Little Rock lawsuit called free-speech curb

Mayor hopeful cites Constitution in fundraising-case filing

A judge should bar Little Rock from enforcing its campaign fundraising timeline because the shortened time frame violates mayor challenger Frank Scott Jr.'s First Amendment right, his attorney said in a court filing.

Scott joins the only other announced contender in this year's mayoral race, Warwick Sabin, in seeking to dismiss the city's lawsuit, which names both men and the Arkansas Ethics Commission as defendants.

In the lawsuit the city filed last month, Little Rock wants a judge to rule on whether Scott and Sabin must adhere to a city ordinance that restricts campaign fundraising to the June before a November election, and to order the Ethics Commission to enforce the measure.

Scott and Sabin both formed exploratory committees last year and began raising funds through the committees. The money will be transferred to the men once they formally file as candidates.

"The lawsuit is a waste of taxpayer dollars and a distraction from the many challenges that face Little Rock," Scott said in a statement Wednesday. "The Mayor is attempting to silence me and anyone else interested in engaging in the public debate over Little Rock's future."

Scott has hired John Tull and Christoph Keller with Quattlebaum, Grooms & Tull PLLC to represent him.

In a response filed Tuesday afternoon, the attorneys said the city ordinance violates Scott's rights to free speech and association by limiting campaign contributions.

"This is a justiciable controversy. The City seeks to compel the Arkansas Ethics Commission to sanction Mr. Scott for alleged violations of the Ordinance. Mr. Scott has been made a party to this action. The City believes that Mr. Scott is violating the Municipal Ordinance. If the City is unable to persuade the Court to compel the Arkansas Ethics Commission to sanction Mr. Scott, the City could fine Mr. Scott for what it considers to be a violation of the City Code," the response said.

Two days earlier, Sabin filed his response to the lawsuit. Both men asked that the suit be dismissed, arguing that the Supreme Court recently ruled the state has sovereign immunity and cannot be sued, thus Little Rock cannot sue the Ethics Commission, a state entity.

But Scott's response went further than Sabin's in that it asked if the judge does not find the suit can be dismissed on that front, the judge should rule on an injunction against the city.

"If the Court subjects the Ordinance to intermediate scrutiny, the City cannot meet its burden. It cannot show that prohibiting Mr. Scott from accepting campaign contributions more than five months before the 2018 mayoral election prevents 'quid pro quo corruption' or its appearance, or that the Ordinance employs means that are closely drawn to serve that interest," Scott's response said.

The Little Rock Board of Directors directed the city attorney to file the lawsuit asking a judge to rule on whether Scott and Sabin are violating law.

Sabin has said that the city ordinance applies to candidates, and that he is not yet a candidate and the ordinance does not apply to his exploratory committee.

City directors have said the reason Little Rock passed its 1997 ordinance limiting the time candidates could campaign is because there were questions at the time about developers donating money to board members right before a vote involving their development.

Since the board is in session year-round -- meeting every two weeks -- city directors wanted to limit the appearance of impropriety, they said.

Scott responded to that in his statement issued Wednesday.

"I share the concerns that many have about the corrosive effect money can have on our politics, and I believe that the Little Rock Board of Directors had good intentions when it passed campaign finance reform in 1997. However, Mayor [Mark] Stodola should not be allowed to carry over $80,000 in campaign contributions while prohibiting potential challengers from raising any money until five months before the election."

Stodola, the incumbent who plans to run for re-election, has more than $78,000 in carry-over money from a previous campaign. He cannot begin raising money for his 2018 campaign until June. As an incumbent, he's barred under Ethics Commission rules from creating an exploratory committee to consider re-election and raising funds that way.

The attorney general's office will ask that the commission be removed from the lawsuit, a spokesman said.

"The Arkansas Ethics Commission is responsible for enforcing state campaign finance laws, not city ordinances. The commission's decision not to investigate an alleged violation of a city ordinance was lawful, and therefore, the commission should be dismissed from the city's lawsuit under sovereign immunity principles," said Jessica Ray, the attorney general's deputy communications director.

Metro on 02/22/2018

Upcoming Events