Clean Elections Funding Nearing the End?

The Arizona Guardian recently answered a question I have been wondering about for a few months: state politicians are swearing off the use of public campaigns in droves as a federal judge is about to permanently remove a key provision of the system and make private alternatives more attractive.

The Citizens Clean Elections Act was originally passed as an voter initiatve in 1998 in reaction to claims that politicians were too beholden to special interest money.  Basically, the law created a state agency to hand out campaign money raised from surcharges on traffic tickets and criminal fines. In return, participating candidates must promise to abide by strict spending limits and raise only a small amount of money privately, primarily through individual $5 donations. While participation is technically voluntary, several provisions of the law are designed to compel candidates for statewide and legislative offices to take the public campaign funding.

The most significant provision is the use of matching funds. Clean Elections candidates can receive additional state money above the official limit if a privately funded opponent spends above that limit, or if an outside group campaigns against the Clean Elections candidate. The result is every time a privately funded candidate raises a dollar, he or she automatically raises a dollar for publicly funded opponents as well. So it’s generally easier to just take the state money unless a privately funded candidate can raise huge amounts of campaign funds.

Various candidates have found ways to manipulate those matching funds. In 2004, three so-called Libertarian candidates for the Legislature took advantage of the system to use more than $100,000 in state money for a months-long party. Last year, Sam George was a Democrat running for the Arizona Corporation Commission. George pumped in more than $248,000 of personal and private funds during the primary, which automatically provided matching funds to two other Democrats with whom he was running as team. The result was the three had $750,000 in combined funds for their coordinated campaign that carried over into the general election (Ironically, George was narrowly defeated while his two partners were elected in November).

George’s shenanigans helped to fuel a new federal lawsuit against the whole matching funds scheme from several candidates represented by the legal team at the Goldwater Institute. While the case is far from over, there are strong indications that U.S. District Judge Rosyln Silver will outlaw matching funds as a violation the U.S. Constitution. That outcome would mean any future Clean Elections candidate would stuck with lowest spending limit, and privately funded opponents would have a much easier time of outspending them by wide margins.

Todd Lang, executive director of the Citizens Clean Elections Commission, did his best to sound optimistic about the future of public campaign funding in a column published by the Arizona Guardian (sorry, the site is subscription only). But the Guardian’s reporters found that incumbent politicians from both major parties are preparing for private fundraising efforts not seen in at least eight years.

For 2010, I would expect most incumbents to move to private fundraising because it’s easier for them to tap lobbyists and business interests, while many challengers will try to use public funds to avoid that challenge and focus on talking to voters. In most cases, those challengers are going to find state funding is far too meager to compete without access to matching funds.

For future election cycles, it’s likely Clean Elections participation would dwindle to a handful of candidates. Opponents of public campaign funding will finally get their desired result after a decade of trying to repeal or overturn the state law.

(Source: East Valley Tribune)