|
I believe that there is good and positive intent on the part of everyone involved in the Senate Bill 91 discussion. However, Senate Bill 91 as originally written would have opened the doors on donations being given to political candidates and spent in the election process without full and verifiable disclosure. Like many Legislative bills, it needed work and a re-write to obtain the desired result of full and verifiable campaign funding disclosure.
The House Election Law Committee, after considerable discussion and self-examination of the issue, unanimously agreed to amend SB 91 so that corporations, partnerships, businesses, and unions could fully participate in the political process by simply following a "political action committee" process.
The members of the House Election Law Committee can be proud that we took the time to do the right thing on this legislation, putting politics and political party fundraising interests aside in favor of ethics and integrity in government.
As the House approved the final version of Senate Bill 91, reports of financial donations -- all donations -- will have to be reported under our state laws to the Office of Secretary of State. Political Action Committees have to file regular reports of their donations and expenditures to the Office of Secretary of State. That's transparency. That's keeping our politicians honest. That protects our state. That "levels the field" between unions and business, requiring both to be open about their political involvement. It also prohibits any partnership, business, union, or corporation from just being able to write a check directly from their treasury, without proper disclosure.
Here is my report from the House Calendar as the House voted on Thursday, May 31st, in favor of SB 91, as amended. I think it summarizes the House position well:
"SB 91, relative to political contributions by corporations, partnerships, and labor unions. OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT.
Rep. James R. Splaine for Election Law:
"The committee spent considerable time discussing the way that contributions and expenditures by corporations, businesses, partnerships, and unions are made to candidates or used to influence political decisions, as well as how those contributions and expenditures are reported.
"The committee recommends this bill as amended because it preserves important core elements of current New Hampshire law. New Hampshire has had prohibitions of direct contributions by corporations since 1911, and in 1955 added the prohibition by unions. This has helped prevent political corruption and excessive influence-peddling in the political process of our state. A court decision in 1999 declared outright prohibition of corporate donations to be unconstitutional, thus creating an imbalance since now corporations can contribute directly from their treasury, but unions cannot.
"In an effort to truly level the field, this bill as amended continues our traditional prohibition of donations by corporations, businesses, partnerships and unions but allows those organizations to create a political action committee. This guarantees their right to participate in the democratic process while also ensuring full disclosure to the Office of Secretary of State of their expenditures and contributions.
"Therefore, passage of SB 91 as amended will accomplish two goals: 1 - level the field for the constitutional right of business organizations and unions to participate in the political process; and, 2 - provide full disclosure reporting for transparency of their expenditures and donations, so the voters will know to whom they are giving funding, and other ways that they are attempting to influence political decision-making. Vote: 17-0."
I urge everyone to keep an eye on Senate Bill 91 as it goes through the Committee of Conference process. The House version of this bill should not be changed in any way that exempts anyone from the disclosure requirements. It should not be amended in any way to allow loopholes for partnerships, or anyone, to be able to contribute without the full view of public disclosure. The ethics and integrity of New Hampshire government depends on that disclosure.
The offices of the Secretary of State and the Attorney General support SB 91 as passed by the House. Unions support the House version. It guarantees continued full disclosure requirements of state law that has worked well for decades at keeping New Hampshire politicians honest. We cannot compromise on that ideal.
None of us want to see it be a Democratic or Republican agenda to soften or eliminate any part of our New Hampshire finance disclosure requirements. It would be a very poor legacy for us if we were to do so, and we shouldn't ask Governor John Lynch to sign anything but the best bill. Senate Bill 91, as it comes out of the House, is good legislation of which we can all be proud.
|
