In 1998, Arizona voters passed Prop 200 also known as The Clean Elections Act. It established a five member commission that would make rules as to the providing of tax payer money to participating candidates. It reduced limits on contributions to non-participating candidates and private donations to participating candidates. It also administered a “matching funds” program by which a participating candidate would receive extra money to match any private donations to non-participating candidates over a certain amount.
In 2011, as a result of a suit filed by the Goldwater Institute, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the matching funds provision because it violated the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It noted that candidates would limit their own campaign activity and funding to avoid supporting their opponents. Individuals who would normally participate in the process by donating to the candidate of their choice realized that, due to the matching funds, that they could not effectively support their candidate.
Last year the Legacy Foundation Action Fund ran ads in several states criticizing the U.S. Conference of Mayors and its president. See the problem? Well, there was none, but since the president was Scott Smith of Mesa, Arizona, and a gubernatorial candidate, the Clean Elections Commission decided that the ads were a campaign donation and fined the group $95,000 for not reporting it to them.
The Secretary of State for Arizona, Michele Reagan, whose responsibility it is to administer elections and all laws pertaining to them, knew that the commission had no authority to regulate independent groups. She ran it by an administrative law judge who agreed and reversed the fine.
The Clean Election Commission in effect said forget you and the judge you rode in on, and is pressing the fine.
So now the Secretary of State has to pursue a legal challenge against the commission. She is being represented by, you guessed it, the Goldwater Institute. Here are some statements from the Goldwater Institute lawyer, Jim Manley, as they appeared of the Secretary’s web site:
“This is a serious case of mission creep. The Citizens Clean Election Commission has absolutely no authority to regulate or fine independent political groups,” said Jim Manley, a senior attorney with the Goldwater Institute’s Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation and one of the lawyers representing the Secretary of State. “The Clean Elections Commission is trying to enforce political speech regulations that directly contradict the rules the Legislature and Secretary of State have already set up.”
The Clean Elections Act passed by voters in 1998 gave the Commission the authority to provide taxpayer-funded political candidates with “matching funds” when an independent expenditure was made on behalf of their opponents. In 2011, the matching funds provision was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court as unconstitutional in a case filed by the Goldwater Institute. With matching funds eliminated, any authority to examine independent expenditures and their costs was also eliminated.
The Clean Elections Commission never had authority to regulate or fine independent groups, it only had the ability to determine how much an independent expenditure was worth to opponents of a taxpayer-funded candidate and then provide matching funds in that amount.
So, if the Clean Elections Commission can make up its own rules and determine the extent of its own authority, could it fine a reporter who wrote an expose’ on a candidate? Could it fine you for that unreported $5 bumper sticker? The Clean Election Act never delivered on the promises and is fraught with unintended consequences – most of which are direct threats to free speech. Repeal it.
This article appears in Jun 4-10, 2015.
Does the Goldwater Institute care about the average Arizonan anymore? At this point they should change their name to COBRA.
Voters support the actions of the independent, nonpartisan Clean Elections Commission, empowered by the voters through the Act to provide campaign finance oversight. Read the Act. Meanwhile the SoS, backed by corporate donors and secret, dark money, avoids enforcing election laws that don’t benefit her or her donors. She spends her time taking polls on marijuana and “do you like to take polls.” What a waste. The People of Arizona know that the Citizens Clean Elections Act is our toughest anti-corruption law…passed by the voters of course. It is the crony politicians, like Tom Horne, and big business that want it repealed, not working voters. Arizona and our nation deserve a Democracy for the Many, not the Money. Clean Elections is a great means to help achieve this. Strengthen it!
It’s interesting to me that since passing of the Clean Elections law, Arizona’s elected officials have become more and more conservative and, I would say, even more open to big-money outside groups like ALEC.
I’m not sure that either term limits or Clean Elections have improved our political situation one bit.
Regarding bslap’s comment on AZ politicians becoming more conservative since 1998, I respectfully disagree. Ev Mecham and Fife Symington were very socially conservative and like today’s “fiscal conservatives,” handed over taxpayer dollars to their donors (legal bribery) as well as being crooks that faced criminal charges and removal from office. In the first gubernatorial race after voters passed Clean Elections, 2002, a Democrat barely beat a privately funded, extreme-conservative (Tea Partier in Congress today – no Clean Elections there). Clean Elections, when thriving with about 70% participation, brought about a 15-15 split in the senate, progressive policies like all day kindergarten and a bi-partisan Corp. Comm. that passed one of the nation’s highest renewable standards at the time. Voter turnout changed course from a long term downward slide to increased turnout as more candidates ran Clean – more candidate-voter engagement. Voter turnout is declining again, paralleling the smaller number of Clean candidates. Big Money wants low turnout. Congress has gone way to the right along with many state governments that have no Clean Elections system. The Tea Party has simply done a better job with their persuasion, pulling votes from the middle and left to support their candidates. Look at Sheriff Joe Arpaio, no Clean Elections at the county level in AZ and yet he continues to win due to his messaging. Opponents of Clean Elections want voters to believe the anti-corruption law is at fault for the kooks. It’s simply not true. There were plenty of kooks elected prior to Clean Elections. Why does big money continue to seek repeal of it? They want to prevent any revival of the system that reduces their control of who runs and wins elections. they want to control the purse strings of the public treasury from which they rake in billions, like our private prison and private for profit school industries. Tom Horne, privately funded, didn’t like the Clean Elections Act either. He faced removal from office had he won re-election under the voter passed Act which holds cheating politicians accountable to voters, not donors. bslap, thanks for invigorating the conversation with your comment. There are many more reasons to strengthen Clean Elections to move Arizona forward for the People, not corporations. Connect with Arizona Advocacy Network on Facebook, @AZadvocacy or http://www.AZadvocacy.org.