Clean Elections
Arizona voters in 1998 passed an initiative providing for optional public funding of election campaigns. The "clean elections" concept is designed to allow candidates to participate without having to take contributions from special interests. This public funding has been used in three Arizona elections and has resulted in several "clean" candidates being elected.
Special interests who are losing influence under the clean concept, especially the business community, sought to dismantle the Arizona law by a ballot initiative called "No Taxpayer Money for Politicians". That initiative was challenged in Court for violating the requirement of a single subject in proposed initiatives. The Arizona Supreme Court agreed the initiative not only would cut off candidate funding, but also would cut off funding for the clean election monitors, and therefore was in violation of the single subject rule and would not be allowed on the ballot.
The technical nature of the Court decision to disallow the initiative means it is likely to be re-written and submitted again. Those opposed to clean election laws have the money which they traditionally use to influence elections, and now they are putting that money into preventing clean election laws from coming into being in the first place or into overturning such laws if they do get passed. Campaign finance reforms should include limits on the amount that can be contributed to an initiative campaign.
Here is a background article on the Arizona law from Democracy Matters: http://www.democracymatters.org/ResearchCenter/Money/Arizona_Showdown.htm
Here is an article on the Court decision from Reclaim Democracy: http://reclaimdemocracy.org/articles_2004/initiative_arizona_publicfinance_struckdown_html.htm
Detailed information on the operation of the Arizona Clean Elections Law is at the Clean Elections Institute site at http://www.azclean.org/index.html
For a map of States which have a clean election law or a campaign underway to enact one, from Public Campaign, see http://www.publicampaign.org/states/index.htm
Special interests who are losing influence under the clean concept, especially the business community, sought to dismantle the Arizona law by a ballot initiative called "No Taxpayer Money for Politicians". That initiative was challenged in Court for violating the requirement of a single subject in proposed initiatives. The Arizona Supreme Court agreed the initiative not only would cut off candidate funding, but also would cut off funding for the clean election monitors, and therefore was in violation of the single subject rule and would not be allowed on the ballot.
The technical nature of the Court decision to disallow the initiative means it is likely to be re-written and submitted again. Those opposed to clean election laws have the money which they traditionally use to influence elections, and now they are putting that money into preventing clean election laws from coming into being in the first place or into overturning such laws if they do get passed. Campaign finance reforms should include limits on the amount that can be contributed to an initiative campaign.
Here is a background article on the Arizona law from Democracy Matters: http://www.democracymatters.org/ResearchCenter/Money/Arizona_Showdown.htm
Here is an article on the Court decision from Reclaim Democracy: http://reclaimdemocracy.org/articles_2004/initiative_arizona_publicfinance_struckdown_html.htm
Detailed information on the operation of the Arizona Clean Elections Law is at the Clean Elections Institute site at http://www.azclean.org/index.html
For a map of States which have a clean election law or a campaign underway to enact one, from Public Campaign, see http://www.publicampaign.org/states/index.htm
posted by Tom Blake | 11:36 AM
1 Comments:
John in Phoenix sent me some news articles about a Republican candidate for the Arizona legislature, a lawyer who after losing four times, signed on to the Cleans Elections program for a fifth run. Using the public money, he finally was elected. Problem is, the required audit by the Clean Elections commission showed the candidate violated the agreement not to spend extra money and in fact spent an extra 22%.
The voter approved law clearly says a Clean Elections funded candidate who overshoots his wad shall be removed from office. Several Republican members of the legislature have said he should be removed. But the overspender is now arguing that the Clean Election law provision for removal from office violates the Arizona State Constitution. If the courts ultimately agree the removal provision is unconstitutional, then the people of Arizona will have to amend their Constitution to put the necessary teeth back in the Clean Elections law.
Post a Comment
<< Home