[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.35 During the legislative sessions of the 1980s, including a particularly36 rancorous 1988 special session, the Clinton administration put forward bills37 requiring lobbyists to register, disclose interactions with elected officials, and38 limit the size of their gifts.The legislature shot them down each time.The39 registration provisions were successfully opposed on the grounds that they The Influence of Interest Groups 1231 would keep some timid people from appearing before committees because2 they wouldn t want to register (an argument advanced by an Arkansas-3 Louisiana Gas spokesman).The disclosure bills were opposed for the reason4 candidly expressed by one state legislator: It could be an embarrassing5 thing, for instance, if a legislator went to dinner with a lobbyist, it would be6 in the paper the next day. The gift limits were opposed by a legislature that7 operated in an environment in which group-sponsored meals and parties were8 so accepted that the House Affairs Committee assisted in scheduling these9 entertainments to avoid unnecessary conflicts, and both legislative chambers10 obligingly announced and circulated an abundance of invitations.Obviously,11 both the formal structure and the attitudinal environment provided an ex-12 traordinarily accommodating atmosphere for lobbying in Arkansas.7[123], (8)13 In 1988, however, Governor Clinton led a successful initiative effort that14 culminated in the passage of the Standards of Conduct and DisclosureAct for15 Lobbyists and State Officials.The act requires lobbyists to register with theLines: 132 to16 secretary of state, to file regular reports of their gifts to public servants and 17 other expenses, and to state their associations with the individuals or groups0.0pt PgV18 they lobby.It also requires officeholders to disclose information about their 19 financial activities and gift sources.A follow-up 1990 initiated act, alsoNormal Page20 promoted by Clinton, established the five-member Arkansas Ethics Com-PgEnds: TEX21 mission, which gained the power to interpret and enforce ethics legislation22 and campaign finance measures.823 Undeniably, culture changes more slowly than regulations (as evidenced[123], (8)24 by a well-publicized $4,000 feed of legislators and their wives at the 200025 national conference of state legislators in Chicago, divvied up among several26 lobbyists).Arkansas, however, clearly has entered the mainstream of states27 in terms of ethics regulations.Particularly strong are Arkansas s disclosure28 provisions, rated eighteenth in 1999 by one good government nonprofit.29 The Ethics Commission, affected by a nearly constant turnover in executive30 directors during the first decade of its existence, has been slow to implement31 other provisions in the acts (some of which include imprecise language).32 They have relied on advisory opinions that lack the power of law rather than33 establish rules that are subject to public comment upon proposal but have34 the force of law once adopted.935 Early in the 2000s, the commission did begin establishing rules, which36 caused friction with both the legislative and executive branches.Most37 controversial was the 2000 rule that deemed illegal any gift in excess of $10038 given to reward officials for their job performance, even if no quid pro39 quo is evidenced.(This position was challenged in court by Governor Mike 124 The Influence of Interest Groups1 Huckabee, a recipient of $112,366 in gifts in 1999.) The state house protested2 the activist commission s rule making on this and other matters by delaying3 passage of the commission s appropriations bill in the 2001 session.Still,4 the 2001 legislature failed to overturn the rule when it defeated a measure5 that would have banned gifts only when they were in specific exchange for6 a governmental action.Moreover, the legislature passed a bill that made7 illegal the actual giving of the illegal gift, albeit with small penalties for8 violations.109 Though the Ethics Commission has the power to impose hefty fines, file10 misdemeanor charges, or turn over cases to local prosecutors, in recent years11 it most often has relied on the public chastisement that accompanies the12 release of letters of reprimand.For example, in 1997 the commission fined[124], (9)13 the 273 lobbyists who violated the state s disclosure requirements only $5014 per violation.Common Cause and op-ed writers argue for more aggressive15 prosecution of the rules and expansion of the state s ethics laws to includeLines: 13816 a ban on gifts of any size.Nevertheless, it is clear that Arkansas now has 17 in place the basic mechanics for regulating governmental ethics, one of the0.0pt Pg18 most lasting contributions of the Clinton era to state government.11 19 Though the semi-visible activities of legislative lobbying receive most ofNormal Pa20 the attention, many groups work just as fervently to advance their interestsPgEnds: TE21 within the executive branch, where thousands of decisions are made annually22 regarding allocation of funds and licensure, interpretation, and application of23 broadly worded laws [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]