WHO ARGUES FOR THE PEOPLE? By Mike Masterson This article was published today at 3:12 a.m. The citizens’ struggle to prevent SWEPCO from carving a wide, ugly 345-kilovolt transmission line through the Ozark forests of Carroll County has generated an equally questionable point of public contention. Should the only constitutional officer vested with representing the ratepayers’ legal interests be allowed to accept campaign contributions from a utility? That’s the question Becky Gillette of the feisty Eureka Springs Independent weekly paper put to Attorney General Dustin McDaniel. Gillette has been aggressively reporting and commenting on SWEPCO’s proposal to run a 50-foot-wide high-voltage powerline from its station in Benton County across much of Carroll County to a 40-acre tract of rural pastureland the company purchased months back for an astounding amount of money. Opponents such as the Save the Ozarks group say a powerline that size is at least four times larger than necessary to serve such a relatively rural area. And they contend the utility’s grand plan has become a matter of environmental justice (or injustice) because of Carroll County’s high poverty rate. Gillette’s question is both fair and relevant to the matter and well beyond. And after all, valued readers, isn’t asking relevant questions what real news reporters are supposed to be doing under the First Amendment and in the public interest? Gillette quotes the attorney general saying his office is tasked by law to advocate for policies “that keep electric rates low while maintaining reliable electric service.” A responsible and effective check on power is crucial because otherwise a utility with its captive clientele could ostensibly raise rates as desired and, well, run roughshod over the citizens it serves. However, as she also reports, if this massive $118 million electric line is approved (and it appears to many that’s been a done deal) then the rateswill rise. The state’s Public Service Commission becomes the ultimate decider in these matters. And Gillette writes that thus far, McDaniel’s response toward this controversial line has basically been that it’s a good idea. With that in mind, it’s beyond legitimate to ask if our elected attorney general should be legally allowed to accept campaign contributions from utilities. Gillette writes that McDaniel acknowledges receiving numerous such contributions. What do you think? Is that idea as stunningly inappropriate as it sounds to me? I guarantee you there’s lots of folks out here who believe utility companies should not be allowed to potentially influence any elected officials, including legislators, with contributions. Otherwise, which office is left to impartially argue against ambitious utilities on the ratepayers’ behalf? The official response in Gillette’s account? “Yes, the Attorney General, his opponents for the office, and the AG’s predecessors have accepted contributions from utility companies,” said McDaniel’s spokesman, Aaron Sadler. “It is neither illegal nor unethical to do so. His record of standing up for ratepayers is exemplary and has resulted in more than $800 million in ratepayer savings since he became attorney general. As our letters to concerned citizens have explained, state law prohibits the AG from representing private citizens. In utility matters, the AG is required by law to represent the collective interests of Arkansas utility ratepayers.Citizens who would like to change that law should contact legislators.” Of course there’s a hurdle in that suggestion since, as Gillette points out, our legislators also “routinely accept large campaign contributions from the utility industry.” In 2010, Gillette reports, SWEPCO’s parent company alone donated more than $41,400 to Arkansas lawmakers. Her enterprising piece goes on to say she’d discovered campaign contributions to McDaniel’s attempt at running for governor: “There were about 20 contributions from the utility industry, primarily Entergy.” For me, a more rational view was offered by Gunner Delay. He opposed McDaniel for attorney general in 2006. Delay told Gillette he refused to take campaign contributions from utilities, adding that he wanted a statute that restricted utility contributions to attorney general candidates. “The reason I’ve chosen not to accept utility money as a candidate for this office boils down to one word: ethics,” Delay said. “The rules of professional conduct that govern attorneys in the private practice of law make it unethical for an attorney to receive compensation from an opposing party,” he told Gillette. “Since Arkansas law makes it clear that there is supposed to be an adversarial relationship between the AG’s office and regulated utilities, accepting contributions from public utilities creates an inherent conflict of interest. It is obvious that my opponent is trying to sell the office of AG to those interests he is required to oppose.” Considering that “ratepayers” by definition are all who use electricity, or virtually every voting, taxpaying citizen, surely you also must have an opinion about the way this illogical practice continues to be done.So come on, make yours heard and what say we ratepayers take Sadler’s advice and get this law changed? Hey, perhaps Delay would even lead the charge. ——— Mike Masterson’s column appears regularly in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Email him at mikemasterson10@hotmail. Read his blog at mikemastersonsmessenger.
Posted on: Sat, 06 Jul 2013 16:08:41 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015