The organization that advanced the 2018 ballot measure creating the North Dakota Ethics Commission says the commission’s proposed rules on conflicts of issue fall short of the mark.

North Dakotans for Public Integrity states the commission’s draft rules create exceptions, restrictions and loopholes that would violate the state constitution if adopted.

“The commission has consistently aimed for harmony with the Legislature and existing law. We have no problem with that if they do it without compromising their constitutional responsibilities. They do not have the authority to violate the constitution,” said NDPI President Dina Butcher in a news release.

The nonpartisan, grassroots organization held a virtual news conference Tuesday, ahead of a public hearing on the draft rules Nov. 30. The rules provide standards for determining conflicts of interests and establish requirements for public officials to recuse themselves from making decisions when they have personal or financial interests in the matters.

NDPI objects to exempting campaign contributions as a conflict of interest for public officials, such as Public Service Commission or Industrial Commission members, who exercise authority to make certain judgements or binding orders, known as quasi-judicial decisions.

“I believe that’s wrong and not what the majority of people in North Dakota voted for,” said Kathy Tweeten, NDPI secretary/treasurer.

NDPI Vice President Ellen Chaffee said NDPI has several concerns with the draft rules, but she added, “The campaign finance piece is the one that’s clearest and most consequential.”

Chaffee said either officials should be required to reject contributions from entities their organizations regulate or regulated entities should be banned from offering contributions.

Dave Thiele, executive director for the Ethics Commission, said prohibiting campaign contributions for public officials who make quasi-judicial decisions may be illegal under the First Amendment’s free speech rights, based on a previous U.S. Supreme Court decision. The Ethics Commission is seeking a N.D. Attorney General’s opinion on the matter.

NDPI argues the Attorney General would have a conflict in issuing an opinion.

Aaron McKean, an attorney with the nonpartisan, citizen-advocacy group Campaign Legal Center, said the U.S. Supreme Court has found campaign contributions create conflicts of interest that require recusals. Courts also have upheld laws that prohibit those contributions if they create a risk of conflict of interest, he said.

“We have the public comments by NDPI and they will be considered,” Thiele said. “What we are suggesting is not that campaign contributions are always OK. That’s not the intent. But just by itself, it’s not enough to warrant a recusal.”

The commission still believes those contributions should be examined to determine the need for recusal, he added.

“We promote transparency. It can be brought up and should be open and transparent,” he said.