It’s bribery when intent is to win vote of a regulator

We now have a very good example in Arizona of why money does not equal speech, even political speech, and requires regulation.

While the Arizona Corporation Commission staff deals with incorporation of businesses and organizations, securities regulation and railroad/pipeline safety, the commissioners’ largest and most public responsibility is public utilities regulation.

Most recently we’ve seen criminal bribery charges, alleging a public utility paid a commissioner to get favorable treatment. What is the difference between this and a public utility contributing to a campaign for commissioner?

Isn’t the expectation the same in both situations?

Given the limited, direct responsibilities of commissioners, no public utility or its parent should be allowed to contribute to the campaign of a commissioner or donate money, either in support of or against any candidate.

To ensure that doesn’t happen, there must also be complete disclosure of contributors to dark money organizations, including for issue campaigns.

Money given to a candidate or sitting commissioner, whether to the campaign or personal bank account, is only given to buy influence and, as such, is not political speech but bribery.

— Murray Boess, Phoenix