Arizona’s largest power utility, once a punching bag for Chris Mays when he was an electricity regulator, is set to help Mays defend a legal challenge to the November attorney general election. Company records show he paid $25,000.
A donation from Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, the parent company of the Arizona Public Service Company, to Mays’ legal fund last year was just a fraction of Mays’ estimated total of more than $300,000 in legal fees.
This is not only because of Mays’ political background as a frequent enemy of the APS, but also because Arizona law allows private companies, nonprofits, It’s also notable because it allows other groups to donate money to candidates’ attorneys’ fees. many.
APS voluntarily disclosed the donation on its corporate website in April. Unless they do so, or the candidate volunteers to provide such information, Arizonas will find out who pays incumbents’ lawsuits, or turn false allegations of election fraud into fundraising opportunities. There is no way to know which candidates have lost. Government watchdogs have warned that such funds could influence policy makers.
Mays isn’t the only one raising outside money to cover his legal fees. This is common practice. When the Republic of Arizona asked officers and candidates for funding details, it found that they were often voluntarily reluctant to disclose who paid for them.
Two years ago, a transparency group recommended scrapping the exemption to keep legal contributions confidential, but it soon became the norm for expensive Republican legal battles over election losses. Broadly speaking, political funding limits are meant to curb corruption and the emergence of corruption, said Patrick Llewellyn, director of state campaign finance programs at the Center for Election Law.
“These limits help ensure that executives are accountable to the people they represent and not to whom they can spend big bucks,” Llewellyn said. “The exclusion of certain activities from those that qualify as endowments could create a significant loophole in the potential flow of large sums of money directly to candidates from wealthy special interest groups.”
Mays says APS track record says it all
Given that Mays served on the Arizona Corporation Commission from 2003 to 2010 and was one of APS’s harshest critics, the donation from APS may stand out to students of the state’s political history. do not have.
Asked how he would prevent such donations from influencing his decisions as the state’s top prosecutor or as a firm with about 650 employees, Mays said he had a long history with APS. was ironic about his career.
“I don’t think anyone in Arizona thinks APS will affect Chris Mays. We’ll leave it at that,” she said. Pinnacle West did not answer questions about why it donated money to Mr Mays’ defense, but said in a statement that its political spending supports “sound and positive public policy”.
Mays said in a brief interview in May that he had no choice but to keep raising money as defeated Republican Attorney General candidate Abe Hamadeh continued his “frivolous” efforts to challenge his 280-vote defeat in court. said. The case has been ongoing since a Mojave County judge dismissed Mr. Hamade’s claim in December, and Mr. Hamade lost an attempt to get a retrial on the case just last week.
“How many times do we have to win this election?” Democrat Mays said. “I had to set up a defense fund, but I didn’t have to raise money to do so. I’m doing my best to focus on my job of protecting the people of Arizona.
“We never want to have to raise money to do that,” Mays said. Mays campaign treasurer DJ Quinlan said challenges like Hamade’s also come at a cost to taxpayers because they name counties with rights to legal representation as defendants. Stated.
Mays hopes to return the donations if a judge ultimately orders Hamade to pay legal fees, and is prepared to reveal who paid the legal fees after the case is closed. said.
For subscribers:This Arizona Republican takes a bipartisan approach to legislation
Candidates may voluntarily disclose donors, but may not
In 2016, lawmakers in Arizona amended the state’s campaign finance law amid a heated debate over black money, political spending by organizations that keep donors anonymous.
As part of these changes, the law spelled out a practice for candidates not to disclose donations to cover legal costs. An accounting fee waiver is also included.
Candidates and officers may voluntarily disclose expenses and funding related to litigation costs, but none of those contacted by the Republic of Arizona elected to do so.
A Hamade spokesperson declined to answer questions about how much money had been raised or who is funding ongoing efforts. A spokeswoman for defeated Republican gubernatorial nominee Kari Lake did not respond to a similar request. Lake uses her ongoing campaign to frequently solicit donations to the Arizona Relief Fund for legal defense and other projects.
Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs’s campaign did not intend to discuss a legal fee arrangement to defend Lake’s challenge, but court records show: Cost over $550,000 As of December. The bill is undervalued because it does not include two appeals and a three-day trial earlier this year.
Hobbes senior adviser Joe Wolfe declined to comment on behalf of the campaign. Hobbes was one of several Democrats who opposed the campaign funding change as a state senator in 2016, but the main reason for his opposition was not the exemptions but other spending provisions.
For subscribers:Gov. Hobbs to receive more financial support from APS after utilities backed Kari Lake in election
“There is the potential for a huge amount of money to go to the candidate.”
In 2021, the Center for Election Law, a Washington, D.C.-based bipartisan group advocating transparency and campaign finance reform, reviewed Arizona law at the request of then-Secretary of State Hobbes.
One of the group’s recommendations applies broad legal fee waivers only if it complies with state campaign finance laws or if a law firm provides unpaid representation from an outside party. It was to narrow it down.
“In essence, these waivers create a backdoor for secret bargaining in Arizona politics, denying important public information about the funds raised and spent by candidates and committees,” he said. rice field. report To read.
However, while the recommendation made Arizona more compliant with federal candidate rules, it fell on deaf ears to the Republican-majority Congress.
Currently, candidates for state office in Arizona can only receive $5,300 from individuals during any election period and cannot receive money directly from businesses. Candidates must publicly report these contributions. can be researched online.
However, there are no donation caps, no public reporting requirements, and no ban on corporate donations when funds are used for legal matters.
“If there is a potential influx of huge amounts of money to a candidate or office, the public has a right to know who is providing it, but there is no policy to limit the influx of money in such circumstances. We also need to play it safe,” said Llewellyn of the Campaign Legal Center.
Arizona lags behind rules for federal candidates
Seven-year-old changes to Arizona law set the state apart from rules governing congressional candidates, which are often noted as guidelines for when state law remains silent on certain issues.
The Federal Election Commission, which oversees federal campaign finance laws, allows funds donated to a candidate’s campaign to cover litigation costs related to the activities of a candidate or office.
Candidates must publicly report these donations, the FEC says, bans donations from businesses and nonprofits, and imposes a $6,600 per donor cap in the next election cycle. It says. An FEC spokeswoman said similar restrictions and reporting rules apply to funds donated to accounts set up to support recounts and campaign payments.
If these federal rules apply to Arizona state offices, APS donations to Mays will no longer be allowed.
Legal defense funds for other purposes are treated differently by the FEC and are not subject to reporting requirements. However, there are no rules at all.
The Ethics Committees of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives are required to authorize legislators to establish legal funds under committee rules, where contributions are capped and regular public reporting is required. be done. eachChamber.
Such as concerns that the complex mechanics of how candidates and officials bank their funds have recently pushed Republican candidates to make false allegations of wrongdoing as a means of fundraising. embroiled in a major political controversy. Former President Donald Trump faced such allegations during a US House committee investigation into his connection to the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol violence.
For subscribers:The Jan. 6 Capitol riot investigation is targeting Trump.Here’s what you need to know about Arizona’s role
A member of the committee, Rep. Zoe Lofgren of the California Democratic Party, last year accused President Trump of misleading the American public. Raised $250 million for a legal fund that was never established. According to Testimony by Commission Investigatorsinstead went to Trump’s Save America PAC and then distributed cash to Trump’s corporations and his allies.
In response to President Trump’s use of funds, well-meaning government groups such as the Center for Election Law have called on the FEC to set rules for legal funding. The center argued that candidates should only use their funds for post-election agendas and that there should be limits on how the remaining funds can be used.
Former Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, a transparency advocate who drafted the 2022 ballot measure calling for the disclosure of dark information, has made sure candidates and officials are funding legal costs rather than other interests. spending on is one of the reasons for adding reporting requirements in Arizona. money for advertising. The ballot measure, Proposition 211, won with more than 70% of his voters in Arizona voting in favor.
Goddard said legal fees are properly considered a separate category under the law from donations intended to influence the outcome of elections, but must be reported.
“I think it’s appropriate to put it in a separate category, but it’s not appropriate to have no accountability at all,” he said.
“As an advocate of disclosure, I think that’s a mistake.”
Please contact reporter Stacy Berchanger. stacey.barchenger@arizonarepublic.com or 480-416-5669.
