Cleaning up clean elections

By Mark Brnovich
web posted July 12, 2004

All eyes are on Arizona. States around the nation are watching to
see whether voters will agree this fall to continue paying for
politicians' campaigns. Advocates for a state constitutional
amendment to end the use of public money in political races have
filed enough signatures to qualify for the November ballot.
Proponents of the current system are amassing a war chest to
stop the proposed change. As the rhetoric heats up, voters
deserve an honest appraisal of Arizona's experience with Clean
Elections.

The stated goal of Clean Elections was to encourage more
candidates to run for office and ultimately, elect officials who
could vote their consciences rather than appease financial
backers. But the program has failed on both counts. This year,
there are 25 fewer legislative candidates than in 2002, a drop of
more than 10 percent. And 19 candidates for statewide office
are running virtually unopposed. Furthermore, a 2003 General
Accounting Office (GAO) report found that the percentage of
contested races in Arizona in 2000 was about the same as in
1996, and that Arizona's public financing system had no effect on
incumbent reelection rates.

But do politicians who campaign with Clean Elections money
vote more independently? As columnist Molly Ivins recently put
it, "One of the oldest sayings in politics is, ‘You got to dance
with them what brung you.' What Clean Elections does is fix the
system so that when people get elected, they got no one to
dance with -- no one they owe -- except us, the people." It's a
nice argument, but it just doesn't hold up.

A 2001 Goldwater Institute analysis of legislative voting records
shows voting tends to break down along party lines, regardless
of the source of campaign funding. That is, legislators who use
public funds to get elected are as likely as their privately financed
counterparts in the same party to vote for or against legislation
sponsored by special interest groups such as the Sierra Club, the
National Rifle Association, or Planned Parenthood.

Clean Elections proponents also believed that publicly financed
campaigns would improve voter turnout. However, the GAO
report revealed that voter turnout in "Arizona's 2000 election did
not significantly differ from prior presidential election years." In
fact, voter turnout was 42 percent in 1996, the last presidential
election before the adoption of Clean Elections. In 2000, the first
presidential election year after Clean Elections, voter turnout
remained stagnant at 42 percent.

Politicians are playing a rhetorical sleight-of-hand to defend the
program that subsidizes their campaigns. Governor Napolitano,
who took public financing, said, "It's not like your income-tax
money is going into the Clean Elections fund." But in fact,
taxpayer money does go into Clean Elections. The program is
funded by surcharges on fees like parking tickets, and tax
payments that tax filers can redirect from the General Fund into
the Clean Elections account. That is, money that would
otherwise be in the General Fund to pay for everything from
highway patrolmen to the classroom goes into a fund to finance
politicians' campaigns. In 2002, nearly $13 million went to
politicians. An honest debate means candidly admitting that this is
taxpayer money, and then asking the public whether they want to
spend $13 million to support political campaigns.

Taxpayers also deserve to know how their money is spent. In
the past few elections, politicians have spent our money in a
variety of creative ways. Some bought radio or newspapers ads.
One candidate ran an ad featuring herself in a bathing suit holding
a hemp cross. Some developed creative voter outreach
programs, including a group of young candidates who held voter
drives in Scottsdale nightclubs outside their own districts.

Come November, Arizona voters will be able to decide whether
the millions of public dollars spent on campaigns could be better
used elsewhere. And they'll be able to decide whether politicians
should get government subsidies for their campaigns.

In 2002, Massachusetts voters decided by a 3 to 1 margin not to
fund political campaigns. Arizona voters now have the chance to
do the same this November.
 
Mark Brnovich is the director for Goldwater Institute Center
(http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/) for Constitutional
Government. © 2004

Enter Stage Right -- http://www.enterstageright.com