There are plenty of lawmakers out there, and in every state, too, who love to talk about good government. And don't mind preaching transparency. And go out of their way to appear to be open and honest with the mere voters. But only appear. And only preach.
After all, this good government stuff can go too far. It's one thing to pat the voter on the head and tell him he should know everything he needs to know before voting, but what he doesn't know won't hurt him, right? Too much good government, and next thing you know, the voters will want their representatives to give up the slush funds, too. Then what?
This year's do-gooder of a legislator--state Rep. Clarke Tucker (D-Little Rock)--was the latest to propose that folks spending dark money during political campaigns in Arkansas 'fess up to it. Not surprisingly his bill is having a rough go.
House Bill 1005 would require groups spending dark money in Arkansas to name their contributors. Long-Suffering Voter will remember the last race for state Supreme Court, which got so intense and nasty that some folks are now considering getting rid of elections for judges altogether. In that race, groups supported by who-knows-who spent $600,000 on TV ads to influence but one campaign. And it worked. The ads clearly helped defeat the intended target.
So Clarke Tucker's bill would make elections more transparent. And shine a little light on the matter. Or a lot.
Unfortunately, Arkansas has a long and inglorious tradition with keeping things cloudy. It was only this year that lawmakers got serious about requiring pols to put campaign donations online. And we've lost count of the number of bills still wafting around the Ledge that would gut this state's shining example of a Freedom of Information Act. So it wasn't much of a surprise that HB1005 failed in a voice vote in the House State Agencies and Government Affairs committee the other day.
Opponents of open government--or at least transparent campaigns--claimed that identifying those who spend on political races in this state would have a "chilling effect" on their free speech. But if there's a chilling effect, it may be on who runs for election these days. After all, if you aren't on the right mailing list, you might find yourself on the television for six or eight weeks while a menacing voice tells your friends and neighbors what a dirty no-'count you are. And your friends and neighbors won't know who's paying for the ad. Or better yet, why.
We hope Rep. Tucker keeps up the good fight. There are plenty of awful bills making their way through the legislature this session. The good ones should get their 15 minutes, too.
And what could be better than identifying those who are trying to influence our votes with their money?
Editorial on 03/10/2017