Did you know the “Voters Right to Know Act” (Prop 211) became law immediately following the 2022 general election canvass? Elections officials and attorneys are now beginning to grapple with the Act.
The VRTK Act is codified in the Citizens Clean Elections Act, A.R.S. §§ 16-971 to 16-679, and gives the Clean Elections Commission jurisdiction over rulemaking and enforcement matters. Previous versions of the initiative were known as the Stop Political Dirty Money Amendment (2018) and the “VotersRight to Know Amendment” (2020). The previous measures were three-page constitutional amendments that never made the general election ballot. The VRTK Act ultimately passed in 2022 is a statutory measure, more detailed than previous versions, and comprises nearly 8 pages of new law.
The VRTK Act is complicated and, in some ways, significantly changes the way campaign actors must conduct political fundraising and advertising in Arizona.
This blog will address the key features of the VRTK Act: tracing political contributions, donor disclosures, Secretary of State reporting, and advertising disclaimers.
Part I: Tracing Political Contributions
Arizona campaign finance law has always required the collection, tracking, and reporting of donor information in public reports. For example, under pre-existing law a political committee must collect and report the following information about each donor:
- Contribution amount
- Primary employer
The VRTK Act imposes additional disclosure requirements intended to trace the true origins of political money. The Act seeks to achieve this objective by requiring identification of not only the donor that makes a direct campaign contribution (like pre-existing campaign finance law), but also the persons who constitute the “original source” of that contribution. Thus, the VRTK Act puts the burden on certain political actors to ensure that any significant money transfers among prior intermediaries are now disclosed in campaign finance reports as well.
Who is covered by the Act. The new campaign finance requirements only apply to “covered persons,” defined as persons whose total “campaign media spending” in an election cycle exceeds $50,000 in statewide campaigns or $25,000 in any other type of campaigns.
Covered Persons. Certain persons are exempted from complying with the Act even if they meet the financial threshold for campaign media spending. All candidate committees are exempt, for example.
Individuals and organizations that only use their own personal/business income on campaign media spending are also exempt. “Business income” is money from “commercial transactions in the ordinary course of a person’s regular trade, business or investments.” For trade associations and unions, however, “business income” includes member dues but only up to $5,000 per calendar year. Thus, any trade association or union that receives at least one member’s dues that exceeds $5,000 (at one time or in the aggregate) during a particular year will lose the automatic exemption and therefore is potentially subject to the VRTK Act if other requirements are met.
Finally, PACs and political parties that do not receive more than $20,000 from any one person (at one time or in the aggregate) during a two-year election cycle are exempt from the Act as well.
Accordingly, the VRTK Act applies to:
- Any individual that received contributions from others;
- Any organization (including businesses and unions) that received contributions from others, or received membership dues exceeding $5,000 during a calendar year;
- PACs that received a contribution of at least $20,000 (whether monetarily or in-kind) from any one person during the election cycle; and
- Political party committees that received a contribution of at least $20,000 (whether monetarily or in-kind) from any one person during the election cycle.
These financial thresholds will naturally incentivize persons to change their operations to avoid triggering the Act. Such is human nature. But would such adaptation itself constitute a violation of the Act? A.R.S. § 16-975 makes it unlawful to “structure or assist in structuring . . . any solicitation, contribution, donation, expenditure, disbursement, or other transaction to evade the reporting requirements” of the Act. Rearranging your financial affairs to avoid triggering the Act could potentially constitute a “transaction intended to evade the reporting requirements.” The Clean Elections Commission should promulgate a regulation to make clear that such activity would not constitute a violation of the anti-structuring provision.
Campaign Media Spending. The VRTK Act is triggered by a requisite amount of “campaign media spending” by a covered person, which is much broader than merely sending mailers or placing advertisements. Campaign media spending includes:
- Public communications that expressly advocate for or against a candidate.
- Commentary: This is traditional “vote for” or “vote against” advertising.
- Public communications that promote, support, attack, or oppose a candidate within six months of an election involving that candidate.
- Commentary: This means something less than overt “express advocacy,” such as praising a lawmaker for her work on public policy issues.
- Public communications that refer to a candidate within 90 days of a primary election and through the general election, if those communications are distributed in the jurisdiction where the candidate’s election is taking place.
- Commentary: This applies to mere passing references to a candidate (whether by name or picture), even if the election or candidacy is not mentioned.
- Public communications that promote, support, attack, or oppose the qualification or approval of any initiative or referendum measure.
- Commentary: This provision applies during the general election campaign but also during the signature collection period preceding the campaign, before the measure qualifies for the ballot.
- Other types of ballot measures (such a bond elections, budget overrides, charter amendments, etc.) are not subject to the Act.
- Public communications that promote, support, attack, or oppose the approval of any recall measure.
- Commentary: By subjecting only the “approval” of a recall measure to regulation, the Act does not apply to the signature collection period to qualify a recall measure for the ballot. Accordingly, recall elections are treated to somewhat less regulation than initiative and referendum measures.
- Public communications or other “activity” that support the election or defeat of candidates of an identified political party or “the electoral prospects of an identified political party,” including partisan voter registration, partisan get-out-the-vote activity, or other partisan activity.
- Commentary: It was a questionable drafting choice to include activities like voter registration and GOTV within the definition of “campaign media spending,” when those activities have nothing to do with media or advertising.
- This provision is not limited to political party Nonprofit organizations with a partisan preference for only Republican or Democrat registrants will be subject to the Act as well.
- Beyond voter registration and GOTV activities, it is unclear what other types of political activity supports “the electoral prospects” of a political party. For example, the following activities might qualify:
- Collecting nomination petition signatures;
- Making contributions to committees;
- Recruiting and training precinct committeemen;
- Organizing an election integrity or voter protection program, including hiring attorneys and staffing poll observers.
- These ambiguities in the statute may have a chilling effect on many organizations’ activities. This is another area where Clean Elections Commission rules will be critical.
- Any research, design, production, polling, data analytics, mailing or social media list acquisition, or any other activity conducted in preparation for (or in conjunction with) any of the above public communications or partisan activities.
- Commentary: This provision covers virtually every possible preparatory activity a political organization might undertake to mount a serious campaign, well before any consultant is paid to handle advertising creation or placement. Thus, a covered person must start tracking costs (for VRTK Act purposes) very early in the process.
In short, the VRTK Act focuses on certain political actors that accept contributions from third parties and make corresponding expenditures on campaign-related activities. If those political actors have accepted contributions that constitute the donors’ own “original monies,” the burden is minimal: a covered person likely must file additional reports, but those reports will largely dovetail with pre-existing campaign finance reporting obligations. In reality, the VRTK Act is intended to ferret out more complicated types of spending that involve prior transfers between intermediaries. The reporting and financial tracing will be more complicated for those types of political actors.
Part II: Required Notifications About “Original Monies”
In order to trace money as it moves through the political system, the VRTK Act requires a covered person to collect new information from certain donors.
Notification regarding “original monies.” A donor who contributes over $5,000 to a covered person during the election cycle must inform the covered person of the identity of any other person that contributed over $2,500 in “original monies” that comprised the donation, including the amount attributed to each other person.
For example, if Organization A contributes $10,000 to a covered person, but $5,000 of that contribution originated from a prior transfer from Organization B to Organization A, Organization A must inform the covered person that the contribution was comprised of $5,000 in “original monies” from Organization A and $5,000 in “original monies” from Organization B.
But there is some ambiguity in the statute: it provides that any person who donates more than $5,000 “must inform that covered person in writing, within ten days after receiving a written request from the covered person, of the identity of each other person that . . . contributed more than $2,500[.]” This could be interpreted in one of two ways:
- The donor has an independent duty to inform the covered person regarding the original source, but if affirmatively asked for this information by a covered person, the donor must supply this information within ten days; or
- The donor must provide original source information to the covered person only if the covered person asks for that information.
The former interpretation is probably correct, based on context. If there were several prior transfers among intermediaries, for example, the Act requires the donor to “disclose all . . . previous transfers of more than $2,500” to the covered person and the donor “must maintain these records for at least five years and provide the records on request to the [Clean Elections] commission.” These affirmative obligations suggest that disclosure of original source information is not contingent on being asked for it by a covered person.
Nonetheless, a covered person may wish to affirmatively ask all donors (who contribute over $5,000) for original source information. Very few donors will inherently understand this new legal obligation to disclose “original monies” without being prompted to do so. For example, a contribution website or written fundraising solicitation could seek both identity information (name, address, occupation, employer) and disclosure of any original source information.
A covered person must maintain written records of this “original monies” information, referred to as “transfer records.”
In-kind contributions as “original monies.” A similar disclosure rule applies to in-kind contributions: if Organization A provides a $10,000 in-kind contribution to a covered person to enable campaign media spending, but Organization B had transferred $5,000 to Organization A to enable Organization A’s in-kind contribution,Organization A must inform the covered person that half the in-kind contribution is attributable to $5,000 in “original monies” from Organization B.
Compliance Issues. In practice it will often be difficult for a donor to assess whether it, in fact, received “original monies” that must be reported. Consider these examples:
A nonprofit chamber of commerce makes a $10,000 contribution to a statewide ballot measure committee (a covered person). The chamber accepts yearly dues of $5,000 from each of its 25 member businesses ($125,000 in total). In addition, the chamber raises another $75,000 from a mix of members (10) and non-members (5) who gave between $2,500 and $7,500 each during charity dinners, golf tournaments, and other fundraising events. (At each fundraising event, the donor receives something in return like a meal, round of golf, or silent auction item.) Although the members consented for their monies to be used for campaign media spending when they signed up as members, the chamber did not necessarily plan to make a ballot measure contribution this year. The members merely had a generalized understanding that the chamber reserves the right to occasionally engage in political spending, as deemed necessary by the executive board.
The membership dues constitute “business income” and therefore constitute “original monies,” but do the fundraisers constitute “commercial transactions in the ordinary course of the person’s regular trade” and thus also represent “original monies”?
A nonprofit chamber of commerce makes a $10,000 contribution to a statewide ballot measure committee (a covered person). The chamber accepts yearly dues of $10,000 from 5 members, $25,000 grants from four members, and a $50,000 grant from another member. Assume the chamber’s total $200,000 income constitutes “traceable monies.”How does the chamber allocate that money to the $10,000 contribution to the ballot measure committee?
- Does the chamber determine each donor’s pro rata share of the $200,000 in total income, then allocate each donor’s individual percentage share to the $10,000 contribution?
- Does the chamber simply make a unilateral decision as to which prior donor(s) will be deemed to comprise the $10,000 contribution, without seeking further donor consent?
Recently the Campaign Legal Center gave a presentation to the Clean Elections Commission, where this subject was addressed. (The Commission appeared to treat the CLC speakers as quasi-experts on the new law because CLC was “deeply involved in the new Act.”) CLC essentially adopted the view expressed in option b): in cases where there is no clear correlation between the original monies and the ultimate contribution made to the covered person, the donor is entitled to decide how the original monies will be attributed. CLC explained:
“[The Act] does give donors quite a bit of flexibility because the donor only has to tell the covered person the original source of the money being contributed, not all of the money in the donor’s possession. . . . Let’s say you’re an interest group and you’ve collected $100,000 in four $25,000 donations. . . . And you want to pass on $25,000 to a SuperPAC that.s going to spend it on elections. The SuperPAC, when they get your $25,000 donation is going to say, where did it come from? . . . [T]hat interest group gets to decide, okay I have $100,000, whose money am I passing on? . . . And the interest group might say [Person A] believes in this organization that I’m giving the money to, I’m going to tag the $25,000 that I got from him as the original source of the contribution being donated to the SuperPAC. So that gives the donor a lot of flexibility . . . . If [the interest group] is only giving away a subset of [its] money, say the first $25,000, it seems fair that they should get to choose among the funds that they have who is most appropriately tagged as the original source of that money[.]”
The CLC’s interpretation will carry no legal weight in the event of litigation. However, since the Clean Elections Commission will develop interpretive regulations in 2023, it important to understand the position of interest groups that seem to have the Commission’s ear.
A 501(c)(4) social welfare organization has an affiliated political action committee registered with the Arizona Secretary of State’s office. The (c)(4) normally receives donations from individuals, businesses, and other nonprofit organizations. Donors to the (c)(4) are notified about the possibility of disclosure under the VRTK Act, but none of the donors have affirmatively consented for their monies to be used for political purposes. The (c)(4) transfers $75,000 to the political action committee in 2023, and by 2024, the PAC has received an additional $225,000 from individuals. The PAC conducts $75,000 in independent expenditures on various statewide races in 2024.
- Can the PAC attribute the entire $75,000 to the individual donors, and thus not report any “original monies” attributed to the (c)(4) even though the (c)(4) provided its “original monies” information to the PAC?
- What if the (c)(4) refuses to provide any “original monies” information to the PAC? The Act provides that “a covered person may rely on the information it received” from its donor “unless the covered person knows or has reason to know that the information relied on is false or unreliable.” Assume the PAC makes several follow-up written requests for “original monies” information to no avail. Does this lack of information, by definition, allow the PAC to attribute the entire $75,000 to the individual donors?
Same scenario as #3, except the PAC receives $4,000 from the (c)(4) in November 2022 (before the Act became law) and $4,000 in January 2023 (after the Act became law). The PAC spends $30,000 in local ballot measure expenditures and qualifies as a “covered person.” The PAC requests “original monies” information from the (c)(4).
As outlined below, the VRTK Act requires a donor that contributes more than $5,000 to a covered person to inform the covered person of the identity of each other person that contributed over $2,500 in original monies being transferred. Can the (c)(4) decline to provide the original monies information, based on the theory that only monies donated to the PAC after the Act’s effective date count towards the $5,000 disclosure threshold for reporting?
* * *
These allocation issues merit careful lawyering and, potentially, some explanatory regulations from the Clean Elections Commission. Based on historical experience, the Commission does not expect to have rules in place until after September 2023.
Part III: Fundraising Disclosures to Prospective Donors
The VRTK Act requires new disclosures be made in fundraising solicitations, in addition to the those already expected under Arizona law. Before a covered person may use any donor’s money for campaign media spending, a donor must be:
- notified in writing that the donor’s money may be used for campaign media spending; and
- given an opportunity to opt out of having their money used/transferred for campaign media spending.
The notice must inform donors that:
- their monies may be used for campaign media spending;
- information about donors may have to be reported to the appropriate government authority for public disclosure; and
- they can opt out of having their monies used or transferred for campaign media spending by notifying the covered person in writing within 21 days after receiving the notice.
There is no guidance explaining how to provide this notice to donors. (The Citizens Clean Elections Commission is authorized to promulgate regulations to ensure the notice is clearly visible and that it “accomplishes the purposes of this section,” but it may be some time before the Commission finalizes any rulemaking.) One may assume the VRTK notice may be integrated into the fundraising disclaimer language normally utilized under existing campaign finance law.
Note, the Act does not require donors to make this same notification/disclosure to their own prior donors. This omission makes the Act easier to comply with, but seems to undermine the Act’s purpose of identifying and reporting all prior transfers/contributions among intermediaries.
Use of Donor Monies for Campaign Media Spending
The VRTK Act provides that a covered person may not use any donorâs monies to conduct campaign media advertising unless the donor provides written consent to do so, or the passage of 21 days from the date of receiving the notice described above, whichever is earlier.
The VRTK Act implies that the donor must undertake some affirmative act to indicate consent. It may be tempting to word the fundraising solicitation disclaimer to infer consent (for example: “by making this contribution, you are deemed to consent in writing for [covered person] to use your donation for campaign media spending”), but this approach is problematic. At minimum, a covered person should utilize a check box on a fundraising contribution form for the purpose of securing written donor consent.
Regardless of whether a covered person relies on written consent or expiration of the 21-day period, they must develop an internal record-keeping system to: (1) track which funds are eligible for campaign media spending; and (2) preserve records showing which donors provided the requisite consent for those funds to be utilized.
Part IV: Filing Disclosure Reports
The VRTK Act requires a new disclosure report to be electronically filed with the Arizona Secretary of State, regardless of whether the covered person operates at the statewide or local level.
Content of Disclosure Reports. The report focuses on disclosure of “traceable monies,” which are the subset of contributions made to a covered person that are eligible to be used on campaign media spending.
The disclosure report must include the following information:
- The identity of any entity established, financed, maintained, or controlled by the covered person, including the nature of that relationship.
- Commentary: Presumably such disclosure will disincentivize covered persons from routing money through affiliated organizations for the purpose of evading the financial thresholds that trigger reporting.
- The Act expressly provides that “the amount of a person’s campaign media spending includes campaign media spending made by entities established, financed, maintained or controlled by that person.”
- The identity of the covered person’s custodian of “transfer records.”
- The identity of at least one individual who controls (directly or indirectly) how “traceable monies” are spent by the covered person.
- Commentary: Oftentimes a political consultant controls how political monies are spent behind the scenes, not the official chairman or treasurer of the organization.
- The total amount of “traceable monies” owned/controlled by the covered person on the date of the report.
- The identity of each donor of original monies who contributed over $5,000 of “traceable monies” (or in-kind contributions valued over $5,000) for campaign media spending to the covered person, along with date/amount of each donor’s contributions.
- The identity of each person who acted as an intermediary and that transferred (in whole or in part) traceable monies over $5,000 from original sources to the covered person, including the date, amount, and source (original and intermediate) of the transferred monies.
- Commentary: This information is drawn from the “transfer records” provided to the covered person pursuant to the VRTK Act. For example, if Organization A contributes $10,000 to a covered person,and that contribution originated from a prior transfer from Organization B, the covered person must report $10,000 in “traceable monies” from Organization A acting as an intermediary.
- The identity of each person that received disbursements totaling at least $10,000 of “traceable monies” from the covered person, including the date/purpose of each disbursement and the candidate (including office sought) or ballot measure supported/opposed/referenced in any public communications paid for (in whole or in part) with those disbursed monies.
- The identity of any person whose total contributions of “traceable monies” to the covered person constituted more than half of the covered person’s “traceable monies.”
Timing of Filing Disclosure Reports. The disclosure report must be filed with the Secretary of State within five days of reaching the $50,000 (statewide) or $25,000 (local) threshold in total campaign media spending.
The VRTK Act dispenses with this five-day deadline for PACs or political parties that file regular quarterly campaign finance reports, provided that the information required to be reported under the VRTK Act is included in those quarterly reports. Filing officers’ existing campaign finance report formats will need to be modified to meet these new VRTK requirements accordingly.
Regardless of which filing deadline the covered person is obligated to follow, the covered person must file the report with the Secretary of State within three days if the person reaches the requisite financial spending threshold less than 20 days before an election.
Miscellaneous Reporting Requirements. A covered person should keep the following miscellaneous VRTK Act reporting requirements in mind:
- A covered person must file a supplemental report with the Secretary of State each time it spends monies (or accepts in-kind contributions) totaling an additional $25,000 (statewide) or $15,000 (local) or more in campaign media spending, within three days of reaching that threshold.
- Any changes to information found in a covered person’s prior reports must be reported to the Secretary of State within 20 days.
Part V: Advertising Disclaimers
Political campaign advertising generally requires a disclaimer to be included with the advertising. The disclaimer must be written, orally spoken, or both,depending on the circumstances. A disclaimer is intended to provide voters with certain information about the source of the campaign advertising, such as who paid for the advertisement.
The VRTK Act requires an advertising disclaimer to also identify the top three financial donors to the covered person, regardless of whether those donors are individuals, PACs, or businesses. The potential top three donors include not only the actual contributors to the covered person, but also the original sources of those contributions. However, the disclaimer need not include the amount, percentage, or date of those direct or indirect contributions.
An open question is whether the “top three donors” requirement applies to donors who opted out of campaign media spending. The requirement would not have been applicable had the statute required disclosure of “the names of the top three donors who . . . made the three largest contributions of traceable monies during the election cycle to the covered person.” “Traceable monies” are the eligible funds to be used for campaign media spending, comprises of funds from donors who opted in for such spending. But the statute applies the disclaimer requirement to donors of “original monies,” which very well could include donors who opted out of campaign media spending. For what it’s worth, the Clean Elections Commission is arguing in pending litigation (CV2022-016564) that it would be illogical to apply the “top three donor” requirement to donors who opted out and is telegraphing that a future rulemaking will address this issue.
The “top three donor” requirement only applies once a political actor becomes a covered person. A person may omit this disclaimer from any preliminary advertising before the $25,000/$15,000 threshold is reached, but if a person will almost certainly reach that threshold in short order, the person should consider including this advertising disclaimer from the beginning.
 See A.R.S. § 16-901(29) (defining what information is necessary to “identify” a contributor) and § 16-926(B)(2)(a)(i)-(ii) (requiring identification of in-state contributors with over $100 in aggregate contributions, along with all out-of-state contributors regardless of contribution amount).
 A.R.S. § 16-971(7)(a). The Clean Elections Commission may adjust these thresholds for inflation. A.R.S. § 16-974(F).
 A.R.S. § 16-971(7)(b)(i), (iii).
 A.R.S. § 16-971(7)(b)(ii).
 A.R.S. § 16-971(1)(a).
 A.R.S. § 16-971(1)(b).
 A.R.S. § 16-971(7)(b)(iv).
 A.R.S. § 16-971(2).
 A “public communication” is a paid communication to the public by means of broadcast, cable, satellite, internet or other digital method, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising, mass mailing, phone bank, or other form of general public political advertising. A.R.S. § 16-971(17)(a).
 See A.R.S. § 16-901.01(A)(1) (express advocacy means “[c]onveying a communication containing a phrase such as”vote for,” . . . “support,” . . . “cast your ballot for,” . . . or a campaign slogan or words that in context can have no reasonable meaning other than to advocate the election or defeat of one or more clearly identified candidates”); see also A.R.S. § 16-901(4) (incorporating the “express advocacy” definition in the context of ballot measure spending).
 A.R.S. § 16-972(D).
 A.R.S. § 16-972(D) (emphasis added).
 A.R.S. § 16-972(D).
 While A.R.S. § 16-972(D) arguably imposes a duty on the $5,000+ donor to inform a covered person about the sources of “original monies,” A.R.S. § 16-972(A) only requires a covered person to preserve records of that information if the donation is ultimately used for “campaign media spending.”
 A.R.S. § 16-972(A). A “transfer record” is defined as “a written record of the identity of each person that . . . contributed or transferred more than $2,500 of original monies used for campaign media spending, the amount of each contribution or transfer and the person to whom the monies were transferred.” A.R.S. § 16-971(19).
 A.R.S. § 16-972(E).
 A.R.S. § 16-971(1)(b), (12).
 A.R.S. § 16-971(1)(a), (12).
 A.R.S. § 16-973(D).
 A.R.S. § 16-973(A)(6).
 For example, any document, website, or other communication that solicits contributions must contain a written disclaimer explaining that contributions are not tax deductible. This disclaimer also typically represents an opportunity to prospectively educate donors about certain legal requirements, such as contribution limits, permissible donors, and obligation to collect and report identifying information.
 A.R.S. § 16-972(B).
 A.R.S. § 16-972(B)(1)-(2).
 A.R.S. § 16-972(B)(2).
 “Traceable monies” are defined as “monies that have been given, loaned or promised to be given . . . and for which no donor has opted out of their use or transfer for campaign media spending.” A.R.S. § 16-971(18).
 A.R.S. § 16-973(A)(2).
 A.R.S. § 16-971(7)(a).
 A.R.S. § 16-973(A)(3).
 A.R.S. § 16-973(A)(4).
 A.R.S. § 16-973(A)(5).
 A.R.S. § 16-973(A)(6).
 A.R.S. § 16-973(A)(7).
 This example assumes the monies are “traceable monies,” and hence reportable, because neither Organization A nor Organization B opted out of their contributions being used for campaign media spending.
 A.R.S. § 16-973(A)(8).
 A.R.S. § 16-973(A)(9).
 A.R.S. § 16-973(A).
 A.R.S. § 16-973(I). The VRTK Act states that such periodic campaign finance reports must at least include the identities of the original sources of traceable monies over $5,000, along with any intermediaries that transferred funds in that amount. Id.
 A.R.S. § 16-973(J).
 A.R.S. § 16-973(B).
 A.R.S. § 16-973(C). Information that must be updated consists of: 1) the identity of the person who owns/controls the covered person’s traceable monies; 2) the identity of the entity established/controlled by person who owns/controls the covered person’s traceable monies; 3) the covered person’s custodian of transfer records; and 4) the individual who controls how the covered person’s “traceable monies” are spent.
 A.R.S. § 16-925(A).
 A.R.S. § 16-974(C) (“Public communications by covered persons shall state, at a minimum, the names of the top three donors who directly or indirectly made the three largest contributions of original monies during the election cycle to the covered person.”). In-kind contributions likely trigger the requirement to disclose âthe top three donors who directly or indirectly made the three largest contributions of original monies . . . to the covered person.” See A.R.S. § 16-973(A)(6) (characterizing âoriginal moniesâ as both “traceable monies” and “in-kind contributions” subject to disclosure).
 A.R.S. § 16-971(18)(a).
 See A.R.S. § 16-974(C) (applying disclaimer requirement to “public communications” by “covered persons”); see also A.R.S. Â§ 16-971(7)(a) (defining “covered person”) and A.R.S. § 16-971(17) (defining “public communication”).