The 'clean' campaign finance idea grows - Arizona experience mixed as California considers Prop. 89

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 9/18/6 | John Wildermuth

[SmithL]

Phoenix -- Six years into its brave new world of publicly financed campaigns, Arizona's "clean money" elections system already is creaking with signs of age.

Backers of California's Proposition 89, which would provide $200 million a year for public financing of California candidates, point to the success of the Arizona system as an example of what could happen in California. But many of the political pros who work every day with the system have curbed their enthusiasm.

"On the whole, it has opened up the political process to a new pool of candidates,'' said Michael Frias, campaign director for the Arizona Democratic Party. "But we need to look and see where it can be improved.''

Some Republican leaders have harsher feelings about Arizona's public financing system.

"There are a lot of good things California and other states could pull from Arizona, but this isn't one of them,'' said Glenn Hamer, executive director of the Arizona Republican Party.

Critics complain that the spending limits set in Arizona's 1998 campaign finance initiative are too low and that the clean money rules give too much power to the five-member Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission, which referees disputes involving campaign funding.

But voters who know about the public finance rules increasingly like the idea. Although it passed by 51 percent to 49 percent in 1998, a January survey done for the state commission found that 85 percent of those familiar with the system now believe it is either very or somewhat important to Arizona voters.

"It's much more popular than it was,'' said Todd Lang, executive director of the clean elections commission. "People see that it allows strong candidates who don't have access to special interest money to run competitive campaigns."

[SmithL]

if a privately funded candidate raises more money than the limit, Arizona matches those excess contributions, dollar for dollar, for the publicly funded opponent.

From Each, according to his abilities
To Each, according to his needs.

[P-40]

which would provide $200 million a year for public financing of California candidates

And all of that money would go towards the candidates saying exactly nothing at all but spending a lot of money in the process. Let the candidates make the *free* talk show circuit and other *free* forums first before they come asking for money.

[Wombat101]

""On the whole, it has opened up the political process to a new pool of candidates,''

Translation: We can't have this happening! Who's bright idea was it to open up the political process to anyone BUT professional politicians, anyway?

"But we need to look and see where it can be improved.''

Translation: We need to return to the old system of networked, entranched, professional pols with access to a mailing and call list of wealthy patrons, who by virtue of their ability to collect funds and sell their souls, wiull be unassailable by the hoi polloi while in office.