The issue of "dark money" spending during the last year’s election has continued to put the Arizona Corporation Commission under intense scrutiny.
But two commissioners have now decided to address the issue by asking commission-regulated corporations to voluntarily refrain from getting involved in the elections of the people who might regulate them.
The issue stems from when Republicans Tom Forese and Doug Little benefited from more than $3 million in dark money during their campaign for the Corporation Commission last year. The source of that dark money is widely believed to be Arizona Public Service Co., the state’s largest utility, which Forese and Little now regulate as commissioners.
Since then, no commissioner has exercised their subpoena power to force APS to open its books and disclose any spending that helped elect Forese and Little, which the company has neither confirmed nor denied took place.
But the day before Thursday’s scheduled staff meeting, Commission Chair Susan Bitter Smith and Commissioner Bob Burns added an agenda item to discuss and possibly vote on “developing correspondence and/or other communications relating to the campaign contribution practices of public service corporations and other entities that appear before the commission and opening a docket therefore,” the agenda stated.
Little then tabled the issue on Thursday. But Burns and Bitter Smith, who’s also been under scrutiny this week after KJZZ raised conflict of interest questions, opened a new docket anyway containing a draft letter to public service corporations asking them to voluntarily stay out of Corporation Commission elections.
It specifically references APS and its purported dark money spending during last year’s election, stating that “political contributions from such entities have damaged the public perception of the commission and have placed the commission in a difficult position.”
The draft acknowledges that supporting candidates of one’s own choosing is a First Amendment right and falls within Arizona’s campaign finance laws.
“Unfortunately, this technical compliance has not adequately addressed the public’s concerns,” the draft states. “Especially concerning to us is the public’s perception that the commission, by its silence, has tacitly condoned this behavior.”
