The Arizona Clean Elections Law is neither clean nor fair. It is just one more example of how the best of intentions in law making often end up with unforeseen consequences.
When voters passed the Clean Elections initiative in 1998 most of the general public was unaware of what they were passing. Since the initiative was called “Arizona Clean Elections,” most people only knew that they would like to have fair elections that weren’t overly influenced by “big money” donations and that would give candidates a “level playing field” when it came to campaign donations and spending. Most did not know that it appropriated state funds to go directly to political candidates, and that a more honest name for the initiative would be “Arizona Financing of Candidates from State Funds” initiative. Currently, at a time when we can’t balance the budget, 15 million dollars are appropriated for this purpose.
The funding for this comes from various state sources. Some of the money comes from the voluntary check-off donations on state income tax forms, and some comes from the required $5 donations raised by the candidates, though these are a relatively small portion of their funding. A larger portion comes from surcharges on court fines. The remainder comes from the State General Fund, which comes primarily from various state taxes. So with the exception of the tax form donations, it is funded with money appropriated from the public through fees and taxes.
It gives a powerful advantage to “Clean Elections” candidates over those who wish to run a traditional campaign without public money. Once a state legislative candidate is qualified for clean elections funding, they receive a check from the state for $12,000 to be used for their campaign. If one candidate is running a non-state funded campaign against two other candidates he or she is allowed to raise $12,000 through their own fundraising efforts. Thereafter for every dollar raised by the non-state funded candidate, each of his opponents receive one dollar. So the traditional candidate must spend time fundraising, while the state-subsidized candidates are getting a free ride. Worse is that the distribution of these public funds to government-created “political parasites” is based on the gross receipts of donations. So if a traditional candidate puts on a fund raising event that includes entertainment and dinner which costs $5,000 dollars, and has a “gate” of $10,000 he has $5,000 to use in his campaign, but each of his opponents will get a “matching” check for $10,000. So they each make twice as much money from his fund raising as he does. That means he has raised $5,000 dollars of funds while the state awards his competition $20,000 to campaign against him. Sure sounds fair to me (not).
It also makes campaign finance a requirement to even run in an election; to qualify for “clean elections” a candidate must submit to the Secretary of State not only the required number of valid petition signatures, but must also raise 200 five dollar donations within a certain window of time. So if you had a candidate who wanted to campaign by personally meeting people using no donations or expenditures, that candidate would not qualify for clean elections certification. In this case, Clean Elections is having the opposite effect from what the voters would expect. Furthermore these donations can come from outside the candidate’s district, and they can come from non-citizen residents.
Some might ask, “Why would a candidate go to all the trouble of running a traditional campaign, when they could get a free ride from the Clean Elections?” There are good reasons, some, certainly not all, are listed below:
· The candidate entered the race too late to qualify for Clean Elections funding. This can happen if a candidate drops out for health reasons, death, call to active duty, etc., necessitating a replacement candidate.
· The Candidate runs as a write-in. They are already at a terrible disadvantage; Clean Elections almost guarantees that they never have a chance to win.
· Principal: The candidate is opposed to spending public money on personal campaigns of candidates. Most Constitution-based candidates and fiscal conservatives do not approve of this practice.
On March 9, 2009 the alternative newspaper (read liberal) Phoenix New Times, ran an exposé of clean elections spending of tax-payer money, in which candidates can legally purchase computers, office equipment, video equipment, other electronics, lavish dinners, and other extravagant spending, and keep the booty when the elections are over. All purchased with state money. It further mentions that the Arizona Clean Elections Commission is paying lobbyists to lobby our legislators to support their state-funded department, to give them more power and more state money. They also are paying for advertising campaigns to promote themselves to the public, with state funds.
Since Clean Elections went into effect over ten years ago, it has not reduced the number or the power of special interests and lobbyist. Look at our politicians during the last decade; nothing has changed, they are the same kind of politicians, some good, some bad, as always. All Clean Elections has given us is more state government, more lobbyists, increased costs, a new source for abusing tax money, a new kind of corruption, and a self-serving department that promotes itself with public dollars. As usual, creating more government is not a remedy, but an additional problem.
No comments:
Post a Comment