politics_phone1.jpg

The “No Taxpayer Subsidies for Political Campaigns Act,” which would ask voters to ban the spending of public money on political campaigns, is close to clearing the Senate floor. It’s a back-door way of killing Clean Elections by blocking the distribution of dollars to candidates and sweeping the funds back into the general fund.

Lauren Gambino with Cronkite News Service has more details at the East Valley Trib, including this argument from Clean Election’s Todd Lang:

Lang argued against the bill before the Senate Judiciary Committee, pointing out that seven of the eight committee members had used Clean Elections money to fund their campaigns at some point during their careers.

“The door was opened for you through Clean Elections. Don’t close the door for others,” Lang said in his testimony. “Allow other folks to run, allow other folks to get their ideas out there into the marketplace of ideas and allow other folks to join the Legislature.”

Todd, you probably shouldn’t take credit for creating the current crop of clowns masquerading as lawmakers. It’s Exhibit A of why we think Clean Elections has been an utter disaster for the state.

This article appears in Feb 24 – Mar 2, 2011.

Getting hassled by The Man Mild-mannered reporter

3 replies on “Killing Clean Elections: “No Taxpayer Subsidies for Political Campaigns Act” Advances”

  1. Back door my foot. It’s as direct as this legislature can get at this time. And it’s just one more example of the extremist agenda this unbalanced crew and its attempts to undermine government of the people, by the people and for the people.

  2. Without Clean Elections financing, we’d still have publicly-funded campaign financing indirectly. It’s just laundered though tax breaks, subsidies and other tax-backed favors that get partially paid back as campaign contributions. Clean Elections financing just cuts out the corporate middlemen who gain politically and monetarily from their involvement in this financing loop.

  3. Good riddance. It was a great idea, but it contributed to the election of the most extreme state legislature in the country, including Russell Pearce. At least business interests display some common sense in who they fund. Who knew we would actually need them?

Comments are closed.