Tucson Weekly: Clean Breakdown (January 7

Can Arizona's New Public Funding Scheme For Political Campaigns Succeed?
By Emil Franzi
ARMED WITH MORE than $800,000 in mostly out-of-state money and wrapped in the rhetoric of "clean elections," a handful of policy wonks and fringe-group reformers last November narrowly secured passage of Proposition 200, an initiative measure that sets up public funding for candidates for state offices.
Currents But the reform process is so convoluted that even the zealots who drafted it aren't completely sure how it will work. Nor are those in charge of setting up the process. One thing is crystal clear, however: Millions of dollars in state tax revenues will be used to fund the new system.
Arbitrary spending amounts, with a future inflation factor, have been set in concrete. A state legislative race is limited to $25,000; a candidate for governor can spend $1 million; attorney general and secretary of state candidates are limited to $200,000; treasurer and superintendent of public instruction hopefuls are limited to $100,000; and mine inspector candidates get to spend $50,000.
Forty percent of those totals may be spent in a primary--except for some state legislative districts which might be deemed "non-competitive" by the commission set up to monitor this Big-Brother scheme. The commission could then allocate more money to the primary. Proponents say they based these totals on amounts spent during previous elections, although the exact formula escaped them. Suffice that it was based on precedent and not principle.
Unlike the system used by the City of Tucson, which provides a dollar-for-dollar match for money raised by candidates, the new state program qualifies participants for all of the allowable total once they've gathered a set number of $5 contributions from registered voters, ranging from 4,000 contributions for gubernatorial candidates to 200 contributions for legislative candidates (from within the district they seek to serve).
Collecting the requisite contributions entitles each candidate to full funding--or more, if the candidate's non-participating opponent exceeds these limits, or if an independent committee appears on behalf of, or in opposition to, anybody in the race. The commission may then fund the participating candidate up to three times the maximum to match opposition spending.
Before the qualifying period, which ranges from January 1 of the election year to the date the candidates actually file for the office, candidates may raise limited funds. Candidates may spend up to $500 of their own money, except for gubernatorial candidates, who may pop for $1,000 out of their own pockets.
When it comes to collecting the $5 contributions, no professional money-grubbers are allowed; and contributors may not be given "anything of value" for handing over their five bucks.
Proponents of the new law are hoping it will give rise to more contested races. This is much more likely to occur in wealthy Republican districts, which have a much higher percentage of registered voters. Plus, it's easier to get people with money to give you $5. Poorer Democratic districts with far fewer eligible contributors will find it more difficult. Needless to say, this provision of the law is just one of many that could face constitutional challenge.
MONEY TO FUND the campaigns and the commission will come from three primary sources: a fee on lobbyists, a surcharge on criminal and civil fines, and voluntary contributions. The first is really just symbolic--$100 each from those registered to lobby on behalf of a "for-profit" group. Most of the 5,000 or so lobbyists in Arizona don't fall into this category, so this one will have trouble breaking a six-digit annual figure.
Meanwhile, the voluntary $5 contributions are based on a provision in the text of the measure that sets up a check-off block on individual state tax returns allowing a contribution in the form of a tax credit to the fund. The total amount that will be generated through this program is unknown, but it certainly will reduce funds available to state government for roads, schools and the like.
The third method is much easier to pin down. It calls for a 10 percent surcharge on all criminal and civil fines and forfeitures. The state Supreme Court reckons fines and forfeitures to state courts total about $6 million annually, which means the surcharge will put $800,000 in the pot. The big-ticket item, the traffic and parking fines collected by JP and municipal courts, exceeds $30 million a year and will place at least $3 million in the fund.
There's a fourth source: fines and penalties for candidates and campaign committees who fail to comply with regulations that have yet to be set by a commission that has yet to be appointed.
There are caps on how much the commission can spend. No more than 10 percent can be spent on administration, and another 10 percent on "education." Which means the commission will have at least a half million a year to hire staff, and feed an ongoing campaign budget of its own larger than any of the candidates it regulates. (And you thought you were getting rid of unwanted propaganda.)
The final cap prohibits the program from spending more than $5 for each individual tax return filed in Arizona the previous year. Last year, about 1.9 million taxpapers filed, which would bring the limit to somewhere in the neighborhood of $10 million.
BESIDES ENFORCING financial-reporting procedures, the five-member commission will have power over participating political campaigns. It can set up mandatory debates and compel the appearance of participating candidates. If non-participating candidates decide not to attend, then what? And will a note from your doctor save you from being fined if you're a participating candidate who doesn't show?
This is just one example of the outer-space mindset behind Prop 200. Forums and debates are poorly attended because the media no longer cover them. (Perhaps the commission will run ads analyzing the results.) But now we know why the League of Women Voters supported Prop 200: They'll be able to supply more dippy moderators to pitch softball questions and keep the audiences from asking anything meaningful.
But the reeking elitism really comes forward in the selection process for the commission. Those interested--and at $200 a day plus per diem, this is one helluva government job--must apply to the State Commission on Appellate Courts, whose commissioners, like all others in Arizona, serve for free. That Commission will then nominate five separate slates of three people each and forward those slates in succession to the Governor (Republican Jane Hull), the highest-ranking official of another party (Attorney General Janet Napolitano), the Secretary of State (Republican Betsey Bayless), the senior Justice of the Supreme Court (Democrat Stanley Feldman) and the State Treasurer (Republican Carol Springer).
The officials making the appointments must choose from the slate presented and cumulatively cannot choose more than two members from the same party. So when it gets to Springer and the others have each picked two Democrats and two Republicans and there's nothing else on her slate, then what? That's just one more small unresolved detail.
Eligibility for the commission is a bigger problem. In their quest for "purity," the framers have disqualified anyone who has done anything in partisan politics for the past five years, including those who've run for precinct committeeman. They've also disqualified anyone who has held "public office, elected or appointed," in the last five years. Which means anybody who has sat on another commission, including the one making the appointments.
This provision would also disqualify those who serve or have served in a variety of government positions, including deputy county officials and many who perform clerical duties. Whether it also would exclude other government workers, like cops and teachers, is another unresolved matter which could result in a constitutional challenge.
The criteria for making nominations to the commission are vague. While judicial nominations are subjective and merit is often in the eyes of the beholder, there are some objective criteria and qualifications based on experience. In the case of the Clean Government Commission, experience in government or politics is a disqualifying factor. It's like disqualifying lawyers and even recent litigants from being judges. Court personnel tell us they'll probably have to rely on education and job experience as criteria, meaning lawyers are good, while cab drivers are not. Elitism in the defense of virtue...
According to Dennis Burke of Common Cause, the commission should be made up of people who have a history of civic involvement, but apparently not anyone who has recently been directly involved in government. His ideal role model are people who are active in their community in other ways, "like being on the board of United Way."
This typifies the myopia in those who drew this sucker up. United Way is as political as anything else, and its board members are generally corporate types who work for the same special interests the Clean Government folks are concerned about. What makes them more virtuous than somebody who served on a library board?
WHAT'S CLEAR IS that by 2000 the Clean Government Commission will have collected a minimum of about $10 million--not counting whatever is finally resolved on tax credits--for an election that consists of the state Legislature and one Corporation Commission seat. After $2 million is spent on administration and voter "education," that leaves enough money to fund several hundred legislative campaigns and a bunch of Corporation Commission candidates.
Which isn't going to happen. Even if the proponents' desire to increase the total number of candidacies occurs--a doubtful possibility at best--there's no way the Clean Government Initiative will produce enough candidates to spend all this money. Most candidates will find it easier to raise their money the old-fashioned way.
The result will be a massive surplus, amounting to a minimum of $12-$15 million, carried over to 2002--most of which probably won't be used either. At which point the Commission will be charged with the responsibility of handing over the surplus funds to the state treasury. Which is probably the most intelligent provision to be found in Proposition 200.
The measure is currently on hold at both the Arizona Court of Appeals and the State Department of Revenue, awaiting routine Justice Department clearance under the Federal Voting Rights Act. This breathing spell gives state agencies more time to figure out the mushy details. The Appellate Court is preparing application forms for Commission membership, which will be ready soon.
Go ahead and apply. It's a better paying job than most of the elected offices in Arizona. Knowledge and experience are not only unnecessary, but disqualifying factors.

Home | Currents | City Week | Music | Review | Books | Cinema | Back Page | Archives