|
|
 |
 Why Tucson's Campaign Matching-Fund Program Is A Winner By Dave Devine THE CRIES ARE getting louder all the time: "The Chinese are trying to buy influence in Washington! The White House is for sale to highest bidder! Politicians spend most of their time raising money to run for re-election!" These chants, and others, are part of the litany of complaints coming from supporters of campaign-finance reform at the national level.
But in the City of Tucson, campaigns have been financed by the public for a decade now. The public matching-fund program was adopted by city voters in 1985 and first implemented during the 1987 city election. The requirements to qualify for public matching funds are straightforward: A candidate for the city council must collect 200 contributions of at least $10 each from city residents, while candidates for mayor must have 300 city donors. Simple as it sounds, it's not easy for candidates to clear the hurdle, which helps separate serious candidates from those who like to see their names on the ballot. After the public financing program's launch, an occasional aspiring politician would decline to participate in the program, citing philosophical objections. But today, it's a rare candidate indeed who doesn't want city matching funds. Even Libertarians, who advocate much less government, are happy to accept public campaign money. The benefits to participating candidates are substantial: Once you qualify, the city will match dollar-for-dollar every penny your campaign raises, up to a set limit (This year, candidates have to keep campaign spending under $73,126. The result: Less-connected candidates have a real chance of competing with their well-funded opponents. As Tucson's recent electoral history has shown, the total spent on a campaign is not a good barometer for determining who'll win an election. Jerry Anderson's recent victory over Michael Crawford in the Ward 3 primary was only the most recent example. In 1995, Shirley Scott spent less than Jean Wilkins, the woman she defeated handily. In 1989, Sharon Hekman had $12,000 more than the victorious Molly McKasson. Likewise, in general elections, money hasn't been the deciding factor. In 1989, Republican Roy Laos outspent Democrat Steve Leal $71,000 to $27,000 and lost. Two years later, Paul Marsh outspent incumbent Janet Marcus by two to one and lost. But the price of this type of democracy is not cheap. In the five city elections since the program was adopted, the city has spent nearly $660,000 providing matching funds and auditing candidate requests. This year, another $150,000 has been budgeted for the program and over $110,000 spent so far. To date, seven city council hopefuls have requested money, with more expected to qualify. To cover these costs, the city taps general fund revenues--money which comes from all of us through sales taxes and other government fees. Refunds from previous campaigns, citizen contributions and a check-off provision on water bills also provide a small percentage of the matching funds. With the notable exception of Wilkins, who returned over $9,000 from her unsuccessful city council race, Few candidates have given much back to the program. The total amount of contributions is small, and only a few thousand dollars is donated each year through the water bill program. So 90 percent of the money for public campaign financing comes from the city's general fund. When the water bill check-off provision was adopted several years ago, there were high hopes for its success, but the results have been less than impressive: Of the hundreds of thousands of water bills the city sends out each month, on average only 230 are returned with a campaign-finance contribution. Most of these range from one cent to $1, because the donors are rounding off their bills to the next dollar. On a rare occasion, someone will contribute a substantial--$100 was the highest figure donated via the check-off in the last year. But the average contribution is only $1.24 and the total annual amount received was less than $3,500. Even though they are few in numbers, those who contribute to the program through their water bills are true believers in its purpose, and many send something on a regular basis. One donor says bluntly: "If honest people contribute, politicians don't have to take money from crooks." "So much depends on where a candidate's money comes from," says Jean Yoshino, who contributes up to one-half of her total monthly water bill. "There's value in not having special interests determine who wins every election." But the anemic results of the city's water bill check-off provision doesn't show much support for the cause. Perhaps city government should copy the way Tucson Electric Power Company operates its H.E.E.R.O. program. That effort raises funds to help low-income households pay their utility bills. T.E.P. has an annual solicitation that allows customers to sign up to have their bills either rounded up, or to have a set amount added to the monthly total. The H.E.E.R.O. program's impact has been considerable: On average, 11,000 customers contribute something each month, and last year's total exceeded $105,000, with more expected this year. The average individual contribution is actually less than the city's program, but the much greater number of contributors means a much bigger yearly take.
Wherever its money comes from, the city's campaign matching-fund
program has had an enormous impact on local politics. It has leveled
the electoral playing field and allowed less well-funded candidates
to defeat their better-financed opponents. And it has made the
$10 contributor just as important, in many respects, as those
who donate the maximum $300.
|
 |
Home | Currents | City Week | Music | Review | Books | Cinema | Back Page | Archives
|
 |
© 1995-97 Tucson Weekly . Info Booth |
|
Locally, the Growth Lobby is said to control the Board of Supervisors
through campaign contributions, while mining and agriculture interests
work the state Legislature.
