Why did the Arkansas AG reject 'The Campaign Finance and Lobbying Act of 2014' ballot title?

Plain-English summary

Paul Spencer, co-chair of the Regnat Populus Ballot Question Committee, submitted "The Campaign Finance and Lobbying Act of 2014" for AG certification. The measure bundled four parts: a ban on most business-entity campaign contributions directly to candidates (keeping PACs as an indirect path), a two-year cooling-off period before former General Assembly members could lobby, a Class A misdemeanor for state officials accepting lobbyist gifts (with carved-out exceptions for informational material, returned gifts, family gifts, lawful campaign contributions, and inheritances), and a Section 4 calling on Arkansas's congressional delegation to support, and the General Assembly to ratify, a U.S. constitutional amendment overturning portions of Citizens United v. FEC.

Regnat Populus had previously submitted nine related measures; six were rejected, three were certified. This version had been redrafted to combine the earlier certified measure (Op. Att'y Gen. No. 2012-148) with portions of two rejected measures (Op. Att'y Gen. Nos. 2013-113 and 2013-128).

AG Dustin McDaniel rejected the submission, identifying these problems:

1. Section 4(A) misstates federal law. The proposal would "call upon" Congress and Arkansas legislators to support an amendment authorizing "Congress and the States to regulate the raising and spending of money with respect to elections." The phrasing implied Congress and the states currently lack that authority. They do have it, the AG observed, citing the many existing federal and state campaign-finance laws (including the very state law Section 1 of the measure was amending). The authority is bounded by First and Fourteenth Amendment constraints, but it is not absent. Copying the misleading phrasing into the ballot title would, in turn, mislead voters about the current state of the law.

2. Section 4(B) misstates federal law on corporate constitutional rights. It would have the federal amendment "establish that corporations do not have the same constitutional rights as people." But the U.S. Supreme Court has not held that corporations and individuals have identical rights. They have overlapping but non-coextensive rights. Without knowing which specific rights the amendment proponents wanted to remove from corporations, the AG could not write a fair summary of what voters would be voting for.

3. The "Whereas" clauses are placed ambiguously. The proposal began with the enacting clause "Be it enacted by the People of the State of Arkansas as follows." Six "Whereas" clauses followed. Then a second enacting clause: "Now, therefore, be it enacted." Then the substantive sections. The AG could not tell whether the whereas clauses were prefatory background or substantive enacted law. Roberts v. Priest, 341 Ark. 813, holds that internal inconsistencies in a measure inevitably lead to confusion in the ballot title.

McDaniel acknowledged the campaign-finance and lobbying portions had been certified before but rejected the proposal as a whole because the Section 4 problems and the whereas-clause problems infected the whole measure.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2014. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here. Citizens United v. FEC remains controlling federal law as of 2026, and Arkansas has subsequently enacted further campaign-finance changes.

Common questions

Can a state initiative call on Congress to amend the U.S. Constitution?
Yes in principle, but the call must accurately describe what the federal amendment would do. If the call misstates current federal law, voters reading the ballot title will not understand what they are voting for, and the AG must reject the proposal.

Why are misstatements of law in a ballot proposal a problem?
A ballot title that copies misstatements from the underlying measure misleads voters about current law. The Arkansas Supreme Court's ballot-title doctrine requires titles to be free from misleading tendency, "whether by amplification, omission, or fallacy."

What is a "Whereas" clause and does its placement matter?
A "Whereas" clause is traditionally a prefatory recital of facts or motivations, not enacted law. Placing it between two enacting clauses ("Be it enacted... [Whereas clauses]... Now, therefore, be it enacted...") creates ambiguity over whether the clauses are background or substantive. The AG flagged this as a structural ambiguity he could not summarize fairly.

Do corporations have any constitutional rights?
Yes. The U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized that corporations enjoy certain constitutional protections, including some First Amendment political speech rights (the basis for Citizens United). The rights overlap with but are not identical to those of natural persons. A federal amendment changing corporate rights would have to identify which specific rights are being modified.

What was the AG's relationship to the previous certifications?
The AG noted that the campaign-finance and lobbying portions had been certified in Opinion No. 2012-148. Reusing those portions did not save this 2014 submission because the new Section 4 (federal amendment call) and the new whereas-clause structure were independent defects.

Background and statutory framework

The 2014 measure operated against a backdrop of intense national debate about Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), which held that corporate and union independent expenditures in candidate elections cannot be restricted under the First Amendment. State-level ballot initiatives calling for a federal constitutional response were common in this period, and Arkansas had seen multiple iterations from Regnat Populus alone.

The AG's analysis applies standard Arkansas ballot-title doctrine:

• A ballot title that copies misleading language from the underlying measure cannot satisfy the requirement of honesty and impartiality (Bailey v. McCuen).
• A measure that contains internal inconsistencies cannot support a fair ballot title (Roberts v. Priest).
• The AG does not review constitutionality but does flag problems where a measure would mislead voters about current law.
• The AG cannot rewrite ambiguous text into a clear ballot title; the underlying measure must be revised first.

Citations

• A.C.A. § 7-9-107 (Repl. 2013) (ballot title certification)
• A.C.A. § 7-9-107(b) (AG authority)
• A.C.A. § 7-5-522 (voting booth time limit)
• Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) (corporate political speech)
• Roberts v. Priest, 341 Ark. 813, 20 S.W.3d 376 (2000) (internal inconsistency in ballot measures)
• Bailey v. McCuen, 318 Ark. 277, 884 S.W.2d 938 (1994) (essential facts; misleading tendency)
• Becker v. Riviere, 270 Ark. 219, 604 S.W.2d 555 (1980) (fair understanding)
• Christian Civic Action Committee v. McCuen, 318 Ark. 241, 884 S.W.2d 605 (1994) (intelligible idea)
• Kurrus v. Priest, 342 Ark. 434, 29 S.W.3d 669 (2000) (constitutionality not reviewed)
• Op. Att'y Gen. Nos. 2012-148, 2012-049, 2012-040 (certified Regnat Populus measures)
• Op. Att'y Gen. Nos. 2013-128, 2013-113, 2012-142, 2012-129, 2012-124, 2012-028 (rejected Regnat Populus measures)
• Guns, Inc.: Citizens United, McDonald, and the Future of Corporate Constitutional Rights, 86 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 887 (2011) (corporate constitutional rights jurisprudence survey)

Source

• Landing page: https://arkansasag.gov/divisions/opinions-foia/attorney-general-opinions-search/

Original opinion text

STATE OF ARKANSAS

THe ATTORNEY GENERAL
Dustin McDANIEL

Opinion No. 2014-015

February 19, 2014

Paul J. Spencer, Co-Chair

Regnat Populus Ballot Question Committee
Post Office Box 1087

Little Rock, Arkansas 72203-1087

Dear Mr. Spencer:

This is in response to your request for certification, pursuant to A.C.A. § 7-9-107
(Repl. 2013), of the following popular name and ballot title for a proposed
initiated act. Regnat Populus Ballot Question Committee has previously submitted
nine similar measures—of which six were rejected, three were certified.’ You have
since made changes to your proposal and now submit the following popular name
and ballot title for my review:

Popular Name

THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE AND LOBBYING ACT OF 2014

Ballot Title

An act amending Arkansas law — which currently allows individuals,
corporations, proprietorships, firms, partnerships, joint ventures,
syndicates, labor unions, business trusts, companies, associations,
political parties, and committees to make campaign contributions to
candidates and to authorized political action committees — to provide
that, while the foregoing may continue to make campaign
contributions to authorized political action committees, only

' Certified: Op. Att’y Gen. Nos. 2012-148, 2012-049, 2012-040; Rejected: Op. Att’y Gen. Nos.
2013-128, 2013-113, 2012-142, 2012-129, 2012-124, 2012-028.

323 CENTER STREET, SUITE 200 * LITTLE Rock, ARKANSAS 72201
TELEPHONE (501) 682-2007 * Fax (501) 682-8084
INTERNET WEBSITE ®* http://www.ag.state.ar.us/

Paul J. Spencer, Co-Chair
Regnat Populus BQC
Opinion No. 2014-015

Page 2

individuals, political parties, county political party committees,
legislative caucus committees, and authorized political action
committees may make campaign contributions directly to candidates
for public office; amending current Arkansas law — which prohibits
members of the General Assembly from acting as registered
lobbyists for one year after the expiration of their term in office and
applicable only to members elected on or after July 27, 2011 — to
expand the prohibition to two years and make the prohibition
applicable to all members elected or re-elected on or after November
4, 2014; and amending Arkansas law to make it a Class A
misdemeanor for the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of
State, Treasurer of State, Auditor of State, Attorney General,
Commissioner of State Lands and members of the General Assembly
from soliciting or accepting gifts from a lobbyist (or anyone acting
on behalf of a lobbyists, or anyone employing a lobbyist) with gift
defined as any payment, entertainment, advance, services, or
anything of value, unless consideration of equal or greater value has
been given therefor, but defined not to include: (1) informational
material such as books, reports, pamphlets, calendars, or periodicals
informing the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State,
Treasurer of State, Auditor of State, Attorney General,
Commissioner or State Lands or member of the General Assembly
regarding his or her official duties (but such informational material
shall not include payments for travel reimbursement for any
expenses) (2) gifts which are not used and which, within thirty (30)
days after receipt, are returned; (3) gifts from the Governor’s,
Lieutenant Governor’s, Secretary of State’s, Treasurer of State’s,
Auditor of State’s, Attorney General’s Commissioner of State
Lands’ or member of the General Assembly’s own family; (4) lawful
campaign contributions; and (5) any devise or inheritance; and
calling upon the congressional delegation of Arkansas to support,
and the Arkansas General Assembly to ratify, an amendment to the
United States Constitution that authorizes Congress and the states to
regulate the raising and spending of money with respect to elections,
and establishes that corporations do not have the same constitutional
rights as people.

Paul J. Spencer, Co-Chair
Regnat Populus BQC
Opinion No. 2014-015
Page 3

The Attorney General is required, pursuant to A.C.A. § 7-9-107, to certify the
popular name and ballot title of all proposed initiative and referendum acts or
amendments before the petitions are circulated for signature. The law provides that
the Attorney General may substitute and certify a more suitable and correct
popular name and ballot title, if he can do so, or if the proposed popular name and
ballot title are sufficiently misleading, may reject the entire petition. Neither
certification nor rejection of a popular name and ballot title reflects my view
of the merits of the proposal. This Office has been given no authority to
consider the merits of any measure.

In this regard, A.C.A. § 7-9-107 neither requires nor authorizes this office to make
legal determinations concerning the merits of the act or amendment, or concerning
the likelihood that it will accomplish its stated objective. In addition, consistent
with Arkansas Supreme Court precedent, unless the measure is “clearly contrary to
law,”” this office will not require that a measure’s proponents acknowledge in the
ballot title any possible constitutional infirmities. As part of my review, however,
I may address constitutional concerns for consideration by the measure’s
proponents.

Consequently, this review has been limited primarily to a determination, pursuant
to the guidelines that have been set forth by the Arkansas Supreme Court,
discussed below, of whether the popular name and ballot title you have submitted
accurately and impartially summarize the provisions of your proposed amendment.

The purpose of my review and certification is to ensure that the popular
name and ballot title honestly, intelligibly, and fairly set forth the purpose of
the proposed amendment or act.

The popular name is primarily a useful legislative device.’ It need not contain
detailed information or include exceptions that might be required of a ballot title,

• See Kurrus v. Priest, 342 Ark. 434, 445, 29 S.W.3d 669, 675 (2000); Donovan y. Priest, 326
  Ark. 353, 359, 931 S.W.2d 119, 121 (1996); Plugge v. McCuen, 310 Ark. 654, 841 S.W.2d 139
  (1992).

3 See Arkansas Women’s Political Caucus v. Riviere, 283 Ark. 463, 466, 677 S.W.2d 846 (1984).

• Pafford v. Hall, 217 Ark. 734, 739, 233 S.W.2d 72, 75 (1950).

Paul J. Spencer, Co-Chair
Regnat Populus BQC
Opinion No. 2014-015
Page 4

but it must not be misleading or give partisan coloring to the merit of the
proposal.’ The popular name is to be considered together with the ballot title in
determining the ballot title’s sufficiency.°

The ballot title must include an impartial summary of the proposed amendment or
act that will give the voter a fair understanding of the issues presented.’ According
to the court, if information omitted from the ballot title is an “essential fact which
would give the voter serious ground for reflection, it must be disclosed.”® At the
same time, however, a ballot title must be brief and concise (see A.C.A. § 7-9-
107(b)); otherwise voters could run afoul of A.C.A. § 7-5-522’s five minute limit
in voting booths when other voters are waiting in line.’ The ballot title is not
required to be perfect, nor is it reasonable to expect the title to cover or anticipate
every possible legal argument the proposed measure might evoke.” The title,
however, must be free from any misleading tendency, whether by amplification,
omission, or fallacy; it must not be tinged with partisan coloring.’ The ballot title
must be honest and impartial,’? and it must convey an intelligible idea of the scope
and significance of a proposed change in the law.”

E.g., Chaney v. Bryant, 259 Ark. 294, 297, 532 S.W.2d 741, 743 (1976); Moore y. Hall, 229
Ark, 411, 316 S.W.2d 207 (1958).

° May v. Daniels, 359 Ark. 100, 105, 194 S.W.3d 771, 776 (2004).

” Becker v. Riviere, 270 Ark. 219, 226, 604 S.W.2d 555, 558 (1980).
8 Bailey v. McCuen, 318 Ark. 277, 285, 884 S.W.2d 938, 942 (1994).
Id. at 288, 884 S.W.2d at 944,

'° Td. at 293, 884 S.W.2d at 946-47.

'! Id. at 284, 884 S.W.2d at 942.

"? Becker v. McCuen, 303 Ark. 482, 489, 798 S.W.2d 71, 74 (1990).

'3 Christian Civic Action Committee v. McCuen, 318 Ark. 241, 245, 884 S.W.2d 605, 607 (1994)
(internal quotations omitted).

Paul J. Spencer, Co-Chair
Regnat Populus BQC
Opinion No. 2014-015
Page 5

Furthermore, the Court has confirmed that a proposed amendment cannot be
approved if “[t]he text of the proposed amendment itself contribute[s] to the
confusion and disconnect between the language in the popular name and the ballot
title and the language in the proposed measure.”' The Court concluded that
“internal inconsistencies would inevitably lead to confusion in drafting a popular
name and ballot title and to confusion in the ballot title itself.”’ Where the effects
of a proposed measure on current law are unclear or ambiguous, it is impossible
for me to perform my statutory duty to the satisfaction of the Arkansas Supreme
Court without clarification of the ambiguities.

Having analyzed your proposed measure under the above precepts, I must reject
your ballot title due to ambiguities in its text.

Your current submission is an attempt to combine the measure I certified in
Opinion No. 2012-148 with modified portions of the measures I rejected in
Opinion Nos, 2013-113 and 2013-128. More specifically, in Opinion No. 2012-
148, I certified a popular name and ballot title for a measure that proposed to
accomplish three objectives: (1) ban certain business entities (including
corporations) from making campaign contributions in Arkansas; (2) expand the
“cooling off period” (for one year to two years) during which certain former
elected-officials are prohibited from serving as lobbyists; and (3) modifying the
prohibitions on lobbyists’ gifts to certain elected representatives. You have carried
over each of these into your current submission.

In addition, you have added a modified version of a resolution that I addressed in
Opinion Nos. 2013-113 and 2013-128. That resolution essentially calls for an
amendment to the U.S. Constitution to overturn certain portions of the U.S.
Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.'® In
those opinions, I noted several deficiencies in the resolution. The core issues
remain unaddressed in the current form of your resolution, which states:

"4 Roberts v. Priest, 341 Ark. 813, 825, 20 S.W.3d 376, 383 (2000).
'S Id.

'© 558 U.S. 310 (2010).

Paul J. Spencer, Co-Chair
Regnat Populus BQC
Opinion No. 2014-015
Page 6

Section 4. The voters of Arkansas call upon the Arkansas
congressional delegation to propose and support, and the Arkansas
General Assembly to ratify, an amendment to the United States
Constitution that:

A. Authorizes Congress and the States to regulate the raising and
spending of money with respect to elections; and

B. Establishes that corporations do not have the same
constitutional rights as people.

Section 4(A) implies that Congress and the States currently lack the authority “to
regulate the raising and spending of money with respect to elections.” This
language is repeated in your ballot title. Yet Congress and the States do have the
authority to regulate “the raising and spending of money” in elections. This is
evidenced by the many federal and state campaign-finance regulations. (Indeed,
Section 1 of your proposal seeks to modify one State law that regulates campaign
finance.) Nevertheless, this regulatory authority is bounded by the state and
federal constitutions. So the regulatory authority is not unfettered.

Therefore, Section 4(A) is not a correct statement of the law. Nor is it clear
precisely what this section seeks to accomplish. Specifically, it is unclear whether
the constitutional amendment you propose to call would exempt governmental
action from federal constitutional constraints, in whole or in part.'

Given these deficiencies, I am unable to summarize your measure. Further, merely
copying the language of Section 4(A), as your proposed ballot title does, simply
misleads voters about the current state of the law and fails to inform them about
what they would be voting for or against.'®

Section 4(B), which is repeated in your ballot title, also misstates the law.
Corporations and individuals do not have “the same constitutional rights.” As I

'? Such constraints include those provided in the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S.
Constitution.

'8 I should note that the deficiencies associated with Section 4(A) are also found in the fifth
“whereas clause” preceding your proposal.

Paul J. Spencer, Co-Chair
Regnat Populus BOC
Opinion No. 2014-015
Page 7

have noted in prior submissions, the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the
federal constitution in such a way that it affords certain rights to corporations that
are also shared by individuals. But not every individual right is also held by
corporations. In other words, constitutional rights of corporations and natural
persons overlap but are not coextensive.'? Because of these deficiencies in Section
4(B), it is not clear what specific rights you intend the constitutional amendment to
remove. Thus, I am unable to ensure that the ballot title accurately and fairly
summarizes the ballot title.”°

In addition, your proposed measure begins with the clause, “Be it enacted by the
People of the State of Arkansas as follows.” Six “Whereas” clauses follow that
enactment clause. Immediately after these six clauses, the text states, “Now,
therefore, be it enacted.” Following this, second, enacting clause are the
enumerated sections of your proposal. So it is not clear whether you intend the six
whereas clauses to be prefatory background information as opposed to enacted,
positive law.

I cannot begin to certify a ballot title for your proposed amendment in the face of
the foregoing deficiencies, which must be remedied before I can perform my
statutory duty.

My office, in the certification of ballot titles and popular names, does not concern
itself with the merits, philosophy, or ideology of proposed measures. I have no
constitutional role in the shaping or drafting of such measures. My statutory
mandate is embodied only in A.C.A. § 7-9-107 and my duty is to the electorate. I
am not your counsel in this matter and cannot advise you as to the substance of
your proposal.

My statutory duty, under these circumstances, is to reject your proposed ballot title
(for the foregoing reasons) and instruct you to “redesign” the proposed measure

For a survey of the U.S. Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on the constitutional rights of
corporations, and how they are not coextensive from individuals, please see Guns, Inc.,: Citizens
United, McDonald, and the Future of Corporate Constitutional Rights, 86 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 887,
908-31 (2011).

°° T should note that the deficiencies associated with Section 4(B) are also found in your fourth
“whereas clause” preceding your proposals.

Paul J. Spencer, Co-Chair
Regnat Populus BQC
Opinion No. 2014-015
Page 8

and ballot title. You may, after addressing the matters discussed above, resubmit
your proposed amendment, along with a proposed popular name and ballot title, at
your convenience. I anticipate, as noted above, that some changes or additions to
your submitted popular name and ballot title may be necessary. I will be pleased
to perform my statutory duties in this regard in a timely manner after
resubmission.

Sincerely,

DuSsTI by

Attorney General
DM/cyh

Enclosures

INITIATIVE PETITION

To the Honorable Mark Martin, Secretary of the State of Arkansas: We, the undersigned legal voters
of the State of Arkansas, respectfully propose the following Initiated Act, to wit:

Popular Name
THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE AND LOBBYING ACT OF 2014

Ballot Title

AN ACT AMENDING ARKANSAS LAW - WHICH CURRENTLY ALLOWS INDIVIDUALS,
CORPORATIONS, PROPRIETORSHIPS, FIRMS, PARTNERSHIPS, JOINT VENTURES,
SYNDICATES, LABOR UNIONS, BUSINESS TRUSTS, COMPANIES, ASSOCIATIONS,
POLITICAL PARTIES, AND COMMITTEES TO MAKE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS TO
CANDIDATES AND TO AUTHORIZED POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEES - TO PROVIDE
THAT, WHILE THE FOREGOING MAY CONTINUE TO MAKE CAMPAIGN
CONTRIBUTIONS TO AUTHORIZED POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEES, ONLY
INDIVIDUALS, POLITICAL PARTIES, COUNTY POLITICAL PARTY COMMITTEES,
LEGISLATIVE CAUCUS COMMITTEES, AND AUTHORIZED POLITICAL ACTION
COMMITTEES MAY MAKE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS DIRECTLY TO CANDIDATES
FOR PUBLIC OFFICE; AMENDING CURRENT ARKANSAS LAW - WHICH PROHIBITS
MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY FROM ACTING AS REGISTERED LOBBYISTS
FOR ONE YEAR AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THEIR TERM IN OFFICE AND
APPLICABLE ONLY TO MEMBERS ELECTED ON OR AFTER JULY 27, 2011 - TO
EXPAND THE PROHIBITION TO TWO YEARS AND MAKE THE PROHIBITION
APPLICABLE TO ALL MEMBERS ELECTED OR RE-ELECTED ON OR AFTER
NOVEMBER 4, 2014; AND AMENDING ARKANSAS LAW TO MAKE IT A CLASS A
MISDEMEANOR FOR THE GOVERNOR, LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, SECRETARY OF
STATE, TREASURER OF STATE, AUDITOR OF STATE, ATTORNEY GENERAL,
COMMISSIONER OF STATE LANDS AND MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
FROM SOLICITING OR ACCEPTING GIFTS FROM A LOBBYIST (OR ANYONE ACTING
ON BEHALF OF A LOBBYIST, OR ANYONE EMPLOYING A LOBBYIST) WITH GIFT
DEFINED AS ANY PAYMENT, ENTERTAINMENT, ADVANCE, SERVICES, OR
ANYTHING OF VALUE, UNLESS CONSIDERATION OF EQUAL OR GREATER VALUE
HAS BEEN GIVEN THEREFOR, BUT DEFINED NOT TO INCLUDE: (1) INFORMATIONAL
MATERIAL SUCH AS BOOKS, REPORTS, PAMPHLETS, CALENDARS, OR PERIODICALS
INFORMING THE GOVERNOR, LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, SECRETARY OF STATE,
TREASURER OF STATE, AUDITOR OF STATE, ATTORNEY GENERAL, COMMISSIONER
OF STATE LANDS OR MEMBER OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGARDING HIS OR
HER OFFICIAL DUTIES (BUT SUCH INFORMATIONAL MATERIAL SHALL NOT
INCLUDE PAYMENTS FOR TRAVEL REIMBURSEMENT FOR ANY EXPENSES) (2) GIFTS
WHICH ARE NOT USED AND WHICH, WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTER RECEIPT, ARE
RETURNED; (3) GIFTS FROM THE GOVERNOR’S, LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR’S,
SECRETARY OF STATE’S, TREASURER OF STATE’S,. AUDITOR OF STATE’S,
ATTORNEY GENERAL’S COMMISSIONER OF STATE LANDS’ OR MEMBER OF THE
GENERAL ASSEMBLY’S OWN FAMILY; (4) LAWFUL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS;
AND (5) ANY DEVISE OR INHERITANCE; AND CALLING UPON THE CONGRESSIONAL

1

DELEGATION OF ARKANSAS TO SUPPORT, AND THE ARKANSAS GENERAL
ASSEMBLY TO RATIFY, AN AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
THAT AUTHORIZES CONGRESS AND THE STATES TO REGULATE THE RAISING AND
SPENDING OF MONEY WITH RESPECT TO ELECTIONS, AND ESTABLISHES THAT
CORPORATIONS DO NOT HAVE THE SAME CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AS PEOPLE.

Be it enacted by the People of the State of Arkansas as follows:

WHEREAS, the People of the State of Arkansas have found an increasing risk and appearance of
corruption in contributions that are made to candidates for public office by or through proprietorships, firms,
partnerships, joint ventures, syndicates, labor unions, business trusts, companies, corporations, associations,
and committees, in which the ultimate source of the funds may be undisclosed and untraceable, lacking the
transparency of contributions from individuals, from registered political parties, and from disclosed and
regulated approved political action committees; and

WHEREAS, the People of the State of Arkansas have found that the risk and appearance of their
representatives using public office to seek private benefit increases when former members of the General
Assembly seek employment lobbying their former fellow members of the General Assembly; and

WHEREAS, the People of the State of Arkansas cherish the fundamental First Amendment right to
freely and equally petition our public officials, and have found the risk and appearance of conflicts of
interest and corruption of the political process increases when lobbyists provide gifts to public officials; and

WHEREAS, the People of the State of Arkansas recognize that the US Supreme Court in Citizens
United based its ruling on the doctrine that corporations have the same rights as people under the US
Constitution; and

WHEREAS, the People of the State of Arkansas recognize that the US Supreme Court in Citizens
United also based its ruling on the wrongful idea that raising and spending of money with respect to
elections is a constitutional right that government cannot limit, and

WHEREAS, the People of the State of Arkansas believe that constitutional rights were established
for people — not corporations,

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED:

SECTION 1. Arkansas Code Title 7, Chapter 6, Subchapter 2, Subsections 203(a) and 203(b) are
amended as follows:

“(a)(1)(A) It shall be unlawful for any candidate for any public office, except the office of
Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Treasurer of State, Auditor of State, Attorney General,
and Commissioner of State Lands, or for any person acting on the candidate's behalf to accept campaign
contributions other than from an individual, political party that meets the definition ofa political party
under § 7-1-101 ora political party that meets the requirements of §7-7-205, county political party
committee, legislative caucus committee, or approved political action committee, or in excess of two
thousand dollars ($2,000) per election from any persen-individual, political party that meets the definition
of a political party under § 7-1-101 ora political party that meets the requirements of § 7-7-205, county
political party committee, legislative caucus committee, or approved political action committee. (B) A
candidate may accept a campaign contribution or contributions up to the maximum amount from any
prospective contributor for each election, whether opposed or unopposed.

(2)(A) It shall be unlawful for any candidate for the office of Governor, Lieutenant Governor,
Secretary of State, Treasurer of State, Auditor of State, Attorney General, and Commissioner of State Lands,

2

or for any person acting on the candidate's behalf to accept campaign contributions other than from an
individual, political party that meets the definition of a political party under § 7-1-101 or a political party that
cets the requirements of § 7-7-205, county political party committee, legislative caucus committee, or
approved political action committee, or in excess of two thousand dollars ($2,000) per election from any
person individual, political party that meets the definition of a political party under § 7-1-101 or a political
party that meets the requirements of § 7-7-205, county political party committee, legislative caucus
committee, or approved political action committee. (B) A candidate may accept a campaign contribution or
contributions up to the maximum amount from any prospective contributor for each election, whether
opposed or unopposed.

(b)(1)(A) It shall be unlawful for any perser individual, political party that meets the definition of a
political party under § 7-1-101 or a political party that meets the requirements of $7-7-205, county political
party committee, legislative caucus committee, or approved political action committee to make a contribution
to a candidate for any public office, except the office of Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State,
Treasurer of State, Auditor of State, Attorney General, and Commissioner of State Lands, or to any person
acting on the candidate's behalf, which in the aggregate exceeds two thousand dollars ($2,000) per election.

(B) A-persen An individual, political party that meets the definition ofa political party under § 7-1-
101 or a political party that meets the requirements of § 7-7-205, county political party committee, legislative
caucus committee, or approved political action committee may make a contribution or contributions up to the
maximum amount to a candidate for each election, whether opposed or unopposed.

(2)(A) It shall be unlawful for any person individual, political party that meets the definition of a
political party under § 7-1-101 ora political party that meets the requirements of §7-7-205, county political
party committee, legislative caucus committee, or approved political action committee to make a contribution
to a candidate for the office of Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Treasurer of State, Auditor
of State, Attorney General, and Commissioner of State Lands, or to any person acting on the candidate's
behalf, which in the aggregate exceeds two thousand dollars ($2,000) per election. (B) A-persen An
individual, political, party that mects the definition of a political party under § 7-1-101 or a political party
that.meets the requirements of § 7-7-205, county political party committee, legislative caucus committee, or
approved political action committee may make a contribution or contributions up to the maximum amount to
a candidate for each election, whether opposed or unopposed.

SECTION 2, Arkansas Code Title 21, Chapter 1, Subchapter 4, Section 402(f) is amended as
follows:

“(f)(1) A former member of the General Assembly shall not be eligible to be registered as a lobbyist
under § 21-8-601 et seq. until eaeh-year two (2) years after the expiration of the term of office for which he
or she was elected. (2) Subdivision (f) (1) of this section applies to all persons elected or re-elected to the
General Assembly on or after Hity-24%20H November 4, 2014.”

SECTION 3. Arkansas Code Title 21, Chapter 8, Subchapter 3, shall include a new section 21-8-
305 as follows:

“(a) The Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Treasurer of State, Auditor of State,
Attorney General, Commissioner of State Lands and Members of the General Assembly shall not solicit or
accept any gift from a lobbyist, as defined in Ark, Code Ann. § 21-8-402(11), a person acting on behalf ofa
lobbyist, or a person employing a lobbyist.

(b) For the purposes of this section, “gift” means any payment, entertainment, advance,
services, or anything of value, unless consideration of equal or greater value has been given therefor, but
does not include:

(1) Informational material such as books, reports, pamphlets, calendars, or periodicals

informing the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Treasurer of State, Auditor of
3

State, Attorney General, Commissioner of State Lands or a member of the General Assembly
regarding his or her official duties, but such informational material shall not include payments for any
travel or reimbursement for any expenses;

(2) Gifts which are not used, and within thirty (30) days after receipt, are returned to the donor;

(3) Gifts from the Governor’s, Lieutenant Governor’s, Secretary of State’s, Treasurer of State’s,
Auditor of State’s, Attorney General’s, Commissioner of State Lands’ or a member General Assembly’s
own spouse, child, parent, grandparent, grandchild, brother, sister, parent-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-
law, nephew, niece, aunt, uncle, or first cousin, or the spouse of any of these persons, unless the person is
acting as an agent or intermediary for any person not covered by this subdivision;

(4) Lawful campaign contributions; and

(5) Any devise or inheritance.

(c) Any person who knowinely or willfully violates this section shall be guilty of a Class A
misdemeanor.”

SECTION 4. The voters of Arkansas call upon the Arkansas coneressional delegation to propose
and support, and the Arkansas General Assembly to ratify, an amendment to the United States Constitution
that:

A. Authorizes Congress and the States to regulate the raising and spending of money with respect to
elections; and

B. Establishes that corporations do not have the same constitutional rights as people.

SECTION 5. If any provision of this act or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is
held invalid, the invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the act which can be given
effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this act are declared to be
severable.

SECTION 6. All laws and parts of laws in conflict with this act are hereby repealed.

SECTION 7. All provisions of this act are amendatory to the Arkansas Code of 1987
Annotated and the Arkansas Code Revision Commission shall incorporate the same into the Code.

SECTION 8. The provisions of this initiated act shall become effective on January 1,
2015.