Tucker. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Dismayne, you and I have talked about this, and I think as a general matter, this policy is right, and I support the policy and the bill. And my question, which is what you have largely addressed, I just am asking one more time before we cast a vote on it, is you're satisfied that, I'm concerned about notice to people who are in the midst of things and whatnot,
but you're satisfied that if this bill passes, it's not changing the circumstances either of what already exists in the law or because it's not effective until sometime later of what current candidates are experiencing right now is that is that right do
i have that right that's my opinion of
Speaker 48
15:21
course i'm not an attorney i mean i'll say that is
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
15:25
uh but i'd also say that i'm i'm and i think that so the request in somewhat that's I mean, so you're asking about,
is there a way to adjust this for a specific instance? And I just don't think we should be doing that. I mean, if that means that, you know, this bill doesn't have approval, then so be it. I still think there's questions of whether or not you can even transfer the money as may be intended or whatever, or develop your own process the way that you want to. I think it's pretty clear in the statute of what you're supposed to do. It says, is this a methodology that this committee agrees with, or is there some other methodology
that you'd like to see put in play? Senator
Speaker 14
16:12
Ballinger. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think that there's another possibility though. You and I have talked about it. I like the policy, I agree with Senator Tucker and we've talked about even going further and trying to close what could possibly be a loophole in this situation. The question is not whether or not we agree with this policy and whether this committee should go together. And that's not the only question anyway. The question is, should we do it now, right?
And I'm like, I think I agree with you. Like you, I never can think of a time that you completely misled me, but you're not as confident as I would like to be that it's not going to apply today. And you know, I passed a bill last week and we gave them two years for the state to comply. And the reason is we wanted to get plenty of time for people to figure out how to make things work. And we do that on a regular basis, right? So whether, I mean, the current situation with the lieutenant governor is only an example of how it could affect people today
who have made plans under the current system, the way we've been doing it, all that kind of stuff. And whether that's good or bad, that's what's happened. Now, there may be times that we say, look, that's so egregious, we need to cut it off right now. I just don't know that I'm there, and I would prefer to be able to have the time to sit down and look at it and say, okay, it isn't going to have an effect on current individuals. It is only a going forward situation. And then from my standpoint, the policy is good and a good idea. And that's kind of where I'm at is it's not, you know, my no today is not going to be a no
because I don't like it. I do like it. My no today is I'm not ready to do it because I don't know the effects on
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
17:50
the current situation. With that, I'm happy to pull the bill down and then the members that want to have discussions with those that may be directly impacted can have those discussions. However, I would like, with some urgency for us, to be able to consider this bill in a judicious manner and a timely manner because I do think it's important that people understand what they're signing up for,
what they're committing to, and that those commitments are followed through for both the donor and for
Speaker 5
18:16
those running for office and those that are in other races. Senator, I heard you
Chair
Unverified
18:21
say you want to pull the bill down, and that's good. But I would love, as I say, to see, is there a way to make it easier for all concerned? That's what my issue is. And so we'll talk about that later. Well, but I do want to say, but if that's the direction we're going. I'm not finished yet. Just a second. So if we're going to do that, I'd like to see that done and then talk about also the
carryover, which you mentioned, because I sat here and thought about this carryover situation you're talking about. carryover already says that they could give that to a non-profit, but they could also return that to donors as well, correct? That's correct. Okay, well I just it kind of makes me wonder a little bit why we wouldn't just say something about the carryover if we're going to talk about the campaign funds, because those are just as much the same funds with the same purpose given as anything else that you'd stated. I think I would like to slow down a little bit, let's talk
about it because we're going to pass it I would like to make sure that it's going to apply across the board and and be be considered so thank you for pulling that down now the next one's not as controversial correct well it depends how you look at it right well look because because you got 15 minutes and we took more than I intended and I wish I'd have been thinking on that when I didn't know it was going to turn into that but we'll come back on it later
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
19:41
but I think it's an important discussion. And again, I'm not, I mean, if someone else wants to file another bill, that's fine. I
don't think that I'm willing to deviate much from where I am. But on this
other one here, there was a request, I think, Mr. Chair, to add some language that instead of the bank information being public, that it
be given to the Secretary of State and exempt from FOI. This is understanding the vote threshold. Whether or not I agreed with that, I felt like it was important to get as much consensus as possible and so
that amendment uh has been added in here uh and engrossed into the bill
Chair
Unverified
20:24
so that's still putting it out there on at least that first submission correct no
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
20:28
it's not if you look at page three then you go into b and
Speaker 5
20:33
c you would have to file it with someone or it could go anywhere but then it would be under uh yeah I appreciate
Chair
Unverified
20:40
you for handling that concern. Members, are there any questions on this? Seeing no questions, I have a motion from Senator Balancer and a second from Senator Tucker. All those in favor say aye. All opposed say no. Thank you, Senator, very much. Members, let's take up Senator Ingram's bill, Senate Bill 183.
Speaker 26
21:00
Did you try to give me something? Do what? The
Speaker 58
21:08
bill's pulled down. Yeah. The bill's pulled down, so it'll
Senator Jason Rapert
Unverified
21:15
come back up. Yeah. Yeah, when the bill's pulled down, Senator, you're recognized. If
Speaker 62
21:21
you'd please state your name for the record. Senator Keith Ingram, District 24. Mr. Chair and committee, thank you so much for hearing this proposed legislation. This would be, in addition to our ethics use of campaign funds,
it's fairly simple. It says a candidate or office holder shall not use campaign funds or carryover funds to pay a fine imposed by the Arkansas Ethics Commission. I think this is pretty well bipartisan. I think it's been done by both candidates on both sides, office holders on both sides that have been fined for some minor transgression. And with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Chair
Unverified
22:09
Senators, do you have any question for Senator Ingram at all, Senator Garner? Thank
Speaker 63
22:14
you, Mr. Chairman. Senator, wouldn't this be more beneficial
Senator Trent Garner
Unverified
22:17
to members who are more independently wealthy that since a fine of personal funds would come out of them that if you're say rich or you grew up with money or you have money in a trust fund, that you're more likely to not be as hurt as bad as somebody who, say, doesn't have those means
Speaker 66
22:34
to be able to do that? No, I don't think so at all. We're
Speaker 68
22:38
paid a pretty good salary down here. There's, you're paid 40, what, $42,000 a year
and these fines are typically $50 or $100 and it is a philosophical decision that we have to make as to whether we take responsibility and pay for it out of personal funds versus
Speaker 69
22:56
funds that have been given to us. Follow up, Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir. Typically, ethic
Senator Trent Garner
Unverified
23:03
violations are related similar to the conversation we had before with the campaign itself, the candidate or the campaign making a mistake. These aren't criminal or civil charges
where somebody has the adjudication against them personally. So wouldn't it make sense for a campaign fund to
Speaker 63
23:20
be the one to pay for this since the campaign itself is the one that has committed the
Speaker 68
23:26
ethical violation? Well, I've always gone by the belief that one individual, the person that's running the campaign has to take responsibility for it. I don't think that you blame a treasurer for your campaign that makes a mistake. I think you step up and say, hey, it's my responsibility and I'm going to own up to it.
And again, these are typically, I think, in the $50 to $100 ranges, and you take ownership by paying the fine
Speaker 69
23:52
yourself instead of rather than in your campaign funds. Thank you. Senator Bounger.
Speaker 14
24:02
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Do you feel like some taxes, some tax schemes we put together are regressive and they disproportionately impact lower-income people? Say that again now. Do you feel like some taxes that either, you know, new taxes we pass or even cuts or whatever,
but some tax policy could be regressive and disproportionately impact? So, for instance, an income or a tax on a purchase of good, you know, a sales tax, sometimes
Speaker 13
24:32
people consider those regressive because they disproportionately impact poor
Speaker 14
24:35
people. Sure. So if you put a fine against somebody, I mean, wouldn't you see where the same philosophy would apply, that a fine against somebody who isn't independently wealthy would actually have a larger impact against those people than it would be somebody who's wealthy
Speaker 69
24:57
deterrent. I would say those people hadn't been found guilty of anything. If you've been found guilty of an ethics violation, you've been found guilty because we impose a regressive tax on those people. They haven't been found guilty of anything, so I think it's a different matter. Again, this is just strictly a personal philosophy of taking
Speaker 13
25:19
responsibility for an error. And so it is okay to disproportionately punish some people over other people then?
Speaker 69
25:27
I don't see how, if you're found guilty of an ethics
Speaker 68
25:34
violation, I don't see how those two relate with regressive taxes. Are you saying that if it is regressive
Speaker 69
25:41
taxes, that is a form of punishment? Well, yes, actually, I could
Speaker 75
25:47
very much say that some taxes are, in fact, almost all taxes theft.
Speaker 14
25:53
But the point is that in this case, what we're talking about is some taxes, they hurt.
A bigger portion of your income, you pay to taxes, and that's why we have a sliding scale on our income tax. But when it comes to sales tax, if you go and you buy a gallon of milk and you're a poor person, that is a bigger, the tax paid for that gallon of milk is a bigger investment than if you're a wealthy person. I would say the same thing occurs if you were fined. You said $50 or $100. Now, we're blessed right now in my life that that isn't a big impact in the family, but there were times that $50, $100
was a lot of money in my family where maybe you've never experienced that or at least maybe you have it in years, or I don't know, but there are some people that that would always be like minimal. And so I can think of some of my colleagues that make sacrifice, and this is basically their job that they do, and it probably is a bigger impact on their home and whether they can buy goods and pay their bills and all that stuff than it would be, say, for you or some other person who's independently wealthy.
Speaker 66
27:05
I understand, but if you're caught speeding
Speaker 68
27:07
in a jurisdiction, you're caught speeding in a jurisdiction, and I don't think the fines are set and it's not whether you're rich or poor. I don't see that. And hey, I get it philosophically. I don't think this is a rich or poor issue. I think we're getting away from it. I don't have a problem
Speaker 69
27:29
if you say it's okay to pay for fines out of campaign funds.
I think that's fine. People have been doing that. But there are some that believe if you have a fine,
Speaker 68
27:43
you've done something, you've been found guilty by the Ethics Commission, then you should be personally responsible for it, not the campaign people that gave you the money. Members, do
Chair
Unverified
27:51
you have any other questions here for Senator Ingram on this bill? Senator, did the Ethics Commission itself have anything to do with the bill that they want to have something to say on this or not?
Speaker 69
28:08
No, they didn't request this bill. They just said that it's been both Republicans and Democrats have paid with campaign funds for their ethics violations. Okay. So in other
Senator Jason Rapert
Unverified
28:19
words, this is just something you felt needed to be done. I think it needs
Chair
Unverified
28:24
to be clarified. I do. Okay. Members, any other questions? Seeing none. Are you close? I'm close. Thank you so much. Anyone that's speaking for or against the bill.
So, members, what's the pleasure, committee? Motion do pass from Senator Bledsoe. Do I have a second? I have a second from Senator English. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? No. Bill
Senator Jason Rapert
Unverified
28:57
passes. Thank you, Senator. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much, and committee, I appreciate you all hearing this bill. All right. Members, this is the day of elongated debates.
Chair
Unverified
29:09
I thought we were going to get through a bunch of these bills. Is there anyone that's left that I called off earlier? Senator Garner, do you think this absolutely be a quick bill? Okay, we've got five minutes tops, and we'll pull it down. Mr. Chair, I have a bill that should be pretty
Speaker 85
29:25
easy, but even if we don't get to it. We only got one. It's five
Chair
Unverified
29:29
minutes, and it's a hard line. Well, what I was
Speaker 13
29:31
going to say is if I could just run the amendment, that way we
Chair
Unverified
29:35
could... Sure, we'd be happy to do that. Let's take it up right after this bill.
Members, Senate Bill 281, and this will be the last one except for the amendment that Senator Ballinger mentioned. Make sure that staff has that amendment, I assume, right? Okay, good. You're recognized, Senator Garner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This
Senator Trent Garner
Unverified
29:59
bill was brought to me by the Claims Commission. Last session, we passed a bill dealing with when you had to bring an attorney in front of the Claims Commission. There was a concern brought up during that time that certain small fines and kind of procedural administrative parts of it didn't require an attorney.
And what the Claims Commission said, that if this becomes a problem, we will come back and fix it next session. This is the fix to the problem that arose from that bill last time. To their word, they came back and fixed it on their own because they saw this being a problem. It allows under $2,000 for certain kind of administrative things to go for attorney. The way I understand it is, and the claims commission isn't here today, she had to work remotely, and she'll be here if you do have additional questions, is that it would allow for these kind of procedural small things to just kind of happen,
part of the claims commission normal thing, almost like in a courtroom where you'll pay your fine for a ticket, and you don't really have an attorney. Similar to that, I think. Any questions, committee? I'll be more than happy to take
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
31:02
them. Hopefully I can answer them quickly. Senator Tucker. Senator Garner, is this going
Speaker 67
31:08
to result in less business for lawyers? I have a serious question for you. Sometimes
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
31:11
the unintended consequences are better than the intent of the bill. I have a serious question for you. Yes, sir. The reason why corporations need a lawyer represented in court is because they're not
an actual individual. My question is, should there be some provision in here for how the corporation designates which individual will appear in front of the Claims Commission on behalf of the corporation, whether it's appointment and consistent with the bylaws or operating agreement or whatever the case may be, because there's just got to be, I appreciate what you're trying to do, and I was joking about my first question, but there's got to be something that makes
it clear that that individual is authorized to appear on behalf of the corporate entity, and that's really what I'm wondering about. My instinct is, because
Senator Trent Garner
Unverified
31:58
this used to be the practice before, it wasn't a requirement, it was kind of how it happened, that there's already a process in place, but I do not have an answer. I said, if you don't, if you have that question, I'm more than happy to pull it down until I get it answered. That's up to you. I'll ask the claims commission between this meeting and the next one, and if she can answer that. I'll talk to you on the floor. If there's really an issue, we'll pull back
Speaker 42
32:21
to the committee. All right, members, then we'll pull that down. We recognize Senator back
Agenda
CALL TO ORDER
SB82 J. Dismang TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS; TO ESTABLISH THE PROCEDURE FOR DISTRIBUTION OF CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS WHEN A CANDIDATE WITHDRAWS AND FILES FOR A DIFFERENT OFFICE; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
SB138 J. Dismang TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CAMPAIGN FINANCE, CONTRIBUTIONS AND REPORTING; TO REENACT THE REQUIREMENT TO FILE A STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL INTEREST; AND TO AMEND PORTIONS OF INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1990 AND INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1996.
SB183 K. Ingram TO AMEND CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW; TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF CAMPAIGN FUNDS OR CARRYOVER FUNDS TO PAY FOR AN ETHICS VIOLATION; AND TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF LAW RESULTING FROM INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1990 AND INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1996.
SB281 T. Garner CONCERNING REPRESENTATION OF A CORPORATE OR BUSINESS ENTITY IN A CLAIM OR ACTION FILED WITH THE ARKANSAS STATE CLAIMS COMMISSION.
HB1356 Dotson TO AMEND THE PROCESS OF EVALUATION OF STATE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS; TO REQUIRE SUBMISSION OF A REPORT; AND TO RECOMMEND THE ABOLITION OF A STATE BOARD OR COMMISSION FOR FAILURE TO SUBMIT A REPORT.
ADJOURNMENT
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — STATE AGENCIES & GOVT'L AFFAIRS-SENATE, Feb 9, 2021 | Agenda | 2 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 5
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
Speaker 13
Speaker 14
Speaker 24
Speaker 27
Senator Jane English
Unverified
Speaker 42
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
Speaker 48
Speaker 26
Speaker 58
Senator Jason Rapert
Unverified
Speaker 62
Speaker 63
Senator Trent Garner
Unverified
Speaker 66
Speaker 68
Speaker 69
Speaker 75
Speaker 85
Speaker 67