Something off about ethics panel funding
THIS year, lawmakers approved large tax increases and bragged that they increased government spending across the board. Thus, it’s notable that one exception appears to be the agency tasked with monitoring lawmakers’ fundraising and ethics practices.
According to the fiscal summary documents distributed by the Legislature for Senate Bill 1600, the Oklahoma Ethics Commission saw its budget increase this year by $11,296, or 1.62 percent. But Ethics Commission officials note the total — $710,351 — comes from a fund made up of fees the agency levies on lobbyists, candidates, political parties and political action committees, not an appropriation from the state’s general revenue fund.
Typically, the Ethics Commission uses money from that revolving fund for enforcement actions and to provide education that helps candidates comply with state law. The agency’s operational funding comes from an appropriation from the state’s general fund.
“The language of SB 1600 makes it appear as though the Ethics Commission is receiving an increase in funding. In actuality, the agency is receiving a funding cut that exceeds the Commission’s entire FY 18 appropriation,” the commission’s executive director, Ashley Kemp, writes. “SB 1600 appropriates $0 to the Commission from the general revenue fund. Zero.”
In another letter, John C. Hawkins, who serves as commission chairman, pointed out the practical effect of the Legislature’s action.
“How do you propose that we now open an investigation when you come to us with a breach of the rules?” Hawkins wrote legislators. “How do you propose that we protect the electorate from collusion on a mass scale to sway elections?”
It’s not unreasonable to suspect this was lawmakers’ point — to prevent investigations of their fundraising and campaign expenditures. It’s also noteworthy that the funding change came after the commission voted to impose a stricter ban on legislators taking lobbying jobs within two years of leaving elected office. That move was, in part, due to concern lawmakers in their final year of service would cast votes to curry favor with potential future employers. Legislators weren’t happy with the rule change.
The commission is considering a legal challenge. The Oklahoma Constitution states, “The Ethics Commission shall receive an annual appropriation by the Legislature sufficient to enable it to perform its duties …” The commission says this means the Legislature is required to provide the agency funding from the general revenue fund, rather than require the agency to self-fund through fees.
Rep. Kevin Wallace, R-Wellston, who is chairman of the House appropriations committee, insists lawmakers haven’t violated the constitution with their budget. But just last year, lawmakers insisted a cigarette “fee” that operated exactly like a cigarette tax wasn’t a tax subject to constitutional restrictions on passing tax increases. That argument drew a sharp rebuke from the Oklahoma Supreme Court. Thus, Wallace’s latest assurances ring hollow.
If lawmakers believe the commission needs reform, then they should debate that issue publicly and be transparent about it. Because even if this budget change is found to be legal, it still won’t pass the smell test.