Future of Arizona's "Clean Elections" system cloudy - News Feed

Supporters of public financing of political campaigns were heartened when Maine voters passed a 1996 "Clean Elections" referendum. But they maybe feeling dismay about a similar "clean" system in Arizona, if a state court's ruling against major portions of it is upheld.

In 1998, Arizona became the fourth state to institute a form of optional public financing, when voters approved Proposition 200 with 51 percent of the vote. The ratified "Citizens Clean Elections Act" created a state commission that collected money for candidates who relied mostly on public money.

Challenges to public financing systems in other states proved unsuccessful, but a quirk in Arizona's law provided a new opening to opponents. Around 70 percent of the Clean Elections fund came from surcharges on traffic tickets and criminal fines. In 1999, the libertarian Institute for Justice filed suit on behalf of Arizona state Rep. Steve May (R), contending civil fines cannot lawfully be used to pay for political campaigns. Their efforts bore fruit on June 20, when the state Court of Appeals ruled 3-0 that using fines to pay for public campaigns was unconstitutional. Arizona's Supreme Court intervened to allow 2002 candidates to use their public funding, but neither side is resting.

"The money goes to a fund that is optional and will turn away no candidate," said Arizona Assistant Attorney General Todd Lang, who argued the case for the state.

"In cases where speech is really compelled, people are paying to the people who speak -- not every candidate," Lang said.

Institute for Justice Executive Director Tom Liddy disagrees, and as both sides prepare to wait for the verdict, he admitted that his firm and other free speech groups are "watching the other states very closely."

Organizers with the self- proclaimed election reform groups like Common Cause said the same thing in 1996. The ballot success of Maine's law prompted public financing to test the strength of their idea nationwide. But the setbacks encountered in Arizona suggest the idea may only have legs in certain states.

Like the Arizona system, Maine's "clean elections" fund uses general revenue, in the form of .03 percent of the state's annual budget. But apart from an unsuccessful 1998 ACLU suit, no serious opposition effort has taken off.

"Maine is a populist state, and we like participatory democracy," said Amy Fried, an associate professor of political science at the University of Maine.

Maine's "clean elections" budget costs taxpayers an average of $.68 cents annually. That is a price Maine voters are willing to pay, Fried said.

"The issues our voters have with electoral politics in general have to do with corruption," she said. "The ['clean elections'] law is seen as an antidote to corruption."

Not so in Arizona. As the legal battle raged, interest groups demanded that the Arizona Clean Elections Institute, which advocates for public financing of campaigns, release its donor list and alerted the press when attorney general and gubernatorial candidate Janet Napolitano (D) was revealed as a benefactor.

Fallout from theJune 20 decision led some Arizona candidates to consider taking private money. In Maine, an increasing number of candidates trumpet their "clean" status in ads and direct mail.

"More and more people are entering the political process because money is not an issue," said Doug Clopp, a coordinator of Maine Citizens for Clean Elections.

Clopp relishes the news that 61 percent of Maine's elected officials were elected under the law his group helped to institute. Arizona's problems should have been expected, he said.

"It's a bad idea to fund public elections with fines," he said. "That makes the process look penal. It takes money from people who will naturally oppose these candidates."

Vermont only allows the public finance option for statewide candidates, while the Massachusetts Legislature tried to use its power to roll back the referendum passed in 1998.

Lawyers from both Arizona and the Institute for Justice have suggested they will file an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court if the verdict does not go their way.

COPYRIGHT 2002 Campaigns & Elections, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2002 Gale Group