By Howard Fischer
Mail | X: @azcapmedia

PHOENIX — The way Kris Mayes sees it, the burden of child care falls more often on women and may discourage them from running
So the attorney general is now advising candidates they are free to use campaign funds to pay those expenses — but only if the purpose of the care is to free them up to do the things they need to do to get elected.

If nothing else, Mayes, a single mother herself, said it will help level the political playing field.

“When women run for office, they win the same as men,” she wrote in the newly released formal opinion. “But they do not run at the same rate.”

Mayes cited a report that suggests the reason for that is a “care gap.”
“According to this theory, the burdens of caring for dependents mean that women are less likely to have the time, capacity, and other assets necessary to run for and serve in office,” she wrote.

With that in mind, the attorney general — at the request of four women already in the Legislature — studied the state’s campaign finance laws. And she concluded that it is legal.

What it comes down to, Mayes said, is Arizona law defines “campaign expenses” as any purchase, payment or other thing of value made “for the purpose of influencing an election.”

“If the purpose of paying for dependent care is to enable the candidate to spend time on the campaign, instead of performing a task they otherwise must perform personally, then it is ‘for the purpose of influencing an election’ that is a permissible campaign expenditure,” Mayes wrote. What is not, she said, is paying for dependent care for a personal or professional benefit unrelated to the campaign

Where to draw that line, said the attorney general, is whether the candidate, absent having to go out and run for office, would be the one providing that care.

Rep. Stacey Travers, one of the four lawmakers who sought the opinion, said that link between care and running for office makes sense.

“Do you take your child out to knock on doors with you in 100-degree heat?” asked the Tempe Democrat.

“I certainly can’t always take them to events,” Travers said. Consider, she said, having to go out and talk with constituents with an infant or baby in tow.

While Mayes focused on the burden on women, her opinion is not gender specific. It applies to men who are providing care as well.

“There are single fathers out there as well,” Travers said. “Child care in any situation is cost prohibitive,” she said.

“If this is a way you want to get involved in your community and you want to create a better future for your kids, and you find that is best facilitated through public office, you should have the opportunity to do that,” said Travers. “It shouldn’t be restrictive.”

The new opinion also is not limited to singles. Mayes said it applies to a spouse or other family member who may also be on the campaign trail.

“If the spouse or family member would have provided the care, and the purpose of paying another person to provide the care is for the spouse or family member to be able to participate in campaign activities, then the purpose of the expenditure is to influence the election,” the attorney general wrote, and then is justified.

That’s the case for Travers who has a husband, two kids and a parent living at home.

Mayes said there are precedents for her decision. She said the Federal Elections Commission has concluded that, under “appropriate circumstances,” campaign dollars can be used to pay for child care expenses.

In one case, Mayes said, the commission said that, but for the campaign and travel by a candidate and his wife, there would have been no such expenses. That, the commission ruled, made it acceptable.

A similar finding was made in the case of a congressional candidate who was the full-time caregiver for her children.

And Mayes cited conclusions reached by election and legal officials in other states that support her findings here.

“The prevalence of states permitting dependent care or child care expenditures supports the common-sense conclusion that such payments can be for the purpose of influencing the election,” she wrote.

The opinion, by itself, does not carry the same force of law as an appellate court ruling. But AG opinions can be cited in court filings and can provide a shield against punishment for someone who is following that advice.

Mayes did not address how all this works for statewide and legislative candidates who take advantage of a voter-approved law that allows them to get public funds if they eschew special interest donations.

But Tom Collins, executive director of the Citizens Clean Elections Commission, told Capitol Media Services the same logic should apply. That’s because commission rules require public dollars they get to be used for “direct campaign purposes.”

While Mayes said candidates can use campaign funds for child care expenses, she drew the line at them using other donated funds once they get elected.

Arizona law allows someone in office to solicit and receive contributions for “officeholder duties.” That can include things not provided by the public body for which that person works, like office equipment and supplies, travel related to the person’s duties, meeting and communicating with constituents, and other educational purposes like subscriptions and attending conferences.

But Mayes said she cannot read that law in any way to permit the officeholder to also use those dollars to provide child care.