Prop 200 gives voters a chance to establish publicly financed elections.
By Dave Devine
Is $5 a taxpayer worth it to change our shameful system of
campaign financing where 90 percent of the money now comes from
lobbyists or business interests? I think most people would say
so.
--Dennis Burke,
Arizona Director of Common Cause
Like most attempts to "reform" the political process,
this proposal creates more problems than it solves.
--Mike Hellon,
Chair, Arizona Republican Party
IF APPROVED, THE so-called Clean Elections Initiative would
make Arizona the third state in the country with a publicly financed
campaign program. Through a complex method of fundraising and
distribution, Proposition 200 would offer politicians a voluntary
alternative to the groveling and pandering they have to do today
to raise campaign cash.
Funding for the program would come from a $100 annual fee on
registered lobbyists of for-profit groups, a $5 contribution check-off
on state income tax returns, tax-credited donations, and a 10
percent surcharge on civil and criminal penalties. The money would
be administered by an appointed, five-member, multi-partisan Citizens
Clean Election Committee.
To qualify for free campaign funds, political candidates will
have to raise large numbers of $5 contributions from within the
areas they seek to serve. These numbers range from 200 contributions
for legislative candidates to 4,000 for gubernatorial hopefuls.
Once the contribution requirement has been met, candidates are
eligible to receive as much as $25,000 for legislative campaigns
to $950,000 for the governor's race. Candidate spending would
be limited to the public fund ceiling, except in some special
cases.
Feelings about this proposal are intense on both sides of the
issue. A representative of the Libertarian Party said, "Any
restrictions on an individual's right to do anything with their
own property, i.e. their money, is unconstitutional."
Tucsonan Mike Hellon believes passage of the proposition would
limit public office to the wealthy. In his opinion, the expenditure
limitations for statewide offices are too low to make participants
competitive.
Common Cause honcho Dennis Burke disagrees. "If a candidate
has something to say, the spending limits will be high enough,"
he says.
Josh Silver, campaign manager for Arizonans for Clean Elections,
which is pushing the initiative, says the limits were set by looking
at past campaign expenditures. He adds that the voluntary nature
of the program makes it constitutional.
Kaia Lenhart of the group says the goal of the proposition is
to level the playing field so more people can run for office.
Opponents of the measure believe it's inappropriate to use taxpayer
money to finance campaigns for elected office. Tax dollars for
existing programs, they say, will be lost because of the funding
mechanism. They also argue that a new bureaucracy will be created
to administer the program, and that meeting the $5 contribution
goals could be very difficult to accomplish.
If the City of Tucson's publicly financed campaign-fund matching
program is any example, this final concern is a valid one. Gathering
200 donations, even $5 ones, from people who live within a legislative
district could prove very tough. If it is, it might end up discouraging
candidates from participating in the Clean Elections program.
Silver sees it differently: "If candidates can't meet that
standard, they shouldn't run."
The effort to put this measure on the ballot, called grassroots
by its supporters, is actually very well financed. To date, $380,000
has been raised and mostly spent. Lenhart sidestepped the question
when asked how much the campaign hoped to spend, but insisted
it would certainly be less than $1 million.
Opponents of the measure can also be expected to have big bucks
to fight Proposition 200. Those who like the present system of
campaign financing, where many politicians are perceived to be
bought and paid for by lobbyists, will certainly see it as a wise
investment in their future.
|