Revised Disclosure Constitutional Amendment

On November 10th, I asked for comments and suggestions on the draft of the Disclosure Amendment. Did Arizona ever come through! I got many good suggestions and a lot of enforceability. Both were appreciated!

The biggest criticisms were that the threshold for disclosure was too high at $5,100 and the tracing of funds provision was too complicated. Accordingly, I have simplified and shortened the text and lowered the threshold to $2,500. We also consolidated from two Constitutional sections to one and made other changes to improve enforceable.

With so much great input, we have a refined and much improved draft. Please take a look and let me know your thoughts before Monday, November 27th. 

We plan to file the final version on the 29th of November at 9am. Meet us in the Rose Garden outside of the Capitol at 8:30am and we will walk up together to the Arizona Secretary of State's office! 

Many thanks,

Terry Goddard

Attachment: Revised Disclosure Constitutional Amendment


Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • Yumi Wong
    followed this page 2017-11-27 13:06:46 -0700
  • Marjorie Cunningham
    commented 2017-11-26 19:09:14 -0700
    Worded well. Though the “in-kind” inclusion is a good thought, I think it would be very difficult to track or evaluate. Most of the “dark money” is $$$$$$. That should be the focus.
  • Heather Borman
    commented 2017-11-25 12:32:11 -0700
    A couple of thoughts.
    I too would like to see these contributions on the candidate’s website freely accessible before the election.
    What about “in kind” contributions, would a contributor be able to get around this law with what they consider an “in kind” contribution?
    I’m not sure relying on the Secretary of State is a good idea.
    Can’t we get a team of lawyers like ALEC has?
    Heather Borman, Indivisible Cochise County
  • Roger and Karen Dahood
    commented 2017-11-23 18:10:49 -0700
    RE: Section 19. A. 1. An -original source" > An “original source”. The paragraph defines “original source” as a person, but then uses “source” to mean kinds of income: wages, investment income, or revenue generated by selling goods or services. (Salary might be added to the list.) I find the wording confusing.

    The intent seems to be to enable public identification of all makers of contributions, whether they make their contributions directly or through intermediaries, but I don’t think the wording of the section makes the intent clear.
  • Diane McQueen
    followed this page 2017-11-23 06:46:39 -0700
  • Alice Stambaugh
    commented 2017-11-22 18:05:36 -0700
    Thank you, Terry! Simplified from when I first saw it (via LWVAZ). Seems very clear to me, but I do wish you had stuck with “Outlaw” Dirty Money. I note that Section B still has the $10,000 threshold stated.
  • Joseph Hoffman
    commented 2017-11-22 17:01:13 -0700
    Terry, thank you for taking on this very important cause. It is important that we the people regain control of the political process including campaign contributions. I did not see mention of the accountability and responsibility of the candidate and campaign manager. I would like to see the candidate and campaign manager be required to report any accumulated contributions in excess of what you have outlined on the candidates website within 24 hours of receipt of funds…noting amount, person, organization, non profit, or other entity as outlined in the document. Furthermore, the candidate and campaign manager should be required to report the details to the Secretary of State within the same 24 hour period, with the Secretary of State reporting the details in a readily accessible location on their website with the next consecutive 24 hours. To give the amendment the strength to fundamentally deter the corruption that currently exists with dark money, it would be worthy to consider in addition to civil penalties criminal penalties for the candidate and campaign manager. Severe criminal penalties of mandatory prison time of no less than 25 years in the state prison, managed my the state (no third party privately run prisons for this crime).
  • Joseph Hoffman
    followed this page 2017-11-22 16:44:27 -0700
  • Roger - (rdahood) Dahood
    followed this page 2017-11-22 15:41:38 -0700
  • Oris Friesen
    followed this page 2017-11-22 13:29:17 -0700
  • James Vavra
    commented 2017-11-22 12:11:28 -0700
    Terry, This may have been covered as I didn’t get all of the document. Which elections are covered? Federal, State, or Local, or all of the above? Doesn’t the document have to specify this?
    Jim Vavra
  • Paul Frizane
    followed this page 2017-11-22 12:10:41 -0700