State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs-Senate
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (5)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB138
Act 254
· 3 mentions in agenda, transcript, chapter
Matched: “…FILES FOR A DIFFERENT OFFICE; AND TO DECLARE AND EMERGENCY. SB138 J. Dismang TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CAMPAIGN FINANCE, CO…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CAMPAIGN FINANCE, CONTRIBUTIONS AND REPORTING; TO REENACT THE REQUIREMENT TO … | J. Dismang | Notification that SB138 is now Act 254 |
|
SB82
· 3 mentions in transcript, chapter, agenda
Matched: “…ing none, I'd like to call up our first bill. That would be SB 82, Senator Dismaine. and you'd be recognized, sir. And I beli…”
|
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. |
|
SB128
Act 70
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB128 J. English TO AMEND THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE DIVISION O…”
|
TO AMEND THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT; AND TO DELEGATE … | J. English | Notification that SB128 is now Act 70 |
|
SB145
Act 71
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB145 Gilmore TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSISTAN…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE COMPACT TO COMPLY WITH CHANGES TO THE NATIONAL … | Gilmore | Notification that SB145 is now Act 71 |
|
SB30
Act 543
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB30 J. English TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PROFESSIONAL SERVICE…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACTS AND OUTSIDE VENDORS. | J. English | Notification that SB30 is now Act 543 |
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 7, 2026
The meeting will come to order, and what we want to do is immediately is
to take a recess. They are here to take our picture, and we're all here at one time, so we're going to do it very, very quickly, and we'll come back. So with no objections, we'll be in recess for probably five, no more than ten minutes. Thank you.
Unknown speaker
0:30
Take care.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
The committee will be called back to order. Members, I want to thank you all for that. To be honest with you, it's probably one of the smoothest I've ever seen go since I've been up here, so we got it knocked out. Appreciate everyone for being patient on that. Members, I've taken a look at these bills personally already. There may be a few questions on a couple of them, but most of these I think will go relatively quickly through.
So that being the case, since this is our first committee meeting where we actually will take up business, is there any questions from any of the committee at all on process, procedure, or anything you just want to bring to my attention? Seeing none, I'd like to call up our first bill. That would be SB 82, Senator Dismaine. and you'd be recognized, sir. And I believe you actually have two bills, so what we'll be prepared to do is, once we handle the first, we'll go right into the second. And would you like anyone to join you here
for presentation, Senator? We can go
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
5:38
ahead and have Director Sloan join me today. Yeah. Senator,
it's kind of odd to ask, but I guess state your name for the record. Yeah, no,
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
5:50
it's Jonathan Dismang, Senate District 28. Good
to go? Yes, sir. And you might go ahead and let Graham announce himself. That way everybody's recorded and we'll proceed accordingly.
Speaker 17
6:06
Graham Sloan, Director of the Arkansas Ethics Commission.
Thank you, Graham. You're recognized, Senator, for presentation. Thank you.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
6:12
And we'll explain the other bill a little bit later. But in my opinion, they kind of go hand in hand, especially with the ruling that struck down the two-year limitation on fundraising. And so in our conversations, when Graham brought me Senate Bill 138, I started asking about, well, what happens now that someone can raise, you know, fundraise for such a long period of time without limitation? Say someone announces for one office and decides later on to change and run for a different office, what happens to those campaign funds?
And my understanding, talking to him, essentially what was recommended is what's outlined in this bill. You know, you would return your campaign funds from that original campaign and you're more than welcome to re-solicit. But in reality, what was happening on occasion is that that process wasn't being followed because there was no clear guidance in the statutes. And so while he could make a recommendation, it didn't necessarily have to be followed. and you might have someone that would just send an email out to the donor saying, hey, if you don't respond, I'm going to accept your non-response
as you wanting to contribute for my new campaign. And my understanding that probably did happen along those lines. So this just creates something that's a little bit more steadfast in the world in which now campaigns can fundraise for an excess of two years. It gives us some clarity on what to do when someone does happen to
Speaker 20
7:32
change their mind. I'd be happy to take any questions.
I thought I had myself activated. Any questions on the bill? Senator English, you're recognized.
Senator Jane English
Unverified
7:52
So I guess I'm just wondering, so with carryover funds, if you have carryover funds from one election, the maximum being our annual salary so you have to announce or can you use those for another campaign and and I'll let uh Director Sloan clarify
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
8:11
this but we actually started talking about this again last night because I want to
make sure that I understood this would not impact
carryover funds that's in a different statute and my understanding those can be used for any other state campaign. So legislative or statewide or whatever it may be. Now there may be, we might need to provide some later clarification because of 2014 on those funds, but again that this is, that's outside the scope of this particular bill. Okay. Can I follow up? Yes, you perfectly will. I
Senator Jane English
Unverified
8:49
guess my question, I'm just thinking in my mind
is, so when people have carryover funds, there's an assumption that they probably would run for that same office again. So will this be a conflict with that? Or, I mean, so if I decided next year to run for governor, could I use those funds from that carryover for a campaign for governor yes the
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
9:18
if a candidate ends an election with money left over they can
keep an amount equal to the annual salary office all those carryover funds those can be used if you won the election for officeholder expenses if you lost you wouldn't have them off sort of expenses but in any event they can be transferred to a future campaign for basically any non-federal office so you know if you run for state or district office you wanted to step back and run for county municipal school board, you could transfer them over. And this doesn't change that at all. What this addresses is a situation where somebody withdraws,
you know, they've raised money for an office and then they withdraw, then what happens to the money in that situation? Okay. Got it.
Senator Trent Garner
Unverified
10:07
Senator Garner, you're recognized, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What do you mean by
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
10:13
files? Yes, sir. Thank you very much. And our interpretation of the files is when you file the campaign contribution report, not when you're actually filing for office. So when you file as a candidate on your campaign contribution report, you designate what office you're running for on that.
And when you're soliciting funds, you know, those are supposed to be made out to your campaign in which you then file
Senator Trent Garner
Unverified
10:34
a report for. So years ago, whenever there was a race for lieutenant governor and former representative Charlie Collins joined the race as well as others, and then after Lieutenant Governor Tim Griffin decided to join that race, multiple candidates decided to pull back at that time. You're saying at that time they'd have to return all the funds, even though they could be eligible to run for state representative, which I believe he did, and when, again, he'd have to return the funds
and have the funds re-return to him through the same checking mechanism? Yeah, I mean,
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
11:03
well, you'd have a separate checking account. In my opinion, and it may be a different opinion of others in this room, when you're raising money for a campaign, you're raising money for a specific office. I mean, when you are asking and soliciting your funds, they're making out to the campaign of, you know, Jason Rapert for Lieutenant Governor, however it's titled. They're not making a campaign check out to Jason Rapert, State Senator. And so I think this just allows there to be that separation
that I think is needed. And I'm not sure what Representative Collins did at that point in his race. Again, he was a declared governor, or he was a declared candidate for Lieutenant Governor, not at that point declared for state representative. And in my opinion, I feel as though that this would be the process that he would have needed
to follow and probably the guidance that he got to follow at that time. May I have another question, Mr. Chairman? Yeah, and
by the way, in the Senate here, I've always been used to,
you've got the floor where you're questioning if we get to a point where I need to, for time's sake, to stop you so you don't have to keep asking me like the House for follow-up just so that'll
Senator Trent Garner
Unverified
12:09
be our standard. Thank you. Why wouldn't you just put an exception here that if, say, I gave money to candidate X and he decided to clear for another office that I could reach out to that donor and have them just sign off that they would give me the same donation and just switch it to the new account? Why not create a mechanism where instead of having a return a check to them, have them turn it right back and give it back to you again,
why wouldn't you create a mechanism to do that? Seems like a lot of paperwork. Basically, you have to send out every pro rata share back to every single donor in that race, turn around and then re-solicit those funds within a certain amount of time. It seems two or three steps too far whenever it could be done, much simpler process. And as long as you declared it on the financial statements and it's all done on board with transparency, it seems like a simpler process than this way. And
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
12:56
I understand. And again, that probably is a difference of opinion
just in regards to how these funds should be used. There were funds raised for a particular office, expenses associated with that race were for a particular office. And I mean, just one wrinkle even in that scenario. If you've raised X number of dollars, spent X number of dollars, and you have a pro rata amount, that pro rata is the entirety. Is the pro rata the contribution to the next race or your new race? Is the total amount that you received from that donor from the prior race what you would then recognize, and you then re-recognize those expenses?
This just creates a much cleaner process. At that point, you're returning it pro rata, and then you're fundraising from those individuals if they're your same donors and they want to see you be successful in another position. You have every right in the world to solicit them again for the maximum contribution. You've returned the other amount to them and net of the pro rata expenses that you had for that previous race, not this new race. Graham, would it be an
Senator Trent Garner
Unverified
13:57
ethical violation if before I got it, hypothetically, if I was set up for my state senate race and I decided to do another race,
if I had $40,000 in carryover, whatever the amount is we can legally carry over, if I spent every dollar on that for my new race before declaring for the other one, would that be an ethical violation? Could I spend that money anyway and kind of circumvince this?
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
14:22
I'm not sure I understand the question, but let me ask you if this is the question. You had carryover funds, you declared for
A, Office A, you transferred the carryover funds to the campaign for Office A, and you spent them, and now you're changing your mind, you're running for B.
Senator Trent Garner
Unverified
14:38
Carryover funds, or if I might see, I'm announced for 2022, I have state senate race money. If I took that money and spent it on Trent Garner for president, obviously that's federal race, state race, whatever. Is there any ethical violation about spending that money beforehand before I switch to the new office? I
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
14:58
don't think there would be, but the law is in need of clarification in this area because when a candidate withdraws, there is a question.
Somebody was a maximum contributor to your campaign for Office A. Now you've withdrawn. If you transferred that over, just whatever's left to your campaign for Office B, Is the maxed-out contributor still maxed out for the other race? And then also, too, there's a problem, and Senator Dismang had alluded to 2014, but that was the year that there was a list of permissible contributors that was put into the law, and so a candidate can only accept contributions from a list of five entities
in a previous campaign in one of those permissible contributors. So I think the transfer of that money from campaign A, the withdrawn campaign for office A, to transfer that directly to the campaign for office B, that is problematic. And then you could establish a carryover account, but the laws that's written for carryover funds talks about after the date of the election.
So if you withdrew from your campaign for Office A, that money is really not going to be carried out. I think we're getting a little bit into the
Senator Trent Garner
Unverified
16:25
weeds of it. I just want to highlight that final part. If I had an exploratory committee I set up and I wanted to move that money over to, say, run for, say, Pulaski County Little Rock Mayor,
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
16:37
would that be prohibited under this? Exploratory committee, if you're running for a particular office and you decide not to seek that office, You have to get rid of that money as surplus funds, and it's five methods, you know, charity, a political party, refund it to contributors.
So there's not a mechanism to explore Office A and then transfer that to Campaign for B. Okay, thank you. Hearing
all this, this is what I've talked about with you, Graham, before. There's so many things. You know, this month, here in this body, we're filling
out our Senate disclosures. we're signing them, we're filling out our statement of financial interest, and the members of the General Assembly disclosure, and this is my point, Senator, is that I just want things to be
simple so that people understand the guidelines, and I understand you're trying to speak to something that has not been fully addressed, but also as we do it, I hope that we're not creating an issue where there's going to be gotchas for anybody or anything like that. I'm going to recognize Senator Tucker, but I want to make mention of, let me go ahead and ask the Senator Tucker so I can get it. The 30 days, does that square with the other provisions in the
code? And the reason I ask that, I've had four races where we've had active campaigns. I have been surprised when I've said, is everything in? Are all the invoices in? All of that stuff. And I was just sitting there thinking, I can see this all being put out and day 32, here comes $5,000 bill and there you are. And you were trying to rush to get it done. So it made me think of, again, would perhaps a 60 day window be potentially, I just want to make sure if it's
squaring with code, then we probably just need to leave it at 30. But I just know that the reality is that happens. That's a real situation. Well, and for instance,
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
18:35
on those funds, if you received funds after you had already withdrawn or, you know, said that you were no longer running for that race, you have every right in the world to call that donor, write void on it, and send it back, which would be the cleanest thing for you to do, I think. And again, that would just, I mean, that's not guidance. But the way that this squares up, in my opinion, with what's here now is it allows you to follow the end of the month. Of course, our reports are there on a month-to-month
basis, and so it's 30 days following the
end of the month that you announce that you're withdrawing to run for another office.
Okay. Let's take me to that real quick. Be returned to contributors within 30 days
following the end of the month in which the candidate has withdrawn from the campaign for
the specific office and subsequently filed. And this question also,
pro rata. Pro rata, if somebody says you take the $500,000 you've got
left and pro rata just distribute it equally amongst all the donors, that's not what you really mean, is it? Because donor A may be of only giving you 50 bucks.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
19:44
No, pro rata, I mean, is pretty well understood. I mean, if I receive $200 from you and $200 from you and I've spent, you know, $100 of that, that means I have $300 left and that's $150 and that's $150. And as far as, I mean, literally that to me as someone that, you know, worked with numbers some, I mean, that
is the cleanest, easiest, fastest thing that I could possibly do. I think you misunderstand my question
depending on how those numbers work out if you just take whatever the balance is and distribute it equally amongst the no it's not equal that's what I was going to say is I want you to
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
20:24
explain that a little bit so if he if he donated four hundred dollars and he donated two hundred dollars and I spend a hundred dollars there's five hundred dollars left then essentially I mean I would take their allocation of their contribution and donate it back I mean I would and send it back to them, just as
Speaker 57
20:39
you would pro rata anything, in my opinion.
Okay. Well, my point was I wondered, did you want to clarify that either in the bill or somehow in some rules so that that is not misunderstood? In looking at
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
20:55
the bill on page 2, lines 6 and 7, that no distribution or refund
shall exceed the amount of the original contribution. So, I mean, you can't give somebody back more than that. No, I get that, but I just was trying to
make sure that there's a very clear way of doing that
because not everybody is going to be centred dismaying as an accountant. Now, for me, I've always used an accountant for 10 years, and that was the best decision I've ever made in my life to take care of our stuff. but some of these folks as you know they're running this these campaigns and they're filling out the reports they're just doing it themselves I just wondered if there's anything that could make
it even clearer for them on the formula is all I was asking. I mean I would say pro
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
21:41
rata is pretty I mean that that's pretty universal and recognized as far as what that means I mean you're
going to take all of your expenses and you're going to take I mean all your income all your expenses and you have a net and then I'm going
to take the amount that's contributed from each person and whatever that net is I'm going to allocate it back out I mean it would
be literally but you're going to allocate it in different amounts based of correct that's what you have to do that's why I was asking to get you to state it because it's not just that you simply take the balance and just boom just spread it out because that would leave that would work I mean I don't
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
22:15
think I don't think your donors would appreciate that and I don't think you know I mean
Yeah, again, this is what is recommended when that question comes before the Ethics Commission. And so, again, I think people have a pretty good understanding of pro rata. I want to finish up
so I can yield to Senator Tucker. So as you put it together, I know we've talked a little bit about it because I was trying to get an understanding of where it came from. And I asked the question, have you taken a look and done, as I called it,
a little tour through the states to see how they're handling that? Have you consulted any of them at all and
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
22:48
seen any of that? No, I haven't.
I deal with things here in Arkansas and I feel like the recommendations that have been laid out by the Ethics Commission on how to handle those funds for quite a while now hold water and I think, but are not enforceable. And so I think having something in place in statute and allowing them to finish promulgating the rules that need to be associated is the
best thing to do. Senator Tucker. Thank you,
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
23:15
Mr. Chair. This is, there we go. When you were exchanging with Senator Garner,
I thought it was a good point. Just to use the example Senator Garner raised, if let's just say someone had given Charlie Collins $2,800 the max or whatever, and then he spent a hundred, I mean, excuse me, a thousand dollars of that. And then he changes to state representative and he pro write-ups back out $1,800 to that original donor. would he then be able to solicit $2,800 for his state rep campaign okay and then that's what I thought you were saying I guess my follow-up question is if this bill is not passed that
situation is murky is that basically what you're
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
23:57
saying right I mean what is the contribution that's been sent to that new campaign from the old campaign on behalf of that particular donor And in a lot of ways, you would allow a lot more, I guess, leeway
in how those are allocated. So, I mean, if there's no true set way, pro rata, for instance, to return those funds, then maybe I spent all
of your $2,500 or whatever your donation was on my campaign,
but I also knew at the same time you weren't willing to donate to some other campaign. I mean, there could be a lot of games associated or played with leaving it up and leaving it up in the area, how those funds are reallocated and distributed back to the donors. Okay. Thank you. Senator Ballinger,
Senator Bob Ballinger
Unverified
24:46
you're recognized. Thank you. Going along, it's another thing that Senator Garneau picked up, and I don't think, I mean, I think your bill doesn't necessarily need to address this, but one thing that I think it could do, before when you just transfer the funds over,
you didn't have the same incentive to say, okay, I'm actually going to switch. I'm no longer running for governor. I'm going to run for lieutenant governor. And instead of giving that money back, I'm going to go ahead and just, you know, spend it all before I make that announcement and then decide to make that announcement. And so essentially that's not, I mean, I'm not asking your bill to do more than what you're able to do, but that's probably something we need to consider. And I don't know how you would even police that, but this would create that incentive. Yeah, I mean, I
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
25:28
think when you announce that you're going to run for another
office, I don't know, I'm not in
his position, but I think if those funds continue to be used for your race for governor, I think it
was your example, even though you had withdrawn yourself from that race, I mean, I think you've probably got some issues. Yeah, but that's the,
Senator Bob Ballinger
Unverified
25:46
I mean, you have control of when you make that announcement, right? Sure. If you've got a, if you have some coffers you got you know 50 grand or 100 grand or whatever you got and you're still wanting to build a statewide name id you just purge your you just do everything you
make a big buy and then you make the announcement like i mean i i can see a person i can see a person making the legitimate argument that what they're doing is they're trying to test the waters and see spend all that money see if their name id goes up it's not enough okay i'm going to step out and move to something else and i just i don't know
Speaker 77
26:18
that we can even address that i mean there's no ethics rules that I think you can even put in place
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
26:23
to handle that. I see what you're saying. Yeah, no, I agree. I mean, the filing date is your drop dead date there. I mean, you're going to have to make the decision before filing day
comes. Any other questions? And I guess as far as somebody
getting into that, they might have to wait to
make sure they got all their bills paid for sure before they announced their withdrawal. That would be one thing. But I just want to make sure we don't have any unintended consequence, which it has happened down here before. So,
members, if there are no other questions, Senator, are you closed for your bill? I'm closed. All right. I have a motion, do pass, from Senator English. Do I
have a second? I have a second, Senator Hester. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. No.
Your bill passes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, sir. Members, Senate Bill 138 is another one that Senator Dismayne has. And I don't know if all of them, but I think they're all in bill order, in number order. So if you're looking for them in your packet. Are they not? Okay. Right. And again, I think they're getting a difference in how they put the bills pro rata there, Senator.
she's got them in numerical order so if you're thumbing through them so that's reason they're not just in your agenda form and I have asked just for me for the years we've always had them in agenda form so we'll try to get those for you next time so thank you very much. Senator you're recognized for
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
27:59
Senate Bill 138. Thank you Mr. Chairman you know so the first change on this is on page
two, and it's where we add that essentially a political action committee cannot
contribute to a prohibited political action committee. Evidently, there were some issues there. I'll let our director Sloan explain those, but I think that's pretty common sense for most of
us as far as that piece of language. Starting 11 through 16, that strikes the language in regards to the two-year limitation that was reversed by the courts, and so that's to remove that unconstitutional language from the statutes, and then picks back up on line 22, and all this does is just require that the candidate disclose the institution with
which they are keeping their campaign funds. And I believe, then we have one, a little bit more language on statement of financial interest and that's just some clarification on when that needs to be filed and with that, if you don't mind, I'll
turn it over to the director. That's good, thank you and are we to perceive that this is a bill that was recommended by
Speaker 82
29:12
the Ethics Commission? Yes, Senator. We keep
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
29:15
a file and when we run across something that needs to
be improved or clarified, we put it in there and then our board had approved these changes, and Senator Dysmang has summarized it accurately. The SFI, the very last part of it, I would just say there that when Arkansas started having March primaries, that pushed the filing period back into the year before the election,
and when you applied the SFI statute, you had candidates who were going to run, and I'm just going to use 2020 as an example, they're now filing in 2019. Well, the law made them file an SFI for 2018, but then when January rolled around, they didn't have to file one for 19, and so when the law was changed the first time to move it to a March primary, it addressed that situation and had the candidate come back and file another SFI, and y'all's elected officials would have already filed them anyway.
So we're talking about a non-income candidate, but that language sunset. And then when the primary got moved back again to a March primary, the language that cured that SFI problem, if that's what you want to call it, had sunsetted and wasn't there. So this really just
Speaker 58
30:48
reestablishes the language that addresses that SFI glitch.
All right. Anything else on there? Members, do you see
everything? I have it all in order. You know, just for the purposes of asking it, you've got an additional, this is line 22 on page two, for each financial institution, the candidate and committee, you've got to list the bank out.
Right. The name of it, name and address. What's the purposes of adding that now as another bit of information that's going to be on the public facing form that people are going to see? And I'll just be frank about it because I've had some experience with some unusual dealings. The gentleman that came from Washington State, came down here, decided he'd want to play in my election, and he ended up doing all sorts of things that ended up with the crime he committed. He was convicted of that.
He has appealed it. He was convicted again. I had my accountants calling me. I had people I served on boards with calling me. He called every single person whatsoever that he could find on any document whatsoever. He disgorged documents from the Secretary of State. He made foyers from anything that he could possibly about me. And so what my point is, my concern with that is this is a person obviously that is rifling through information and data and this just gives them one more thing that they can do. And with the identity theft and things that we already deal with as individuals,
I just wonder, could we not mandate that it actually, you've got the authority to get that somehow without just throwing something else out there because you're actually putting down a name and an address for somebody to walk in and pose as somebody with your campaign. And you never know that teller that day that's sitting there. She just happens to, he gets past her. So I'm just wondering about that. it's just something I'm telling you and I know that it's a weird day and time that we live in
but that's a concern. We really have a lot of information and some of us and it's not just been me have had situations where they're rifling through these things just to find a way to intimidate or harass a candidate or a sitting member. So I'm just asking is that something you have to have that's on the public facing form or could you not put that in some state we can make
it where that you have the right and authority to ask that so that you're not getting
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
33:36
a candidate that's hassling you well and we've it's information we need from time to time that there's an allegation that somebody has misspent campaign funds and we're going to need to look at the bank records to see how the money was in fact spent and and uh uh and we've asked them you know hey, where's your campaign bank account? It's just like, oh, I'm not going to tell you. I love y'all, but I'm just not going to tell you. And then we could subpoena it, and then if they didn't comply with the subpoena, you'd have to bring a lawsuit in circuit court to compel compliance.
The way what we've done is we'll just go through their campaign finance reports, find a vendor, and then subpoena that vendor for a copy of the payment instrument, and that would give us the bank and the account that we're looking for, but that, you know, that's a process that can take some time, and then the idea for this was that PACs are required to put this on their form, so anytime we need to look at a PACs bank records, it's on there, and then, you know, if somebody was going to take the name of your bank and somehow
go in there and, you know, and get unauthorized access to financial records or money, I think there'd be all kind of state or federal crimes that they would potentially have violated, And then if they were that dead set on knowing the bank, then they could make a contribution to your
Speaker 58
34:59
campaign. And when they get the canceled check back, there's a wealth of information on the back of it that would be more than this information. So, I mean, it wouldn't be on a forward-facing document,
but if they were intent upon the bank, they could get it. I
get it, Graham, but we're in an unusual time. And I'm
just saying, I just wonder if it wouldn't be more prudent to give you the clear authority to ask that information. We know this. We've had it happen to any number of people in different ways and different matters. I mean, I just had to deal with a situation in a meeting where we've got prisoners that were given authority,
and there's going to be a cleanup bill coming in the Senate pretty soon, but prisoners were given the authority to FOIA from the crime lab pictures of autopsies of their victims, and they were using those as bragging rights inside of the prison. So you're talking about some people that don't think the way normal people think. So anyway, I'm sensitive to it because I've dealt with it, and the more I've talked about it, the more I'm sensitive to it here because I have absolutely dealt with these people that have called up and harassed me
personally. So, you know, I just have, I have concerns about that and I don't know if my members share the same level of concern. You're right, somebody would be violating the law, but that didn't prevent the person that came down here and violated the law with me. So anyway, that's my concern. Senator Ballinger, you have a question you recognize.
Speaker 89
36:34
Thank you, Mr. Chair. That's, I mean, And the only
Senator Bob Ballinger
Unverified
36:39
thing I can think of, at least, and I'm not even saying this would be enough that would cause me to not want to vote for the bill,
but I think it's real possibilities that we see this kind of cancel culture that's going on right now. And it would be easy if you support some bill or oppose some bill. You're against hate crimes legislation, so therefore you're some sort of right-wing bigot. And the banks that you're doing business with shouldn't be doing business with you. So you've got to target that bank on social media or whatever and get them to stop doing business with that campaign.
And while I'm saying that's not very far off, like that's not even all that outlandish of a possibility, whereas if they have to cut you a check first, it's a little less likely for them to go through that trouble to target you. So, I mean, that's the only thing I think that I think the information, there's still all sorts of security measures to keep them from from breaking the law. And even though that's easier if they know where to where to target the political
Speaker 76
37:46
ramifications, public ramifications, I think could be legit.
Senator, that's true. My own experience. And I could I could
actually name the person that could come testify for you. Function was had. Bank was involved in it. A
person walked in the bank, a political left in my community, and said, we're not going to do business with you since you support Senator
Rayford. So you've just brought the issue that proves the point.
So, members, you know, I've got a concern with that.
I'm not that happy about that provision.
I'm altogether happy with an amendment that would say he demands he's got to do it. But for all the things
we've just stated in my own experience, I'm uncomfortable with giving somebody another tool by which to cause an unnecessary problem for somebody just trying to take care of their
own banking needs. Any other questions? Senator Davis, you're
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
38:49
recognized. Is there any way to even have you guys go ahead and collect the information, but it can stay private?
so instead of saying you have permission to get it from us is like is there a way to do that because i get that and too just living in a small town with a bunch of banks they see well you're over there and you know it just causes like a lot of issues i think um or has potential to but i'd be more than happy for you guys to have it um but it may be just not be public information so if you needed it you would already have it is there a way for you to
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
39:26
do that I'm sure you could write a provision requiring them to provide it to us,
and then if they didn't, we'd be, I mean, we've got subpoena power, we've subpoenaed people, and they're like, I'm not telling. And then, you know, and so then that would leave you with the prospect of having to go to circuit court, bring a lawsuit, and enforce that provision. So, I mean, you know, it's already aimed at a, you know, getting information out of a noncompliant person, you know. And so, I mean, you know, and so the, but I mean, if you were going to say it's to be provided to us and then it would be confidential, I think that, you know, you'd have to have some language in there to address or get around FOI problems.
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
40:07
Yeah, I mean, that's what I was wondering. Is there a way to do that, to get around, you know, where it doesn't have to be FOI-able, but you already have it on, you know, require it on the front end? I don't know either. I mean, I just thought it was worth asking.
Speaker 82
40:25
And where we're coming from on it is, you know, there's allegations that
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
40:30
cause us to need to look at bank records, and then on a PAC, it's really easy because they're on their registration form. They have to list their bank, and so you know exactly where to go. And then on a candidate,
you don't know the information. We've run across a situation where the FBI has that record. They won't tell us the bank you know and so you know they'll call us ask for information send us subpoenas compelling us to help them so to speak and then you know we're like hey we're we need to see some bank records on somebody like can't do it you know so the so it's just a it's just people stonewalled us and this would just be a way around the stonewall and if it's at the expense of um cancel culture you know that that's something we hadn't thought of you know i mean
And from our perspective, it's just, here's information we need, and it's hard on us to get it. And if it worked like it did on PACS, it would make our investigations quicker and easier. Graham, it's
unfortunate that we are having to think about these consequences. And so, because I know you're trying to just get information
you need for it. Senator Bledsoe, you're
Senator Cecile Bledsoe
Unverified
41:45
recognized. thank you Mr. Chair since my and I think all of us have separate campaign accounts from our
business accounts or our personal accounts I don't see why this is such an issue I would be glad to vote for this and feel comfortable that, you know, nothing would happen. What do you say about something like that? I mean, is it a problem in your mind? Probably not. Do you see what I'm saying? I mean, it's a separate account, and I don't see why we should try to protect that as we do our personal account and a business account.
Speaker 82
42:29
Thank you, Senator, for the question.
I do think there's a difference
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
42:34
between, I mean, clearly there's a difference between a candidate's own personal money and their campaign funds and then, you know, the statement of financial interest. If you had more than $1,000 on deposit at any particular bank, there's a document where you've listed the banks where you, you know, have $1,000 on deposit. And so, you know, if somebody was wanting to harass your personal bank, that'd be a way to do it.
And so this one to me is it's your campaign. And I hadn't thought of somebody, you know, well, we're going to boycott this bank because that's the depository of the campaign's funds. Well, my campaign account
Senator Cecile Bledsoe
Unverified
43:18
is in a different bank. And so, I mean, I don't know about other people, but I just assumed that they did that. But
I hadn't thought about some of these things either.
Thank you. Mine is as well, Senator, the same thing. But again, it's the unintended consequences
of some of it. Anybody else have a question? At all. No further questions. Senator, what are your thoughts? Are you comfortable with proceeding with it like it is? Or I guess we just have to know that
it is what it is? Because you're right, statement of financial interest, you got that as well.
I think this body needs to start looking at a way to protect some things. It's good to have transparency and disclosure, but I'm getting about tired because you've got to realize just a couple weeks ago you had an announcement that a bank in New York would no longer bank the president of the United States on his personal account, and then Deutsche Bank said that they would no longer provide service on their business accounts, and it was because of pressure that was being seen out there of a person that has not even been charged with a crime at this point. So anyway, these are things
that are fretful in the times in which we live. I don't know that there's a way for us to deal with it, but if you got anything further on the bill, I hear that. If not, then we'll, if you want to have it voted on or if you want to try to adjust it, I don't know. What's your pleasure, sir?
mic's off, Senator, she said. That all
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
45:16
sounded really good to anyone that was not able
to hear me. I'm not sure what the alternative is because you have an issue with FOI, I believe. If they're going to house that information, I'm not sure that they can shield it without us passing up another law or something that would do so. I understand the cancel culture argument. It's actually one we had talked about briefly before. I had not, you know, thought about the fact that
you may have, you know, bankers in town that are upset that you've got favoritism one way or
the other, whatever that may be. I just don't know how you get around it. I mean, if I
could see a path, I mean, that might be one thing. What I believe is the way to get
around it is that they have the authority. Yeah, that's something they already have the authority to do. Excuse me. They have the authority to
request it when it's needed. FOI means nothing if it's not sitting there in a file for them. So the point is, if it gets to a point that it is an issue that they have to
pursue, if they've got the authority to go get it, it's going to be a live issue for them and handle that at the time. It's not
just sitting around subject to people just doing random FOIs on information trying to get it. So that is something we could handle. Well, that's something they have, that is
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
46:30
the procedure now. I mean it's something they have the authority to demand. I think what he's saying is it's just not always provided when the request is made and so they're trying to streamline that process for that when the request is made they know where to go, what to subpoena, because they have subpoena power. I'm not sure what all they have the power to do, but I
think that's part of it. So I think they can already demand it. I mean it, so at the end of the day the question is, is it information that we want to be required
to be provided or not? all right if there's nothing further what's the pleasure of the committee no i'm sorry senator tucker you're recognized thank
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
47:09
you mr chairman i guess my question is is there a penalty for not complying as it is now and does that change under this proposal
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
47:19
The law would currently allow us to subpoena that information and then
somebody has the choice to not comply with that subpoena and then we could bring a lawsuit in circuit court. We don't enforce our own subpoenas. We have to go to circuit court to do that. And then at that point, they've gone beyond ethics commission penalties to whatever circuit court wants to do.
Circuit court would, I guess, determine if it was a reasonable subpoena, but assuming it was, then they're going to order them to produce the information, and then if they don't, they'd be subject to contempt powers of the court. And then if it's a line on the campaign finance report that you just list the name and address of the bank where the campaign funds are deposited, That, you know, if we were to, if somebody left that line blank and we were to enforce it, it would just be, you know, subject to higher administrative, civil or administrative penalties of a letter of caution, you know, warning reprimand and a fine from 50 to 3,500.
You could do that under current law? No, because it's not required
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
48:38
to be. That's my question, really, because conceivably a candidate could not put the information on their form, even if this passes right. but maybe the difference is that at that point they would be required under law to do it and then the Ethics Commission could enforce. It's immediately enforceable in-house at that point. Right, whereas it's not
under current law. Right. Okay, thank you. That's what I was trying to clear up. Members
of the audience, I've been reminded on this.
There is a rule you have to wear a mask in this meeting,
so you've got to have your mask applied to be able to stay in this meeting with us. Any other questions? All right. No questions. What's the pleasure of the committee? I've got a motion due pass. Do I have a second? I have a second. I'm going to use this time for my own discussion, okay,
which is proper when the motion's on the floor like that. The only thing I'll say to you is you can tell I'm talking from my own experience. And I'm operating from a position where I'm tired of seeing public officials hassled and targeted and sometimes
to the point that people commit crimes. And so you've got to understand that's where I'm coming from on this particular provision. I really don't like
it at all. I have no problem with the bill whatsoever. I have no problem with them having the authority to get it.
But God forbid you start being the one that's targeted and hassled and you will absolutely understand what I'm talking about.
And so with that, I have a motion do pass. I have a second on the floor. All those in favor of the bill passing, say aye. All opposed? No. Bill passes. Members, we're now going to Senator English for presentation of our bills. Thank you for coming, Senator Dismaine. I
would hope that you would think even more about this as we go,
because I'm telling you, it'll be used. It will be
used. Senator English, you're recognized for presentation of Senate Bill 30 and Senate Bill 128. Thank
Senator Jane English
Unverified
51:04
you very much. Your mic's off, Senator.
They've reminded me. Your mic is off. It's a cleanup bill. And it basically, the Department of, I mean, the Division of Information Systems and the Office of Personnel Management were transferred under the Department of Transformation and Shared Services by Act 910 of 2019. And this bill amends the Arkansas Code regarding professional services.
All right. Members, do you have any questions for Senator English on Senate Bill 38? Or excuse me,
Senate Bill 30. Would you like to say
Speaker 120
52:06
anything on the bill? Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's really just changing the Chief Financial Officer, so the Secretary of DFA, to the
Speaker 122
52:13
Secretary of Transformation and Shared Services. There's really no change other than that.
Members, not seeing any questions at all.
Do I have a motion? Motion. Motion do pass, Senator Garner. Second, Senator Hester. All those in favor say
Senator Jane English
Unverified
52:31
aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. The bill
passes, Senator. Thank you very much. I love these
Senator Jane English
Unverified
52:38
simple bills. Yeah, you're recognized for Senate Bill 128. And this bill transfers the responsibility for administering the Arkansas Continuity of Operations Program from the Department of Information Systems to the Division of Emergency Management.
Members, any questions on this? Very straightforward. Seeing no questions, are you closed,
Senator? I'm closed with the bill. Entertain a motion, do pass. I have a motion, Senator Bledsoe seconded, Senator Ballinger. All those in favor say aye. All opposed, no. Bill passes. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Secretary Fetcher, as well. Members, that gets us to the last bill of the day, Senate Bill 145. Senator
Gilmore, you're recognized, sir, for presentation of your bill.
I believe Director Gary is going to join you for that. Yeah. If you would, both,
when you sit down, register on the mic, state your name, who you represent for the record, and you'll be recognized, sir.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
53:43
Senator Ben Gilmore. First of all, committee, and I'll turn it over to Director Gary in a second, but I just want to say it's an honor to come before you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. This is the first time that I've run a bill in front of a committee, so it is certainly my honor to do so in front of y'all. And then I brought with me Director Geary, and I'll let him introduce himself as well.
Speaker 127
54:03
Good afternoon. A.J. Geary, Director of the Arkansas Division of Emergency Management.
Good to have you here, Director Geary. And congratulations. We're honored that this is your first presentation in state agencies. It's good to have you as part of the Senate. Sir, you're recognized
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
54:20
for your presentation. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This bill is a technical cleanup bill for the Department of Emergency Management, basically just so they can comply with the National Compact, and I can certainly defer any questions to Senator Gary, or Director Gary, but I think it's pretty straightforward.
Speaker 66
54:35
Okay. Director, do you want to provide some color?
Speaker 131
54:38
I can, yes, sir. So this is the Emergency Management Assistance Compact. All of our 50 states and all of U.S. territories sign on to this. This allows states to send assistance to our neighbors anywhere in those other states or territories in times of disaster. It also allows us to bring people resources from those other states to Arkansas to help us out. This agreement protects those individuals that go to different states to work for liability and workers comp
and so forth. So there were some changes to the national language. So this bill just puts Arkansas in line with some of those changes that were made at the national
level. All right. Members, any questions on this bill? It's pretty straightforward. Senator Gilmore, are you closed for your bill?
I am closed, Mr. Chair. All right. I'd entertain a motion. Motion for Senator Bledsoe do pass, seconded by Senator English.
All those in favor say aye. All those opposed? The bill passes. Congratulations. Thank you both for being here. Thank you for your time. Members, I have asked, you know, we have this process about how things get on our regular agenda or consent agenda. And so I have stated that unless I tell them no, we are going to meet. So we'll meet unless it's an announcement that we're not going to meet. and that way we can keep the flow going of all these and if nothing else appreciate all of you
Unknown speaker
56:16
safe travels home we're adjourned Thank you.
You
Agenda
CALL TO ORDER
RECESS
RETURN FROM RECESS
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 AND 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.
SB30 J. English TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACTS AND OUTSIDE VENDORS.
SB128 J. English TO AMEND THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT; AND TO DELEGATE THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ARKANSAS CONTINUITY OF OPERATIONS PROGRAM.
SB145 Gilmore TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE COMPACT TO COMPLY WITH CHANGES TO THE NATIONAL STANDARD.
ADJOURNMENT
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — STATE AGENCIES & GOVT'L AFFAIRS-SENATE, Jan 21, 2021 | Agenda | 1 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Senator Jason Rapert Chair
Unverified
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
Speaker 17
Speaker 20
Senator Jane English
Unverified
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
Senator Trent Garner
Unverified
Speaker 57
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
Senator Bob Ballinger
Unverified
Speaker 77
Speaker 82
Speaker 58
Speaker 89
Speaker 76
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
Senator Cecile Bledsoe
Unverified
Speaker 120
Speaker 122
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
Speaker 127
Speaker 66
Speaker 131