LR sues to enforce city’s election rules
Case names challengers to Stodola
The Arkansas Ethics Commission should enforce Little Rock’s restricted window for raising campaign funds in local elections and sanction two mayoral challengers who are violating the local law, the city attorney said in a lawsuit filed Thursday.
The city named the commission and Warwick Sabin and Frank Scott, Jr., who have each announced they are considering running for Little Rock mayor, as well as both men’s exploratory committees as defendants in its lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment in Pulaski County Circuit Court.
Little Rock has been at odds with the two likely candidates and the state Ethics Commission for months over whether they are in violation of a city ordinance that restricts campaign fundraising to June 1 through Dec. 1 of an election year.
The Little Rock mayor position as well as six Board of Directors seats are up for election in November.
Sabin, a state House member, and Scott, a local banker, announced their intent to explore a run for mayor last year. Sabin began collecting funds through his exploratory committee in July, and Scott followed suit in September.
City Attorney Tom Carpenter informed both men of the city’s campaign ordinance, but both said they were following a state campaign law that allows exploratory committees to form and collect funds two years ahead of an election.
Carpenter took the question to the Arkansas Ethics Commission in August after a resident filed a complaint with the city about Sabin raising funds. The commission said it could only enforce state law and would not consider the city’s ordinance.
The city sought a clarification from the commission after that, explaining that the state’s Campaign Contribution Limits and Disclosure Act, passed in 1990, gave cities the authority to establish “reasonable limitations on time periods that candidates for local office shall be allowed to solicit contributions.”
The commission again said it didn’t have the jurisdiction to rule on Little Rock Ordinance No. 17408, passed in 1997, and said state law was being followed.
With Thursday’s lawsuit, Carpenter is attempting to put a rest to the disagreement with a final declaration from a judge on whether the fundraising portion of the city’s ordinance is permissible under state law and whether the Ethics Commission must enforce it.
“This Court should declare that the Commission not only has the authority, but the duty, to determine that the two-year time frame set forth in Arkansas Code Annotated § 7-6-203 (e) is subject to a shorter period of time if a proper ordinance has been enacted pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated § 7-6-224, and if so, to issue an appropriate sanction to any and all parties who have violated the state and local campaign finance laws,” the lawsuit states.
The lawsuit has been assigned to Pulaski County Circuit Judge Chris Piazza.
A statement from Sabin’s campaign said the lawsuit is incumbent Mayor Mark Stodola’s way of using taxpayer money to sue his political challengers.
“Warwick Sabin’s exploratory efforts continue to build momentum and he is picking up more support every day, which is why the entrenched mayor and his cronies are so desperate to stop him,” a statement sent by campaign spokesman Michael Cook said. “This is yet another example of why we need real change in Little Rock, and Warwick Sabin will continue pressing forward to offer new energy and new ideas for our city.”
Stodola said the lawsuit was a directive from the city’s Board of Directors and pointed out that it is asking for a declaratory judgment on a matter of law. He said it listed Sabin, Scott and their exploratory committees so that the law could be applied to them when a decision is made.
“I’m obligated, and should be, to follow the law of the city and in this instance Sabin and Scott are both circumventing the law and I think that’s wrong,” Stodola said. “It’s a real example of the difference of leadership. I intend to follow the law, and I think Sabin and Scott should follow the law.”
Scott responded to the lawsuit with a statement through a spokesman, saying it was a “desperate attempt.”
“Rather than focus on the rise in violent crime or stagnant job growth in Little Rock, Stodola seeks to obstruct the democratic process by attempting to prevent potential challengers from forming exploratory committees,” the statement said.
It added that Stodola seeks to enforce one section of the city campaign code while he himself violates another section of the code that prevents candidates from carrying over funds from previous campaigns.
Chicago lawyer Michael Laux, who has represented plaintiffs in several lawsuits against the city over alleged police officer abuse, tweeted about Scott’s response Thursday and tagged Scott’s Twitter account saying, “I want in.”
Complaints have been filed against Stodola over carry-over funding. He had $78,412 left from his previous campaign account at the end of 2016, when he last had to file a report. The account accrues interest.
Carpenter issued a 2010 opinion saying Stodola can legally keep the money and use it in future campaigns even though it is against the city’s ordinance to do so. Carpenter said that while state law gives cities the power to make stricter rules on fundraising timelines, it doesn’t give cities the power to set stricter rules on how campaign funds are used.
The portion of the city ordinance relating to carry-over funds dates to 1988, prior to the 1990 Campaign Contribution Limits and Disclosure Act. The state law supersedes that portion of the city ordinance, Carpenter has said.
Scott is quoted in the statement released by his campaign as saying the city should repeal its ordinance and drop the lawsuit.
The Sabin for Mayor exploratory committee reported this month that it had collected $119,895 through November.
The Neighbors for Frank Scott, Jr. exploratory committee last reported it had collected $63,688 through December.
Stodola, who has said he plans to seek re-election to the office he has held since 2007, is prohibited from raising funds through an exploratory committee by an Arkansas Ethics Commission rule.
Little Rock’s lawsuit mentions that and says the commission rule that prevents an incumbent from creating an exploratory committee for an office he already holds creates an uneven playing field, and thus violates the Equal Protection provision of the Arkansas Constitution.
The lawsuit asks that a judge find the rule on incumbents in violation of the constitution.
Sabin’s campaign said there is already an uneven playing field with the city saying the incumbent can use his campaign war chest while
also saying challenger should be restricted from fundraising through exploratory committees.
When informed of the lawsuit Thursday, Ethics Commission Executive Director Graham Sloan said the commission is comfortable with the opinion it rendered in the matter, but it understands the city has a right to take the question to court.
“We’ll make our legal arguments at the proper time,” Sloan said.
The judge’s decision on Little Rock’s lawsuit will affect not only Little Rock’s mayoral race, but its Board of Directors races and potentially any future municipal election in Arkansas.
If a judge sides with Little Rock about a city being able to set stricter fundraising timelines for municipal campaigns, cities across the state could implement varying schedules. Carpenter contends they can already do so under state law.
Chris Burks, legal counsel to the Democratic Party of Arkansas, said he thinks that’s problematic. Burks said he will likely represent Sabin in the lawsuit.
“The city attorney either can’t read a basic law or is instead nakedly political. He is attempting to take down good state law in the process,” Burks said Thursday.
“This is not a neutral request for a judge to tell the city what the law is,” Burks said in a previous conversation when he was anticipating the city’s lawsuit. “It is an attempt to ensure that the Sabin and Scott exploratory campaigns are not able to raise
money and have to refund [donations.] … The city is not acting as a neutral party. The city is acting as an interested party that is prosecuting, that is saying to the judge not only, ‘Tell us the law, but apply the law to these two campaigns.’ And that’s a big distinction.”
He added “The concern is every little town that has Republicans now is going to do this, and that’s going to hurt Democratic candidates everywhere. The concern is not so much about Little Rock. We want one state finance law because we don’t want Rogers, for example, passing some campaign-finance rule down the road.”
Burks said the reasoning behind Little Rock’s restricted fundraising time frame has a good basis, but the place to set good campaign finance law is at the state level. If fundraising should be limited, it should be done by the state, he said.
City officials have said the Little Rock board set its June 1 timeline after a board member accepted money from developers before a vote involving the developers.
Board members have said they consider six months enough time to campaign and raise money, otherwise they would be in “constant campaign mode.”
Stodola said Thursday that the city code was “crafted to prohibit undue influence due to the unique nature of a governing body that is always in session.” The city board meets weekly.
The city’s lawsuit asks for an expedited hearing since the matter deals with an upcoming 2018 election issue.