DFA-MC
Democracy For America – Maricopa County

Conservative courts may soon invalidate the matching funds provision of Arizona’s Citizens Clean Elections Act.  Longtime foes of Clean Elections view this as their opportunity to end public campaign financing in Arizona and return to a time when big-money was the primary factor deciding who would represent our communities in legislative and statewide elective offices.  Senator Jonathon Paton, with backing from the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, is determined to kill Clean Elections through a repeal referendum on the 2010 ballot.  Concurrently, the national health care debate has heightened voter frustration with big-money influence on politicians.  Efforts to pass the Fair Elections Now Act—Clean Elections for federal races– have significant traction.  With the stakes so high we must protect Clean Elections in Arizona.

In anticipation of the loss of matching funds, a national team of experts working with AzAN has developed a “hybrid,” small-donor based public financing alternative that would allow us to preserve the intent and value of Clean Elections (CE) in a post matching-funds world.  This solution, summarized on page 3, is particularly attractive because it could greatly simplify the system and neutralize many concerns that have irritated opponents of CE.

Reminders of why we worked to pass Clean Elections:

• Long before the Clean Elections law was passed, years of political corruption scandals, including AzScam, prompted Arizona voters to place strict limits on campaign contributions (Prop 200, 1986).  These limits were adjusted further downward by a key element of the voter-protected Clean Elections Act in 1998.
• All candidates had to appeal to the same big-money special interests to finance their campaigns and these special interests expected a return on their investments
• To diminish the influence of big-money special interests; elected officials using the system would be more connected to and accountable to their voters, not to lobbyists and big-money special interests
• To increase competition and bring varying viewpoints into each race.
• To increase citizen participation in the political process
• To make it possible for citizens who are not connected to big-money to run viable campaigns

Benefits of Clean Elections:

• The people–not fat cats in smoke-filled rooms–can decide who runs and who is elected.
• Ordinary people run:  teachers, social workers, progressive activists and artists have been elected to public office.
• More competition and more points of view as fewer candidates run unopposed. (In 1998 24 senate candidates ran unopposed as compared with eight in 2008.)
• $5 qualifying contributions dramatically increased the economic, ethnic and geographic diversity of contributors (stakeholders) to candidate campaigns.  Prior to Clean Elections, most campaign contributions came from Paradise Valley, the Tucson foothills or out-of-state sources.  Now they come from every corner of the state.
• Even $5 contributions make voters feel more invested in elections and candidates.   Legislators report a significant increase in constituent calls after running Clean.
• Better voter education: The CE publicity pamphlet goes to every voting household introducing voters to all candidates and their views.  This leads to greater voter participation.  CE debates force candidates to go head-to-head on the issues before voters.
• Prior to Clean Elections, voter turnout was in a ten year decline.  Turnout has been rising steadily since enactment of Clean Elections.
• Year after year, 80 percent of voters report that Clean Elections is important to Arizona (CCEC annual survey.)
• High participation: most Corporation Commission candidates run Clean, along with nearly two-thirds of state House candidates and more than half of state Senate candidates.

Criticisms of Clean Elections don’t track with the facts

Clean Elections is not the cause of “extremist” candidates.

Frustrated pols and pundits are fond of pointing to Clean Elections as a primary cause of Arizona’s dysfunctional state government.  They claim the system has enabled the election of far right and far left legislators who are unwilling to compromise on policy matters.  Eliminating Clean Elections would not cure this problem.  Indeed far right candidates have ousted moderate Republicans during the past three elections, but not all of those races involved public financing. The argument negates other systemic and trend-related causes that have had a far greater impact on electing extremist candidates.

• Non-competitive districts and low turnout in primaries

Most of Arizona’s legislative districts are non-competitive.  Voter registration numbers favor one major party resulting in most races being decided in the primaries.  Primary voters tend to be passionate partisans more likely to elect ideologically pure candidates and rejecting moderates.  That said, moderates can win if they turnout their voters.

• Far right turn of the Republican Party at national and state levels

During the past ten years the Republican Party has shifted to the right both nationally and in the states, most of which do not have public campaign financing.  Extremists in Congress make headlines on a daily basis.  Leadership of the Arizona Republican Party has been taken over by far right ideologues.  Just as we see at the national level, moderates in Arizona’s Republican Party have been unable to wrest party leadership away from the far right.  Even privately funded challengers have managed to unseat moderate Republicans.

• Arizona has a long history of electing colorful candidates.

Russell Pearce, Barbara Blewster, Debra Brimhall, Jack Harper, Wes Marsh, Jeff Groscost, Karen Johnson, Jean McGrath and many more were all elected with private funds.  Clean Elections allows candidates to communicate their messages to voters, and sometimes voters make choices the establishment doesn’t like.  In a democracy, especially one with public financing, nothing prohibits moderate candidates from challenging extremists and taking their messages to voters.  Funding alone cannot win elections.  Candidates must also have strong campaigning skills and an ability to connect with voters.

It’s not “taxpayer money.”

Funding for Clean Elections campaigns comes primarily from a surcharge on civil and criminal penalties and fines.  The rest comes from voluntary tax credits and contributions.  When money in the fund exceeds projections for what campaigns will need, the extra dollars are donated to the general fund, thereby helping reduce the general fund’s deficit by $15 million a year or more.

Clean Candidates can run competitive campaigns in 2010.

Regardless of what the courts decide regarding matching funds, qualifying Clean Elections candidates will receive sufficient funds to run competitive campaigns.  In 2007 grants for statewide offices were increased significantly.  Those changes will go into effect for the first time in the 2010 election.

Reporting Requirements have been streamlined.

Amendments to the Citizens Clean Elections Act passed in 2007 significantly reduced reporting requirements for non-participating candidates.

Proposed Alternative to Clean Elections Matching Funds

(“Hybrid” Funding System)

• Eliminates “Triggered” Matching Funds. Non-participating candidates that raise more than their participating opponents’ initial Clean Elections grants, or benefit from independent expenditures, would no longer “trigger” matching funds for their participating opponents.  This would eliminate the issue currently pending in federal court.

• Participating candidates may raise more through small donations. Participating candidates who foresee the need for more funds could raise small donations ($100 or less) from individual in-state donors.  These donations qualify the candidate to receive additional Clean Elections funds matched at a ratio of $5 of public funds for each $1 raised.

• Maintains caps on participating candidates’ funds. The amount of additional public funding a candidate can receive would remain limited to the current system’s matching funds limit (two times the initial allocation).

• Bars lobbyists or their spouses from giving to participating candidates. Donations that qualify for public matching would be limited to $100 or less from Arizona residents and could not come from registered lobbyists or their spouses.  Lobbyists or spouses could not serve on participating candidates’ finance committees.

• Raises the bar for participating candidates. It would require candidates in competitive races to demonstrate continuing public support by showing the ability to raise additional private donations.

• Maintains qualifying process. Participating candidates would continue to collect qualifying contributions to be eligible for public funding and receive their base Clean Elections funding allocations exactly as under the current system.

• Simpler system eliminates some reporting requirements. It would remove the extra campaign finance reporting requirements now borne by nonparticipating candidates.

• Modeled on successful systems; basis for federal proposal. Systems that provide similar matching of public campaign funding based on private donations raised are already being used in several places such as New York City and Tucson municipal elections.  A similar system is the basis of the Fair Elections Act currently being proposed in Congress.

Advantages of Proposed Hybrid System

• Eliminates constitutional argument against “matching funds”.  There would be no “trigger” provisions; participating candidates’ funding would not be dependent on any action by their opponents.

• Eases workload on nonparticipating candidates by eliminating requirement to file extra campaign finance “trigger” reports.

• Requires participating candidates who desire more than the basic Clean Elections funding allocation to demonstrate “community support” through the raising of additional donations.

• Maintains the goal of eliminating “big money” influence in campaigns by restricting campaign donations to $100 per donor and not allowing donations from lobbyists.

• Eases administration of the Clean Elections system and would reduce the number of complaints and grievances.  The Citizens Clean Elections Commission would no longer have to track, identify, or quantify expenditures that would trigger matching funds for participating candidates.  Removes the possibility of errors in judgment calls concerning the intent of candidate or independent expenditure communications and the dollar amount of matching funds to be issued.

• Participating candidates can control both the amount and timing of public funds they receive.  Issuance of additional funding would be immediate upon reporting of small donor fundraising and will not be delayed by investigation or dispute of opponents activities which, in the past, have led to participating candidates not receiving funds in time to impact the election.

• The proposed system is “revenue neutral”.  The funds that participating candidates could receive to match small donations would be limited to the amount they can now receive to match opponents’ fundraising or independent expenditures.

Disadvantages of Proposed Hybrid System

• Allows additional limited private donations into “publicly financed” campaigns.

• Increases reporting requirements for participating candidates to report the additional donations in order to receive the matching funds.

Provided by the Arizona Advocacy Network