Page 11 - the NOISE February 2016

arizona Corporation Commissioner, bob burns
Mr. Brandt wrote:
“... the suggestion that political speech conducted in full compliance with law might threaten the Commission’s integrity is troubling. Each Commissioner takes an oath to faithfully and im- partially discharge the duties of his or her office. Each Commission decision is made in full pub- lic view, must be grounded in the record and must be based upon evidence. The Companies flatly reject any suggestion that Commissioners would base decisions affecting the well-being of the state’s citizens other than on the evidence submitted to them, or would otherwise com- promise his or her oath of office.”
so APs “flatly rejects” the idea that ACC commissioners might play favorites to the very com- pany that got them elected? And this allows it to violate state laws that give the ACC access to its “property, books, papers, business, methods, and affairs.” APs does not have the legal right to withhold information from the ACC. But it appears the company does have the political clout to do so. After all, dark money accusations include indirect contributions from APs and Pinnacle west in the elections of Commissioners Tom Forese and Doug Little, who are sus- pected of having received $3.2 million in secret monies from the companies. Then there’s AG Brnovich, whose tax filings revealed a $450,000 contribution from Pinnacle west to his winning campaign. And Governor Doug Ducey also received at least $55,000 from Pinnacle west for his winning 2014 campaign.
Oh, and it might be worth noting that Mr. Brandt was one of five people who served on Governor Ducey’s inaugural committee. And that one of the reasons why Messrs. Burns and stump have been so protective of text messages exchanged during the elections is because it is suspected that Mr. stump served as a go-between for Commissioners Forese and Little dur- ing campaigning. so who is going to force APs to comply with the ACC’s disclosure request? Anyone? Anyone?
Mr. Brandt defended the integrity of the mostly hand-selected ACC and emphasized his companies’ rights to influence political campaigns saying:
“if the Companies, or other parties appearing before the Commission, seek to persuade vot- ers to elect Commissioners who support certain policies instead of others, that choice to en- gage in a public political debate does not reflect on the integrity of commissioners. Nor does political speech reflect on the integrity of legislators in Arizona, or in any other state. This is simply how democracy works: consumers, businesses, and others with an interest in legislative decisions seek to inform voters and persuade them to support the candidates whose positions those speakers favor, and the voters decide which candidates to elect.”
Citing the Citizens United decision and other legal precedents, Mr. Brandt further defended his companies’ abilities to influence elections stating, “Under the Arizona Constitution, Corpo- ration Commissioners are elected officials, accountable to the people of Arizona. Because Com- missioners are elected through a democratic process, everyone, including the Companies, has a right to participate in that process.”
so, in spite of millions of dollars in campaign contributions from his companies, Mr. Brandt believes that ACC commissioners are still “accountable to the people of Arizona”? even Mr. Burns agrees that’s not the way the people of Arizona are seeing things these days as evi- denced in his response to Mr. Brandt.
“At the present time,” wrote Mr. Burns in a november 30 letter addressed to Mr. Brandt, “the public appears to look upon the Commission with suspicion and mistrust because of your al- leged campaign contributions. This current state of affairs is not in the Commission’s best inter- ests, nor is it in your best interests.”
while the verbiage borders on threatening, it has already become apparent that APs is not affected by public shaming or worried about what the ACC or the people of Arizona think of it. Mr. Burns continues to stress the public perception angle: “I recognize that both APs and Pin-
nacle west have a First Amendment right to participate in elections, and it is not my intention to interfere with the exercise of those rights. Intuitively, I understand that you have an inter-
palo verde postcard from pinnacle west hQ: phX, circa 1984
apS / pinnacle west CeO, Don brandt
est in supporting candidates who may agree with your views. However, in my opinion, your support for any particular candidate should be open and transparent. Your unwillingness to disclose this information leads to a variety of unfortunate perceptions.”
But Mr. Burns’ letter loses some steam in the next few paragraphs where he admits that APs has certain rights as far as elections and campaigns goes but refuses to hold the threat of the ACC’s actual legal authority over the company’s head. The letter continues:
“There has been discussion about the scope of the Commission’s authority to require the disclosure of this information, especially as relates to Pinnacle West. While I contend that article XV, section 4 provides the Commission with the express authority to subpoena such information from both APS and Pinnacle West, I am — for the moment — content to focus my inquiry upon APS. Specifically, I would like to find out if APS has spent ratepayer money to support or oppose the election of Arizona Corporation Commission candidates. I would like to ensure that only APS’s profits are being used for political speech.
“Simply put, dollars that APS has received from ratepayers in order to recover the costs of providing utility service should not be used for political speech. Unfor- tunately, I have thus far seen no evidence that such funds are not being spent on political speech. Under the circumstances, transparency requires a full reporting of any campaign contributions expended by APS in the past election cycle. Therefore, I am asking APS to provide my office with a full report of all spending related in any way to the 2014 election cycle — including but not limited to direct contributions and indirect contributions to third-party organizations — within thirty days of the date of this letter. The report should be docketed and should include a description of the source of any such funds, i.e., whether the funds originate from APS’ profits or from money intended to cover APS’ costs of pro- viding service.
“The Commission is APS’s regulator, and as a duly elected commissioner, I look forward to APS’ full compliance with my request.”
In his response filed on December 29, just in time to meet Mr. Burns’ deadline, Mr. Brandt assured the commissioner that there was nothing to see ... and that his position on providing additional information to the ACC or anyone else for that matter, had not changed.
Mr. Brandt admitted that APs agrees in principle that ratepayer monies should not be used to pay for political influence. He wrote that “APs agrees with that principle, and consistent with standard utility practice and Commission-established guidance, any political contribution made by a public service corporation should not be treated as an operating expense recover- able in rates.
“If APs were to make a political contribution, these expenses would be paid for out of the money that the Commission has authorized as a return on shareholder capital — a return that must be offered so that investors are willing to invest money in Arizona’s infrastructure.” Again, he defers to the Commission in a way that says ‘we’re just following orders here.’
He continues, “APs does not recover from customers the cost of any political contributions. Compelled disclosure about political contributions that APs or its affiliate may have made out of shareholder profits would go beyond what is required of all corporations under Arizona cam- paign finance law, and would impinge on APs’ First Amendments rights.”
But “all corporations” are not publically held monopolies. “All corporations” are not respon- sible for an essential service that is provided to more than 1.2 million Arizonans who have no other choice but to get there power from the company.
Mr. Brandt closes his letter stating that “I hope this answers your question.” But what his let- ter really does is raise a myriad of additional questions that, thank to APs’ political influence in our state, we may never get the answers to.
| Cindy Cole commissions the most out of her electric bill every month.
cindy@thenoise.us
newsfeature
thenoise.us • the NOISE arts & news • february 2016 • 11