An Amendment To The Arkansas Constitution Providing That A Governmental Body Shall Not Use State Or Local Funds To Enter Into A Contract With A Lobbyist For Lobbying Purposes.
Summary
HJR 1006 proposes a constitutional amendment to prohibit governmental bodies in Arkansas from using state or local funds to enter into contracts with lobbyists for the purpose of lobbying on the governmental body’s behalf. The measure applies broadly to state and local governmental entities, including offices, departments, boards, commissions, school districts, counties, municipalities, and similar political subdivisions.
The resolution also extends the prohibition to the use of public funds for membership dues paid to organizations that lobby on behalf of the governmental body or similar bodies, if those dues are used to support lobbying activity. At the same time, the proposal expressly allows a governmental body to employ individuals, including registered lobbyists, to lobby on its behalf, so long as they are employees rather than outside contractors paid with state or local funds for that purpose. The amendment would take effect on January 1, 2027, if approved by voters at the general election.
Impact
If adopted, the measure would amend the Arkansas Constitution and create a statewide restriction on how public funds may be used for lobbying services. It would affect state agencies, local governments, school districts, and other public bodies by barring contracts with outside lobbyists funded by state or local revenues, while preserving the ability to hire in-house staff who lobby as part of their employment. The amendment also defines key terms such as lobbyist, lobbying, governmental body, public servant, and state or local funds, which would guide enforcement and interpretation.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee discussion or votes in the provided materials, the measure appears to reflect a reform-oriented, anti-lobbying sentiment focused on limiting the use of taxpayer funds for outside advocacy. The proposal is framed as a government spending restriction rather than a broader ban on lobbying activity. No formal vote history or transcript evidence is available here to show support or opposition from specific legislators or stakeholders.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely to be whether public bodies should be allowed to spend taxpayer money on outside lobbyists at all, versus retaining flexibility to hire specialized advocacy services when pursuing state or local interests. Another possible issue is the distinction the amendment draws between outside contractors and employees: it prohibits contracts with lobbyists but explicitly allows governmental bodies to employ lobbyists directly, which may raise questions about practical enforcement and whether the rule meaningfully limits lobbying expenditures. The inclusion of membership dues for organizations that lobby could also be debated by local governments and public associations that rely on those memberships for representation.