As campaign finance sophistication leads to untraceable donors and as politicians get better at hiding their questionable behavior, the Ethics Commission needs more resources to root out violations.
That isn't happening, and it's not new. Since its creation in 1990, the agency has struggled to get the kind of funding and staffing needed to do its job.
For all the failures of Oklahoma Legislatures, this is one of the biggest.
The problem is that the people the commission oversees are the ones with power over its appropriations. The Legislature even limited its ability to keep fees that are collected, putting a $150,000 cap on what it can spend from fees, with the rest going to the state's General Revenue Fund.
Executive Director Ashley Kemp submitted her resignation last week out of frustration with lawmakers continuing to deprive the agency of its needs, according to a story from Tulsa World reporter Barbara Hoberock. Kemp is right.
The agency asked the Legislature for a budget of slightly more than $1 million and received $687,950. Oklahoma has more than $6 billion in savings and enjoyed overflowing coffers this year.
The requested amount was paltry against the eye-popping funds raised for modern campaigns.
With the U.S. Supreme Court equating campaign donations with free speech, it's easier to hide where donations originate. At least $20 million in dark money flowed into last year's gubernatorial race, on top of what candidates raised. Even at the local level, the Tulsa school board races are topping $100,000, with tens of thousands contributed by unidentified donors.
Strict rules exist on communication between candidates and these groups, just as there are public finance reporting requirements and restrictions on the kinds of loans and donations campaigns can accept.
All of this falls to the Oklahoma Ethics Commission to sort out. The agency oversees and enforces rules governing state campaigns and rules of ethical conduct for state officers and employees.
The only people who benefit from the lack of this kind of oversight are those in — or who want to be in — elected office. The Ethics Commission has never enjoyed popularity in state appropriations.
In 2018, the agency filed suit against the state, arguing that lawmakers were required to appropriate enough funding for the agency to perform its duties. In a 5-4 vote, the Oklahoma Supreme Court sided with the Legislature, saying the agency must be treated the same as other agencies.
It's becoming a stretch to accept that the Legislature is doing that when the Ethics Commission is shortchanged each year.
The Ethics Commission was created through an initiative petition by Oklahoma voters who were unhappy with attempts by the Legislature to create a campaign oversight agency. Lawmakers were not good at policing themselves and still aren't.
The big business of campaigns frustrates voters trying to determine who influences candidates and elected officials. For many, it's a turnoff to civic life, and that is a danger to democracy.
If a state budget reflects the priorities of its people, then ethics ranks pretty low. Lawmakers ought to do better by the Ethics Commission.
[Editorial / Tulsa World]
