Page 8 - the NOISE June 2016

Acc/APS:
UPDATE wHO’SPONyINguP?
8 • JUNE 2016 • the NOISE arts & news • thenoise.us
Arizona Attorney General Commissioner Mark Bronovich Bob Burns
By cINdy cOLE
can it be that politicians who accept millions of corporate dollars to guarantee their own elections can still reach deci- sions that unfavorably affect their deep pocketed supporters? Can it be that these same politicians are capable of doing their jobs regardless? It seems so at least in the case of one Arizona Corporation Commissioner’s demand that the state’s biggest utility, Arizona Public Service, and its parent company Pinnacle West, open their books for review.
Earlier this year ACC Commissioner Bob Burns began an exchange with Pinnacle West Chairman, President and CEO Don Brandt. It started out politely when Mr. Burns requested that APS allow him and the rest of the ACC commissioners to take a look at all of the company’s financial records, particularly as they pertain to campaign finance. He also asked them to vol- untarily refrain from making any further campaign contributions until an inspection could assure the public that no illegal activities had taken place. Accusations of “dark money” influence in several elections warranted a closer look even though APS and Pinnacle West may not have broken any laws.
Not all of the ACC’s commissioners were on board for the investigation, especially not the ones who have been accused of benefitting from the nearly $5 million in APS and Pinnacle West contributions to their campaigns. Commissioners Doug Little and Tom Forese have been the main focus of the “dark money” accusations that include more than $3 million in indi- rect contributions to their 2014 elections from the two companies.
Mr. Burns decided to take matters into his own hands and entered into the discussion with Mr. Brandt on his own. The exchange turned ugly when Mr. Brandt essentially told Mr. Burns to pack sand; even though Arizona Law clearly states:
“The commission, each commissioner and person employed by the commission may, at any time, inspect the accounts, books, papers and documents of any public service corporation.”
In one of his letters to Mr. Brandt, Mr. Burns wrote that “Intuitively, I understand that you have an interest 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.”
In February of this year, Mr. Burns asked Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich for his opinion on whether the com- missioner has the legal backing for an investigation. On the morning of the meeting when Mr. Burns’“Notice of Investiga- tion” was scheduled for discussion and possible vote, Mr. Forese pulled it from the agenda. This provided time for the AG to fully examine Mr. Burns’ request.
On May 4, Mr. Brnovich, whose tax filings revealed a $450,000 contribution from Pinnacle West to his winning campaign, released his opinion on whether the ACC or even a single commissioner has the right to fully inspect the utility company’s financial records. And, according to the AG’s opinion ... they do.
In his 12-page opinion, Mr. Brnovich states that Arizona law allows “the commission, each commissioner and person employed by the commission” to “at any time, inspect the accounts, books, papers and documents of any public service corporation.” He also says that commissioners “may examine under oath any officer, agent or employee of such corporation in relation to the business and affairs of the corporation.” The AG says that these rules apply to all political contributions, charitable contributions and lobbying expenses. And he says that this authority applies to both the commission as a whole and to individual commissioners.
APS defended its position of keeping a lid on the company’s “dark money” contributions, stating that its First Amendment rights were being violated. Mr. Brandt wrote in one letter that “APS has for many years availed itself of all lawful means to make its views on issues important to its customers, employees and shareholders known to legislators, public officeholders and all those who have an interest in the future of Arizona.” He claimed that any attempts to force the company to name names when it came to campaign contributions would interfere with its right to free speech. He denied that simply helping a commissioner get elected would affect his decision-making or “compromise his or her oath of office.” He stated that his companies “flatly reject” the idea that this could happen. “The suggestion that political speech conducted in full compli- ance with law might threaten the Commission’s integrity is troubling,” he wrote.
In regard to this claim, Mr. Brnovich wrote that “When First Amendment concerns arise, courts considering allegations of the government’s intrusion on speech or associated rights must evaluate whether there is a compelling or substantial government interest in doing so.”
It seems pretty compelling for Arizonans to know just how many of the ACC’s commissioners have been bought and paid for, for how much and by whom.
| Cindy Cole is checking her electric bill twice. cindy@thenoise.us NEWSBRIEF