Gazette/Connection Correspondent
Arizona voters passed the Citizens Clean Election Act in 1998. Now, during every election cycle, the Citizens Clean Elections Commission provides an avenue for average citizens to obtain a voice in the political process—while avoiding the support of special interest groups—and an opportunity to run for public office.
Many believe that the program amounts to “Tax dollars for politicians.” This is not the case. Clean Elections candidates do not receive money from the general fund. The only tax dollars the candidates receive come from a 10 percent surcharge on all civil penalties and criminal fines, a voluntary $5 check-off box on Arizona state income tax return forms, a voluntary dollar for dollar tax credit on donations of up to $640, civil penalties paid by candidates, and $5 qualifying contributions collected from participating candidates.
In anticipation of the upcoming Citizens Clean Election Debate, the Connection spoke with Mike Becker, Voter Education Manager for the Citizens Clean Elections Commission. He explained the history of the Commission.
“Clean Elections was passed in 1998 by the people of Arizona because they were tired of seeing their voices drowned out by big dollars in the political process. Clean Elections opens the door for anyone and everyone to be able to run for office if they want to.
"It also allows for people to have their voices heard in the political process in the sense that candidates using clean elections no longer have to worry about big donors; they only have to worry about meeting the voters, understanding what the problems and the issues are in their districts, and letting the voters know exactly what they can do to help. It’s done a tremendous job in opening doors for people, allowing them the opportunity to be in the political process and to run for the legislature and other statewide offices.”
Clean Elections candidates will not receive matching funds this season due to an injunction from a Federal District Court, backed up by the U.S. Supreme Court. Only matching funds will be denied Clean Elections candidates. They will still continue to receive the remainder of the money they are entitled to under the Clean Elections law.
A number of lawsuits have challenged the constitutionality of matching funds. One such case was filed by the Goldwater Institute. From their website:
“The Goldwater Institute filed its lawsuit, McComish v. Bennett, to challenge the ‘matching funds’ provisions in the system based on a June 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Davis v. F.E.C. case. That case held that the goal of ‘leveling’ electoral opportunities does not justify a campaign finance system in which ‘the vigorous exercise of the right to use personal funds to finance campaign speech produces fundraising advantages for opponents in the competitive context of electoral politics.’”
While matching funds will not be available at all if permanently prohibited by the courts, the list of Clean Elections candidates continues to grow.
Becker said, “Even without matching funds for this year, well over 50 percent of those running for office are using the Clean Elections system. We have seen the numbers grow every year in terms of the number of people that use the system.”
Becker gave us his take on the argument regarding matching funds.
“It’s interesting—the argument that’s being made—that matching funds stifles the traditional (non-Clean Election) candidates free speech and forces them to not spend money for fear that they may trigger matching funds. We have never seen that—ever. There’s no evidence of that happening.
"In reality, what they are fighting against is freedom from rebuttal. They don’t want to hear both sides of the argument and they don’t want to allow the voters to hear what a candidate has to say when they are slammed by independent expenditure or some sort of mud-slinging. That is the issue that is going to be looked at by the Supreme Court—probably in the middle of 2011.”
The Arizona Citizens Clean Elections website offers information including upcoming candidate debates, commission meetings and participating candidates—even voter education videos and streaming videos of past debates. You can find the website at
The upcoming debate in Payson is sponsored by AZ Clean Elections.
Becker said, “The creators of the act put in place the idea that there will be debates in every district where there is a participating candidate. This year there are only four districts out of thirty where there are no participating candidates in the general election. So the public and the voters get a chance to hear all the candidates that are running for office because it includes both traditional candidates as well as participating (Clean Elections) candidates. It’s just another opportunity for the public to hear from the candidates themselves.”
The Arizona Clean Elections Commission's Debate for Legislative District 5 will be held on Oct. 5 at 6 p.m. at the Best Western Payson Inn at 801 N. Beeline. House candidates Bill Shumway, Brenda Barton, Chester Crandell, and Prescott Winslow, will attend, along with senate hopefuls Elaine Bohlmeyer and Sylvia Allen.
Becker was asked about the criticism that Clean Elections is a form of “electoral welfare.”
“It’s far from welfare. It’s a voluntary system that if you want to do it, you can. Keep in mind though; the Commission does not just hand out checks willy-nilly. There are requirements that you have to fulfill: You have to show grass roots support by collecting (for a legislative race) a minimum of 220 qualified contributions and those are five dollar contributions from registered voters in the district.
"A lot of candidates over the past 12 years have tried to do this, thinking it would be easy and simple, and haven’t been able to do it. So, it is a good sign and a good show of faith when they can gather a minimum of 220 contributions. So to say that it’s just simple welfare—that’s just flat wrong.”
Clean Elections funding comes from andividuals who voluntarily donate to the Commission and from those who break the law.
“Clean Elections was passed in 1998 by the people of Arizona because they were tired of seeing their voices drowned out by big dollars in the political process. Clean Elections opens the door for anyone and everyone to be able to run for office if they want to.
"It also allows for people to have their voices heard in the political process in the sense that candidates using clean elections no longer have to worry about big donors; they only have to worry about meeting the voters, understanding what the problems and the issues are in their districts, and letting the voters know exactly what they can do to help. It’s done a tremendous job in opening doors for people, allowing them the opportunity to be in the political process and to run for the legislature and other statewide offices.”
Clean Elections candidates will not receive matching funds this season due to an injunction from a Federal District Court, backed up by the U.S. Supreme Court. Only matching funds will be denied Clean Elections candidates. They will still continue to receive the remainder of the money they are entitled to under the Clean Elections law.
A number of lawsuits have challenged the constitutionality of matching funds. One such case was filed by the Goldwater Institute. From their website:
“The Goldwater Institute filed its lawsuit, McComish v. Bennett, to challenge the ‘matching funds’ provisions in the system based on a June 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Davis v. F.E.C. case. That case held that the goal of ‘leveling’ electoral opportunities does not justify a campaign finance system in which ‘the vigorous exercise of the right to use personal funds to finance campaign speech produces fundraising advantages for opponents in the competitive context of electoral politics.’”
While matching funds will not be available at all if permanently prohibited by the courts, the list of Clean Elections candidates continues to grow.
Becker said, “Even without matching funds for this year, well over 50 percent of those running for office are using the Clean Elections system. We have seen the numbers grow every year in terms of the number of people that use the system.”
Becker gave us his take on the argument regarding matching funds.
“It’s interesting—the argument that’s being made—that matching funds stifles the traditional (non-Clean Election) candidates free speech and forces them to not spend money for fear that they may trigger matching funds. We have never seen that—ever. There’s no evidence of that happening.
"In reality, what they are fighting against is freedom from rebuttal. They don’t want to hear both sides of the argument and they don’t want to allow the voters to hear what a candidate has to say when they are slammed by independent expenditure or some sort of mud-slinging. That is the issue that is going to be looked at by the Supreme Court—probably in the middle of 2011.”
The Arizona Citizens Clean Elections website offers information including upcoming candidate debates, commission meetings and participating candidates—even voter education videos and streaming videos of past debates. You can find the website at
The upcoming debate in Payson is sponsored by AZ Clean Elections.
Becker said, “The creators of the act put in place the idea that there will be debates in every district where there is a participating candidate. This year there are only four districts out of thirty where there are no participating candidates in the general election. So the public and the voters get a chance to hear all the candidates that are running for office because it includes both traditional candidates as well as participating (Clean Elections) candidates. It’s just another opportunity for the public to hear from the candidates themselves.”
The Arizona Clean Elections Commission's Debate for Legislative District 5 will be held on Oct. 5 at 6 p.m. at the Best Western Payson Inn at 801 N. Beeline. House candidates Bill Shumway, Brenda Barton, Chester Crandell, and Prescott Winslow, will attend, along with senate hopefuls Elaine Bohlmeyer and Sylvia Allen.
Becker was asked about the criticism that Clean Elections is a form of “electoral welfare.”
“It’s far from welfare. It’s a voluntary system that if you want to do it, you can. Keep in mind though; the Commission does not just hand out checks willy-nilly. There are requirements that you have to fulfill: You have to show grass roots support by collecting (for a legislative race) a minimum of 220 qualified contributions and those are five dollar contributions from registered voters in the district.
"A lot of candidates over the past 12 years have tried to do this, thinking it would be easy and simple, and haven’t been able to do it. So, it is a good sign and a good show of faith when they can gather a minimum of 220 contributions. So to say that it’s just simple welfare—that’s just flat wrong.”
Clean Elections funding comes from andividuals who voluntarily donate to the Commission and from those who break the law.
No comments:
Post a Comment