Sparks lukewarm on Dank's ethics bill

OKLAHOMA CITY — A proposal by an Oklahoma City lawmaker to ban in-session campaign contributions, prohibit transfers of campaign funds between political action committees, and prevent the use of campaign funds for personal use, is drawing a lukewarm response from a Cleveland County state Senator.

Monday, state Rep. David Dank announced he would file legislation “to remove the clouds” caused by political fundraising in Oklahoma.

“The Oklahoma Clean Campaign Act (will) assure that the process of raising money for political campaigns is open, honest and divorced from the legislative process,” Dank said in a media release.

However, state Sen. John Sparks, D-Norman, said Dank’s proposal really doesn’t do anything new.

“I haven’t read the legislation,” Sparks said this week. “But from what I’ve learned, it sounds like a lot of what he’s doing is already being addressed.”

Dank said his bill would:

• Tighten the definition of a “person” making a campaign contribution to eliminate loopholes used in the past by some companies and other organizations.

• Limit legislative contributions in any election cycle by an individual, lobbyist or family to a total of $40,000. Under current law, he said, a single lobbyist could contribute up to $700,000 in any election year, thereby “flooding the field with enormous donations.”

• Ban contributions to incumbent legislators and candidates for the Legislature during the legislative session and for 15 days before and after the session to eliminate the "pay for play" suspicions that naturally arise when large donations are made while recipients are considering legislation.

• Limit the use of campaign contributions to actual campaign expenses. “The use of campaign funds for purchasing expensive computer equipment and office supplies, traveling around the country, lodging, food, automobiles and other expenses not related to the campaign would be prohibited,” he said.

• Require detailed listing of all campaign expenditures on regular reports filed with the Oklahoma Ethics Commission.

• Prohibit the use of campaign funds raised to run for one office in seeking another office. This would prevent incumbents from shifting funds into a new account to pursue another office.

• Prohibit the use of surplus campaign funds for personal purposes or donation to another candidate. This would prevent excess donations to term-limited legislators.

• Prohibit the transfer of funds from one PAC to another. “Such transfers are often used to shield the identity of donors as their dollars move from one PAC to another,” he said.

“The legislative process has been tainted by suggestions that access and even legislation can be bought," Dank said. “A central provision of this bill would ban contributions during the legislative session while bills are actually being considered.”

Dank’s proposal follows an investigation of possible Republican campaign finance violations by the Oklahoma Ethics Commission. According to the a state GOP official, the ethics commission is looking into how donations made to the state organization wound up in a county fund.

“This is not about party,” he said. “We simply have to divorce the contribution process from the lawmaking process, and the best way to do that is to ban contributions during session.”

Sparks, said “a lot of what Dank is proposing” is already addressed in existing law.

“Instead of tinkering with the state’s campaign finance law, lawmakers should work to make sure there is full and complete disclosure of all campaign contributions and their contributors,” Sparks said. “The best process is full disclosure — full disclosure is paramount. But our campaign laws keep changing every year and I believe that injects more uncertainty into what we’re doing.”

Additionally, Sparks said lawmakers and the ethics commission should “work together” to tell candidates how they should to improve their campaign reports.

“What I really think would be helpful is if the ethics commission would tell candidates where their filings need to be improved.”

As an example, Sparks said that two years after he began raising money, he “was surprised to read” that listing ‘self employed’ was no longer an adequate designation.

“I’d done it for two years and never heard from ethics commission,” he said. “I want to do things the right way. A little input would have helped.”

Instead of changing rules every year he said, “working better with candidates in relation to their reports, instead of playing ‘gotcha’ after the fact, would help.

“Then, the ultimate process is served by disclosure. If Rep. Dank’s mechanism will really improve things, then great. But if we’re trading one system for another, just for the sake of saying we’re improving things, well, that’s not having any impact.”

Dank’s proposal will be reviewed when lawmakers reconvene the legislative session in February 2008.