Search
Generic filters
Search in title
Search in content
Exact matches only
Arkansas PoliticsRead

Whose Party Is This Anyway? 

Voters / Special Interests / Lobbyist: A Sneak Peek at Conduit’s First 

Whose Party Is This Anyway?
Voters / Special Interests / Lobbyist: A Sneak Peek at Conduit’s First
RPA Follow the Money Report
September 6, 2024 

Ground Rules:  
Under Arkansas Code §7-1-101 the definition of a “political party” starts with the phrase “any group of voters” and continues with the phrase “a group of electors.”i Arkansas law does not define the word “elector” but uses it interchangeably with the term “voter” (with the latter being a word replacement due to the fact “elector” is a term nearly out of common use).ii

So, from a mere glance at Arkansas law, we see the law defines a political party as a group of individuals defined as voters who come together to elect other individuals to represent them based on a set of commonly held principles.  

Now I want to contrast the term “political party” with that of “special interests” or merely “interest groups.”  The term special interests may be defined as: 

“An association (of individuals or organizations,) … that … attempts to influence public policy in its favor.  All interest groups share a desire to affect government policy to benefit themselves or their causes.  …They attempt to achieve their goals by lobbying—that is, by attempting to bring pressure to bear on policy makers to gain policy outcomes in their favor.”iii 

As mentioned above, special interests often use professional lobbyists to pressure policy makers.  Professional lobbyists are defined by Wikipedia as: 

People whose business is trying to influence legislation, regulation, or other government decisions, actions, or policies on behalf of a group or individual who hires them.iv 

For a reasonable critique or criticism of lobbyists see the footnote below.v 

Individual lobbyists and members of special interest groups may be individual voters, but as a group or as a hired representative, they are not voters, nor are they defined by law as a group of voters and thus are not a political party nor a legal participant in a political party.

Why does it matter?
Why do I bring up the question as to the differences in political parties, special interests, and lobbyists?   

Simple:  We are currently in a struggle to determine who will make decisions within the Republican Party of Arkansas.  With that in mind, it is important to determine who is in control at present. 

From the perspective of the law, the voters/members are the only participants in a political party.  Also under state law, within that group, it is the rules of the political party which define the power of each member or group of members.  In the RPA, its rules state that the State Convention has final authority over all party matters.  And the State Convention is made up of grassroots delegates from the County Committees.   

Now we know the law and the rules.  But as we consider who is exercising control, let us “Follow the Money!” 

In that effort, Conduit is providing three sets of information.  Below is a chart which summaries RPA revenues and their sources over the past five years.  These are very broad categories but give you an idea of where the funds originate.  

I also attach two spreadsheets—one summarizes totals of all state funds coming into the RPA annually since 2008 with a view as to how the different election cycles affect the amounts of those funds.   

The second sheet highlights the top donors over the past five years.  It is interesting to see how the offerings from special interests compare to those of 2014 (both following the election of a new governor).  These payments made to the RPA by special interests have jumped from a donation of $5,000 to $10,000 in December 2014 to $50,000 or $100,000 in January 2023.  One donation stands out as the most peculiar—from our newest donors, Tom and Steuart Walton, who gave $500,000 to the RPA on January 6, 2023, through their company, Runway Group LLC.   

You should be reminded that these Walton grandchildren often purport a worldview quite different from the RPA Platform. One example of that difference is proudly displayed on the outside of the building Runway Group LLC used for its donation address.  That gay pride flag stands in direct conflict with many of the principles listed in the Republican Platform.  

Be reminded that special Interest groups and lobbyists usually give to Democrats just as they would give to Republicans—depending upon which party is in charge.  It is the voters who have made that initial sacrifice to work and elect new people to change policy.  The corporate donor class pays to pressure or entice the party or the elected officials who the voters have initially worked to place in office. 

Conclusions: 

So, one should ask—what should be the influence or power exerted by special interests or lobbyists within a political party?  They can’t vote.  They don’t even lobby voters…. My friend has a saying we quote when we expect people we pay to carry out their agreed terms of work, “He who pays, says!”  Is that what we have within the RPA today?  Is that why the elected officials and their appointees are so committed to keeping the primaries open?   

Those are good questions to ask.  But as you look for answers and how to set our party aright, be aware of what is happening.  In doing that—please “Follow the Money!” 

Conduit fights for economic freedom for us all.  And we know that it takes money to hold on to power as well as one’s own individual freedoms.  May God help us as we struggle for both. 

Click the following link to review the financial report: Annual RPA Receipts 2009 – 2024


i Our law goes on to define “qualified elector” as a person who is registered to vote. https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-7/chapter-1/section-7-1-101/
Arkansas Code Title 7. Elections § 7-1-101. Definitions: As used in this title, unless the context or chapter otherwise requires:
(28)(A) “Political party” means any group of voters that at the last preceding general election polled for its candidate for Governor in the state or nominees for presidential electors at least three percent (3%) of the entire vote cast for the office.
(B) A group of electors shall not assume a name or designation that is so similar in the opinion of the Secretary of State to that of an existing political party as to confuse or mislead the voters at an election.
(C) When any political party fails to obtain three percent (3%) of the total votes cast at an election for the office of Governor or nominees for presidential electors, it shall cease to be a political party;  (34) “Qualified elector” means a person who holds the qualifications of an elector and who is registered pursuant to Arkansas Constitution, Amendment 51. 
ii Oxford Dictionary  noun: elector; plural noun: electors:  a person who has the right to vote in an election. 
iii https://www.britannica.com/topic/interest-group  
iv https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying
v https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying 
“Criticism of Lobbying: “The ethics and morals involved with legally lobbying or influence peddling are controversial. Lobbying can, at times, be spoken of with contempt, when the implication is that people with inordinate socioeconomic power are corrupting the law in order to serve their own interests. When people who have a duty to act on behalf of others, such as elected officials with a duty to serve their constituents’ interests or more broadly the public good, can benefit by shaping the law to serve the interests of some private parties, a conflict of interest exists. Many critiques of lobbying point to the potential for conflicts of interest to lead to agent misdirection or the intentional failure of an agent with a duty to serve an employer, client, or constituent to perform those duties. The failure of government officials to serve the public interest as a consequence of lobbying by special interests who provide benefits to the official is an example of agent misdirection.[2] That is why lobbying is seen as one of the causes of a democratic deficit.[3] Politicians tend to vote more against the preferred position of their constituency in case of more special interest money and less attention to politics.[4] 
A 2011 study of the 50 firms that spent the most on lobbying relative to their assets compared their financial performance against that of the S&P 500, and concluded that spending on lobbying was a “spectacular investment” yielding “blistering” returns comparable to a high-flying hedge fund, even despite the financial downturn.[78] A 2011 meta-analysis of previous research findings found a positive correlation between corporate political activity and firm performance.[79] A 2009 study found that lobbying brought a return on investment of as much as 22,000% in some cases.[80] Major American corporations spent $345 million lobbying for just three pro-immigration bills between 2006 and 2008.[81] A review of 30 food and beverage companies spent $38.2 million on lobbying in 2020 to strengthen and maintain their influence in Washington, D.C.[82] 
A study from the Kellogg School of Management found that political donations by corporations do not increase shareholder value. The authors posit a few reasons that firms continue giving despite little returns, including signaling firm values to investors and consumption value for individual managers.[83][84] 
Wall Street spent a record $2 billion trying to influence the 2016 United States presidential election.”[85][86] 
Back to top button

Adblock Detected

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker