By Nick Dranias
Goldwater Institute
The Goldwater Institute has fought Arizona’s “Clean Elections” system all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to ask one basic question: Can the state manipulate the political game to silence privately-financed candidates and drive them out of elections in favor of government-funded candidates?
The Court answered “no” last June, at least temporarily, when it suspended the matching funds portion of Arizona’s system. But the Court’s extraordinary intervention was not the last word, as that action came nearly six months before the Court accepted the Goldwater Institute’s lawsuit for review, as well as a second case from the Institute for Justice. Only after the Court hears oral arguments today in Washington, D.C., will the question finally be answered for good.
The matching funds component of Arizona’s system is clearly designed to hobble candidates who project their campaign messages to the public in the traditional manner, supported by private donations and personal funds. For every dollar raised or spent by a traditional candidate, the state awards nearly a dollar in subsidies to each opposing government-funded candidate. That means when a traditional candidate faces three government-funded candidates, every dollar he spends will trigger nearly three dollars in government subsidies to oppose him.
Likewise, if independent political groups do anything other than oppose traditional candidates, the state will award nearly a dollar in subsidies to each competing government-funded candidate for every dollar they spend. The government thus systematically encourages independent groups to oppose traditional candidates.
It is very dangerous business for the government to manipulate elections in this way. The electoral process is supposed to check government power. A system that silences traditional candidates in order to expand opportunities for government-funded candidates cannot check government power. For the sake of free speech and the integrity of the electoral system, the Supreme Court must finally stop Arizona from picking winners and losers.
Nick Dranias holds the Clarence J. and Katherine P. Duncan Chair for Constitutional Government and is director of the Joseph and Dorothy Donnelly Moller Center for Constitutional Government at the Goldwater Institute.
Learn More:
Goldwater Institute: McComish v. Bennett
Arizona Republic: Supreme Court weighs Clean Elections funds match
Wall Street Journal: Government Shouldn’t Play Election Favorites
Washington Post: Supreme Court to decide Arizona’s unique campaign financing law
Christian Science Monitor: Supreme Court to decide Arizona’s unique campaign financing law
Yankee Institute: Let Voters Decide, Not Gov’t
Institute for Justice: Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett
This article is very misleading and symplistic the system only matches upto a certain amount.
If Jim pederson wanted to spend $1 million on a state house seat he would be able to and his opponent would only get a certain amount. Which I think for state house seats when this system was initially passed was 33k…. So to say t matches every donation and expenditure dollar for dollar is a lie.
Also both sides of oral argument agreed that if the publicly financed candidates got the ENTIRE lump sum at once instead of on a matching basis that this would be constitutional….
So what happens if that gets put on the ballot the same system except they get the lump sum. This is going to cost the state millions of $$ This decision can have some horribly intended consequences.
Johnny,
When has anyone–ever–spent a million dollars on a state legislative race in Arizona. In fact, when was the last time someone spent a half a million or even over 200 grand? They haven’t.
Secondly, who would ever vote to give them a lump sum (other than self-serving socialists in the legislature)? No one. That’s why the CCEC is desperately trying to kill SCR 1025 because it would be a bullet in the brain of clean elections forever.
The fact that you can’t see how the people of az in a voter referendum could vote for the lump sum is nuts…. It would work the exact same way the clean elections worked before. Noncompetitive districts people would not need or want to spend all the money so the left over would go back to the state and in competitive districts the money would get spent. The people os AZ endorsed is last time the fact that you think they couldn’t now is just wishful thinking…
And just because people don’t spend 1 million is irrelevant to the point that the az matching system only matches to a set dollar amount. So the point being you can still easily outspend your publicly financed opponent which this post implied you could not do that. Hence it is still misleading and a lie.
Exactly how would the money go back to the “State”? The state in this case is the “Clean Elections Commission” which is a completely segregated fund — completely seperate from the general fund–and untouchable by the legislature. It’s not like that money will go to pay for domestic violence or schools or organ transplants or something. It will go back to a pool that will pay for more campaign ads, etc.
So the campaign message towould go as follows:
“The Supreme Court ruled that matching funds violates free speech, so please vote to give candidates more money up front so they can adequately fund their campaigns to pay for crappy websites and margarita machines.”
Yeah, that’ll pass…
In polling, the public has consistently said that while it likes the phrase “clean elections” it doesn’t actually like giving money to politicians to run their campaigns.
As for the 1 million dollar issue I took with you, it is completely relevant, because functionally candidates (due to the ridiculously low contribution limits) almost never raise more than around $75,000, which is basically the cap to a match. Additionally, when you add the amounts that OTHER opponents get in campaign it’s basically limitless.
I love the in polling statements… The only poll that matters is the election you know the election where the public financing system was approved….
If you really think that a smart campaign can’t be run that focuses on the phrase clean elections and stopping corruption of elected officials, then you guys are dumber than I thought.
The supreme court is going to strike down azs clean election system in a 5-4 vote and we might end up with a worse system. A real victory for arizona…
So since polling is out we just go with your gut? You have zero emprical evidence that the public will go for more money for politicians. Lined up to fight against such a campaign is virtually every business and conservative group in the state.
BTW the last election where this was on the ballot was 1998. It squeaked through, mainly because the business community didn’t take it seriously. Here’s betting if they get it on the ballot again they sure as heck will next go around.
As for corruption of public officials, there is plenty of evidence that clean elections has been at the root of that already in Arizona and was ably articulated by Nick Dranius regarding Sam George’s gaming the system with Newman and Kennedy. I’m sure that donors at Goldwater will be more than happy to pay for that message to get out.
Meanwhile, it’s clean elections on the defensive having to battle SCR 1025, which convieniently goes around your problem of the phrase “clean elections” by not mentioning it at all. If it passes it’s the second bullet in the brain of a corrupt and stupid system.
Maybe opponents to this socialist system are not as dumb as you thought.
when I was talking about dumb people I was only talking about you so don’t worry. And trust me I do not like the public financing system. I think its stupid.
My entire point is that this post as posted was wrong which you still not have refuted at all and it still COULD pass with a system that is even worse. You can make take that as lightly as you want but it will be at your own peril. They under estimated it last time with dumb comments like yours. Oh this has no chance, the voters would not buy it, the business community sees how bad this would be. And then it PASSED, shocking I know.