Members of the state Ethics Commission on Friday again urged legislators to change state campaign finance laws to comply with last year’s U.S. Supreme Court decision that gives corporations and unions a bigger role in political campaigns.
The commission also approved revising some of its rules to comply with the high court’s ruling. The revisions included lifting a ban on a political action committee transferring money to other political action committees for ballot measures and committees formed to make independent expenditures for or against ballot measures and candidates.
The commission left intact the ban on PAC-to-PAC transfers for candidates.
The commission voted 5-0 both on a proposal to change its rules and on proposed legislation to change state law to comply with last year’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling that threw out parts of a 63-year-old law barring corporations and labor unions from spending money in support of specific candidates. It left in place a ban on direct contributions to candidate campaigns.
Oklahoma still has on its books laws that ban corporations and labor unions from spending from their treasury funds. The court opinion means a corporation and labor union can independently spend whatever it wants on a campaign as long as it doesn’t coordinate the expenditures with a candidate or the candidate’s campaign.
Ethics Commission members urged legislators to pass a bill that would put the state in compliance with the ruling; a measure passed the House of Representatives but the Senate narrowly defeated it.
Marilyn Hughes, Ethics Commission executive director, said lawsuits have been filed against 19 states that are not in compliance. She said legal costs to defend Oklahoma could run as high as $250,000.
Commissioners passed proposed language that complies with the ruling. It contains an emergency clause, which means the measure, if approved by the Legislature, would take effect as soon as the governor would sign.
This year’s legislative session starts Feb. 7.
Commissioner John Raley said he reluctantly voted for a proposed rule that would exempt the commission’s ban on PAC-to-PAC transfers for ballot measure committees and committees formed for independent expenditures. He was a key backer of the ban, which the commission proposed and legislators approved in 2008.
The proposed rule would take effect July 1 if legislators take no action on them by the time the session ends in late May. The House and Senate both have to pass a resolution to kill the proposals; the governor can veto the action.
The Ethics Commission’s PAC regulation is intended to allow people to know all of a candidate’s contributors. It also is intended to make sure the money a contributor gives to a political action committee stays with that group and is not given to another committee that may have opposing views.
Commissioners also approved a proposed rule that would remove the prohibition against a state official or employees threatening to use his or her position to get special privileges, such as extra pay or a break from having to comply with state laws or regulations.
Commissioner Karen Long said the prohibition could restrict political speech, saying it could be confused with “big talk” or “loose talk.” The Ethics Commission shouldn’t regulate “loose talk,” but rather the person’s conduct, she said.
Raley supported last year’s rule that prohibited state employees or officials from making threats.
