Arkansas Week; Discussion with Bill Clinton about Ethics and Lobbyists Discloser Legislation

This is Arkansas Week. Arkansas' only statewide in- depth news analysis program. Featuring a panel of leading journalists examining the week's top stories. Reports on events that shape the lives of Arkansans and interviews with the personalities that make Arkansas Week. Arkansas' governors have dealt with the state's lobbyists and ethics for public servants in a number of ways. While these men have served in public office, more than 75 bills have been passed dealing with conflicts of interest, financial disclosure, and nepotism. The good legislation if you will. And, in 1969 during the Rockefeller Administration the law requiring lobbyists to register was approved. A decade later during Clinton's first term public purchasing and financial disclosure laws were passed. But not until now has any governor attempted to temper the power of the lobbyist like the legislation introduced this week. Good evening, I'm Chris Phillips and thank you for joining us. We're at the State Capitol this week where before the special session even officially began on Tuesday lawmakers were amending the ethics and lobbyist disclosure legislation endorsed by Governor Bill Clinton.

Here are a few reactions from those here at the Capitol this week on the special session. I would not have called a special session for it. You know I think it's a terrible waste of taxpayers' money. It costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to bring the Legislature in here. And I don't think the governor is getting ready to get that bill passed. So, I think really it's just going to be a week or 10 days. It's going to cost the taxpayers of Arkansas about three hundred thousand dollars. We've been operating under this system of government for 150 years and this bill itself doesn't even even take effect until into, about three weeks into the next regular session. And, uh, most of us think we're spending too much money and wasting time being here but we are here. So, We have to face up to the fact and we have to address the fact and we will. They're very few lobbyists have pressured us while we were making decisions. I'll also point out that those lobbyists were invited to come and make public comments and, and some did. Some groups came, but not all of them. And you would think that if you were interested in an

open government and having the issues decided fairly in an open forum that those people would have discussed this in front of us but, but apparently they have not. Well, as we all know [clears throat] the Senate seems to have a mind of its own in these, in most matters and, and this is no different. I would think that uh, that if the legislation progresses through the House and uh, seems to be, uh generally accepted and a, agreed to that uh the Senate probably will act on it as, as it comes over. I think the lobbyist uh, have uh, will probably take the attitude, that whatever the people want through their representatives we can live with it. And uh, they'll all be on an even footing. You know, The ground will be level and everyone will have uh, an equal shot at it. I don't, I don't believe that uh... Well, if their activity with me is any indication of their activity with other members of the Legislature,

they're not saying anything. It's easier to pass a tax bill than it is this.[quiet laughter] And it requires 75 votes to pass a tax bill. OK. [laughter] That gives you an idea of the pressure. Our panelists tonight: Guy Reel, Capitol reporter for the Memphis Commercial Appeal, Meredith Oakley, associate editor for the Arkansas Democrat, and John Brummett, our political columnist for the Arkansas Gazette. Our special guest tonight is Governor Bill Clinton. Thank you all for being with us. Here is a, a quick status report on the legislation that has been before both houses this week. House Bill 1035, which was sponsored by Representatives Mahoney and Flanigan has been approved by the House and sent to the Senate. It would require disclosure of lobbying and financial information of gubernatorial appointments. A House bill dealing only with lobbyist registration and disclosure has been referred to a Senate committee, and the governor's code of ethics is still in the original committees it was assigned to. Governor Clinton, has it been a, a tougher week than you

anticipated? No, I [clears throat] It's about like I thought it would be. And uh, I still think we've got a chance to pass a good bill here. There's been an awful lot of work done against it of course, and a lot, and a lot of misinformation, and a lot of other things going on, but, on the whole I have some hope that we're, uh, we're still going to get a good bill out. Yesterday there was, uh, the first hearing in the Senate, finally. About seventeen senators, instead of the seven on the committee, came to the hearing and stayed all afternoon and ask a lot of questions. Uh, no substantial amendments have been adopted, though. They're basically been clarifying amendments or practical decisions, uh. The bill is fundamentally still in its original form, and I feel good about it. I think it's a better piece of legislation now, so so far the legislative process is working. Now, what I don't know, and what we won't know until next week is whether a lot of people who say, well, will you make this change, that change, and the other one, are just sort of trying to delay it to death. It won't work. I mean, if it's delayed to death, we'll still have the option of, of the, uh, initiated act. But I'm, I'm committed to continuing to work hard to pass this bill, and

and I think more and more of the people are beginning to notice it now and more and more people are coming up to me as they have today - just citizens saying, "I really want this. I hope you'll hang in there and pass it. And, uh, I think a lot of people know it needs to be done. Now, that seems to be very important, Governor. Many lawmakers have said the people aren't telling us they're interested in this legislation. The people aren't telling us that they want the ethics in government to be strengthened. Are you, do you think that that's changing? Well, I, I do. I do think it's changing. But also, to be fair, uh, one of the things that I tried to avoid doing, is to, uh, have them be able to say well I'm not going to do anything because he's just threatening us, you know. So we didn't really try to get, uh, huge numbers of people to call. We tried to make sure that they understood it, and then we had put before the public, through the press, what was in the bill. I can just tell you this, based on my contacts with just people on the street, and a couple of public appearances I've made this week, there's a lot greater awareness of it than there was before the session started, and the more people know, the more they want this,

and I'm confident that if every citizen in our state knew as much as people who hang around here do about the way the business is done, I think they would want more information. And this is, after all, fundamentally just a disclosure bill. We want to increase what people know about how their government works. Well, legislators are saying... If public sentiment is changing, legislators are saying you're changing, at their expense. And there's a lot of, uh, ill will towards you among legislators. What's your... And you've been accused of bashing the legislature. They're being accused that but why don't you go out and do a bus... (Laughing) Well. I'm glad to say... Your very question, of course, the way you said it acknowledges that I haven't bashed the legislature yet. If you go back and look at what I said, when the session opens I bent over backwards to try to be as reasonable as I could be on this... uh, and I haven't been bashing the legislature. The legislators will be affected by this bill. They'll have to disclose their sources of income, any kind of unusual loans they have from, from outside their family, or outside normal financial sources. Uh, any kinds of other

conflicts they might have. But they won't have to do a bit more than I will. I and other members of the executive branch would have just as much disclosure, if not more, than they would, just as many restrictions, if not more. So it's not an anti-legislature bill. I think what's happening is that they know, a lot of these legislators know, and many of them have acknowledged to me, that, uh, the extent of lobbying influence has gotten out of hand the last couple of years, and more disclosure would be appropriate. But they have to pass the bill. And let's be... Let's put one other thing on the record. When I appointed the ethics commission, I assumed that there's no way they'd ever want to deal with this, and getting all that kind of heat they'd have to get in with, with the lobbyists, and the Speaker of the House and many other legislative leaders said it would be totally unfair for me to put this before the people without giving the legislature a chance first. So that's what I'm doing. I'm trying to do what I was asked to do by a number of legislators, some of whom are now saying, growsing, that I've done a terrible thing by bringing them here. And by the way, I have to tell you, Mr. Reelati, amendments that have been about the debate, as far as I'm concerned,

will make the bill better, prove that the legislative process can work. What we don't know is whether they're going to be some killer amendments, or some attempt to essentially delay the bill to death. Nearly every time you talk about the bill, I think it speaks to the legislature, you seem to be emphasizing the lobbyists, and a lot of the press about this issue has emphasized the lobbyist. And yesterday, The house-- what was it? 88-5 or so passed a lobby disclosure bill. The one you want. That's good isn't it? It's very good. And I'll be happy to sign it. It's probably more than half a loaf isn't it, and maybe it's 60 percent of the loaf considering the rhetoric that has gone on... Not just the rhetoric, the reality, it's probably, maybe it's 60 percent of the loaf. Would you call that the single most important of the four elements of the bill? I, I haven't thought about it like that. Will you take it without the rest of the loaf? You mean would I sign the bill? I would certainly sign the bill. But if you don't have a, another bill that takes care of the rest of the program...about the disclosure of public officials? Then I think that, uh, not only I, but I think others who are interested in this, would seriously consider still taking the rest of it to an initiative. Um. Would you do it or would you consider it?

Well, I mean I would probably do it if I had the support. I have to have the help of those groups that would, would help me get the, you know the people that are up here in favor of the law are going to help me put it on the ballot if we have to. I'd be- and I'd have to talk to them about it. But I think with the legislators and the governor it would look pretty bad if we said well we, we uh, had this Ethics Commission, and it had two lobbyists, it had two legislators, it had the president of the state Chamber of Commerce, it had all these other citizens on it, 19 people, and they recommended a sweeping reform which included lobby disclosure and more disclosure about public officials, and a few prohibitions but basically just disclosure, to show the relationships that public officials have to lobbyists and to other possible conflict of interest. And we did what they wanted on the lobbyists but we left ourselves alone. I think that's going to be pretty hard to defend. And I'm not sure, frankly, the Senate wants to do that. I'm not even sure the House wants to do it. Well that was going to be my question. Do you think this is a ploy. Let's pass lobby disclosure that's what most of the press is about, then we can go back and say we did it and maybe we don't have to vote on these. Absolutely. Do you think that is a ploy by at least some.

I think that, I think that bill came out, and went to the Senate for two reasons. One is a good reason. One is, I think that the House leadership, some of them really want a bill, and they want to do the best they can. And they think they can send that over there and at least, you know, try to promote some action, because they... because the other provisions of the bill still have to be reviewed, if you will, by the committee. And there are some other amendments that are going to be on it. And then I think some people, it's just a ploy. They either hope that, that, uh, that's all they'll have to do. Or they hope that the Senate won't even do that and it'll all die. I think there's some of that there, too. No doubt an unfair question to ask you, but why do you think legislators are hesitant to tell us what their financial interests are? That seems to be the case, um, that they, they don't like, uh, some of those provisions of the bill. Uh... Well, I think, I think that the thing that is worrying the legislators, basically, they think all the rest of this bill, to be... let's put it in the best possible light. Those that have genuine, who have genuine

reservations about the ethics commission, which would be charged with preliminary enforcement of this act, know that most of what the ethics commission would be enforcing is that portion of the bill which hasn't passed yet. That is, they'll be gathering records, which will then be made public, about how much lobbyists spend, what they spend it on, and on whom they spend it. If we can hold that 25 dollar provision which requires a lobbyist to name the governor, or the legislator, or the other public official on whom he spent 25 dollars or more. And that will be more or less self-evident, and then the press will see that and they'll ask questions about it, and whatever'll happen will happen, but that's basically the disclosure requirement. I think that in the code of ethics area, where you have to disclose your sources of income, your investments over a certain amount, any unusual debts you have, any guarantors on debts you have above a certain amount, any gifts or travel you get, I think they think that those disclosures will be the subject of the review by the Ethics Commission or whatever body has to review this information. So I think... frankly, I think that it's

one reason the other part hadn't passed is that there's still a majority of the legislature against the ethics commission. Are you are you prepared to make further adjustments in the ethics commission? You've already, uh, changed it so that you don't want the majority. Might we look next week for reducing the powers of it, or other changes in that section? Well I... I am open to that. I'm open to changes, further changes, in the ethics commission. As you know, when that, when I appointed this committee, no one ever said anything about an ethics commission. The reason they wound up recommending it is they did not feel that this law could be self-executing or self-enforcing, number one, and number two, they didn't want to leave it in a position where if you filed under the law, you either were going to have to fear no enforcement at all, or what you might call the ultimate enforcement. The prosecutor will come and investigate you and if you haven't complied we'll charge you with an offense. The purpose of the ethics commission was to basically balance the law to guarantee that everybody would have to file, in a uniform way, they'd be educated about it; if they didn't file they'd get

letters, they'd be given a chance to file, they could even get a public reprimand before you get into the criminal process, to guarantee some uniformity, but also to make sure it's an information and education statute, not primarily a criminal statute. So someone, as I said from day one, if someone can tell me some other way to achieve that objective then I would be happy to discuss that, and to entertain it. Well, you must have some ideas on how to achieve it. Well, yeah, but we batted around a whole lot of ideas. For example, I suggested, uh, that the proper place might be, the policy place might be, the attorney general's office. He gives advisory opinions all the time on other things. Somebody needs to be able to tell a legislator, a governor, a county judge, if you want to file under this-- do I have to file this or not? And somebody needs to be able to say yes or no based on a real good understanding of the law. For people who were honestly trying to comply. So we could have it in the attorney general's office. But that doesn't seem to have a lot of support right now. Why not? Well... Well, what are, what are, what are some other alternatives? I don't know. What about the solicitor general? Well the problem with the solicitor general is, the idea of the solicitor general, is that

you don't want, um, I don't want to... I don't want another attorney general. That is, if we had a special lawyer hired for this purpose, who didn't also have the authority to, you know, basically step into cases that the attorney general is already involved in, representing the state, I might entertain that. Then the question would be who's going to pick the lawyer. How will he be overseen or she be overseen? Where will the lawyer be housed, and how will the lawyer relate to the other functions of the act-- the reporting requirements about what has to be filed with the secretary of state, and things of that kind. You might be able to work something out with that, but I think the point is there's got to be a buffer from just no enforcement, which would make the law a sham, or charging somebody with a crime when that may not be an appropriate thing to do. Why did you, if, if I remember correctly, the, uh, expand the commi... The commission has not been expanded in the House version of the bill. It still, uh... is a five member commission.

I don't believe that a... that amendment got attached. If it hasn't been attached, it will be put on in the next, uh... But it is your intent to... Oh yes...to expect... I, I can understand why, uh, legislators wouldn't want the governor to have a majority, and in Connecticut and several other places the governor doesn't have a majority. And I have no problem with that. The only reason I stay with the commission is I couldn't think of another way to do what I thought ought to be done with the law. And if somebody, if we can come up with another way, that I'm convinced will give integrity to the process, well I'll embrace it and we'll go on. What if you can't come up with another... Well, I... We're going to have a problem. You going to go for initiated act on that issue? Well. Let me just say this, Mr. Wheel, one of the things, one of the difficulties in my making substantive changes like that, is so far we've adopted amendments which clarified, in my view, the act, made it much more understandable, easier to comply with, used plainer language, hasn't weakened it. But they've been the things I've been asked to do. And so the legislative process has worked well. There is still an awful lot of people, when you say, OK, now that we've made these changes, are you going to vote for it or not, yes or no, where you can't get a yes or

no. So, you're asking me a question I can't answer because I have to know what would happen if we made a substitute for the code of ethics commission, that worked, would the bill pass or not. One thing that you hear more than anything else about the ethics commission is, that this is, uh, just an agency for harassment, that people can come in and just file all sorts of things and didn't Webb Hubbells, um, one of your commissioners, say yesterday that this would be open from the time it's filing to public inspection? One legislator said that somebody could run against me and get some, uh, yahoo in my district to file something on me, just crazy, and get, and harass me and it might have political ramifications. Is that, as you read the bill, as now amended with the commission, is that a, is that something that should be concerned about, and can that be fixed? Well, let's discuss what it, uh, what it does. The commission, first of all now can no longer, uh, start an investigation on its own motion and subpoena records and audit books. So you, so the, the original objection, that you might have people who are too intemperate and are just meddling in people's lives, that's not good anymore.

We, we also require that before they can launch a motion, they have to have a complaint signed on penalty of perjury. So these crazy people we're talking about have to be sure enough crazy they have to be- [laugh] they have to be careful. they have to be at a point where they don't care if they go to jail, if they willfully lie about someone, and just cook up a complaint. Now there's nothing to prohibit it today. And I think it would most or anybody that doesn't mind swearing a complaint on penalty of perjury against a public official, whether it's the governor... I keep... This is not a legislative thing. Every executive is covered by this. Judicial officials are covered by this. This is... It's just that the legislature has to enact it. The rest of us are covered, too. Now, wait a minute. Let me just... OK. If they do that, I think that there is a strong likelihood that they will publicly say to the press, "I have complained against Bill Clinton." Then once the investigation starts, the subject of the investigation, the internal documents are not subject to public disclosure until there is either A, a public hearing, in which case they become the basis of the public hearing, or B, the case is

closed. And under our general, not, not under anything in this law, under the FOI law as it is presently written in Arkansas. When the case- when a case like that is closed then those documents become a matter of public record. So we didn't change anything with FOI law, and they still can keep those documents confidential while the investigation is ongoing. I think that's a point that's... The undisclosed investigation portion of FOI is something that's being litigated right now. But, but on another topic, to go back a moment, I have heard, not much, but I have heard some concern expressed, that if the legislature is in the- in the hands of lobbyists so firmly, why on Earth would you want to get the lobbyist four out of seven members on that commission meaning that if you give two appointments to the pro-tem and two to the speaker you're just asking the lobbyist to pick the majority. How do you respond to that? Well... I- I would hate to think that I- I just don't think that's accurate.

I don't think that the speaker and the president pro-tem would appoint people who would just, who would take a dive in the face of any evidence. I just don't believe they'd do that. I- I think-, uh, I think they would be faithful to their responsibilities. And I also believe, if you look at the experience of other states, I keep trying to, I realize this is futile. I've tried it with the legislature now for a week without any success at all. Thirty six states have a single entity regulating lobby disclosure and code of ethics. Thirty three states have some kind of ethics commission. 90 percent of them. We haven't called all 33 states, but every place we checked with nobody says this is a hyper active commission. Everybody says the people literally when a problem comes up they try to fairly and dispassionately review it. There's going to be a staff after all that will have to work up the facts and evidence and make a recommendation. So I think all these worries are not well-founded. But just to show good faith, I said I'd be happy not to appoint a majority you know that there might be a day in the future where the governor might be more tied to certain lobbyist then the legislative leadership. But you just, I mean you can't.- Sooner or later

somebody's got to do something in good faith and I trust the speaker and the president pro tem to do that. At what point do you anticipate having an ultimatum to the legislature to say if your bill starts getting gutted by a Senate committee next week, for example, at what point will you say all right this is enough of this let's let the people decide which is what Gary Hart said, that's you know. Just let's take it to the people. Oh yeah. I think if we can't do something next week we probably ought not to do anything. We ought to go home. And then you would start the camp I'm... Sure. But again I don't have a negative attitude for this. You have to realize that from the perspective I've been I've been reviewing this for months. And some legislators have. But most of them didn't look at it until they got a final copy of the bill. Within about two weeks before the session started.

Some of them got involved and some of them didn't. Now everybody is beginning to focus on it. I think that. I think that so far. The legislative process has worked. Yes there's been little personal animosity toward me. You'd expect that. I mean this is nothing compared to apparently what's happened a lot of other states in terms of personal personal animosity for the governor. I mean Governor Cuomo in the New York legislature nearly really came to blows over this and we may here. But I'm trying not to let that happen. And I, but I'm going to keep pushing. I'm going to be firm, I'm not going to let the bill be gutted, if we can pass something next week, fine, if we can't, then we'll do what I thought we'd have to do all along and I still hope we won't. I mean I still believe we've got a real shot to get a good bill out of here. If this was an election year for you, would you be trying to pass this legislation? Oh yes. Yes I would. I mean. I think this is the right thing to do but it's also I think the popular thing to do and I think the more people know about it the more popular it is. You know, sure, you can say well this is like all those lobbyists working against your reelection. But I think that the people have wanted this for a long time.

And it is not an anti anything, it's a question of... if you can't stop people from spending money and trying to pursue their interests and they ought to be able to do it. But, but we ought to open up the process and we ought to be aware of what's going on and that's all I'm trying to do. I'm trying to increase the knowledge people have about the way the government works. And you're talking personally too, lobbyists have spend money on you, haven't they? Absolutely. They've flown you here and there occasionally. Absolutely. Might have even bought you dinner for more than $25. Absolutely. And I have no problem. If that happens. I have no problem with them reporting it and being known. And then if I make a decision in an area in which a lobbyist works I would expect you to come forward and explore that relationship and say, "Listen do you think that's right or wrong?" I mean there has been... I want to emphasize that the governor has as much contact with lobbyists as the legislature does. I mean I may not have as much reportable money spent on me but I certainly have contact. As I've said a lot of these people are friends of mine. But you've got to have some openness in government to counteract the power of organized interest. You just have to, and we don't have enough.

You could even, there's a lotta talk about inordinate ledgi- lobbyist influence over the legislature. You could make the argument that considering all the business tax breaks you've signed, maybe you've been inordinately influenced. That's right. You can take that argument. I mean I've got about as good a record for the Chamber of Commerce and the poultry folks and -- You're their poster boy, almost. -- I've done a good job for them, haven't I? -- You have. And. You know so I think you'd be entitled to know. You know if I had. received-- You'd think they'd do something good for you for a change. -- No. They have I mean you well you know about the the cam-- What have you done for me lately? -- any campaign contributions you know is a matter of record. But I think you ought to know about gifts, I think you ought ... if someone's co-signed a big note with me. I think you ought to know about my, uh, if I borrowed money from anybody that could have some impact on my public decisions. And then you should explore it. But I think it's very important to recognize that, that I certainly will be. The odds are I'll be under a lot more scrutiny than most members of legislature will be under this law. Governor, one quick question. What kind of politics goes into formulating an ethics proposal such as this? For example we tried to, We've tried to leave improvement

districts out of the bill, we've tried to accommodate some of these types of things. -- We've tried -- How can you swap off things like this, in the ethics bill? Well with my ...put improvement districts back in there that's a question of whether we can by definition do that. The reason the levee districts in the drainage districts were left out in the improvement districts within that language with them is because they were specifically exempted at a previous time and because I think you can make a compelling argument that the, given the nature of trying to get somebody serve what goes on in the levee and drainage districts, that they don't need to be under here. The ethics commission itself ruled that a lot of voluntary boards and commissions at the local level which were under the present law, that is, not the we're trying to pass. But the one now which is limited, but there's a whole lot of volunteer boards required to register there who according to the ethics commission shouldn't be required to register. You just have to work it out the best you can in terms of what seems to be fair. Governor. Time magazine said... I'm sorry I'm going to have to cut you off.

We're out of time. Everybody's got to go buy the magazine. Are you going to ask me about that now? Dukakis, yeah. I don't know how they got the story. They didn't call me. Nobody confirmed it. And it's ridiculous. I mean it's I mean it's flattering to be quoted in Time magazine as if I have some major impact in this race based on what I do or don't do. It is true that I talked to Governor Dukakis before the Iowa debate. Thank you Governor. Thanks for being with us tonight. Goodnight. -- Oh, I'm sorry, I thought this was off, I'm sorry, I thought we were -- We are now. What you said. [music] [music] Arkansas Week is made possible in part by a community service grant from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.