Video: The Dirty Game Of ‘Clean Elections’

Liberty Juice ^ | 11/17/2010 | Chris Bounds

[ChrisBoundsTX]

The Institute for Justice will find out soon if the U.S. Supreme Court will hear its case against Arizona’s “Clean Elections” Act, which basically serves as welfare for politicians.

Haven’t heard of “Clean Elections” before? Well, you may not be in a state that plays that dirty game. Consider yourself lucky. IJ explains:

"Arizona’s “Clean Elections” Act gives public money to politicians to run for office and squelches the free speech of independent groups, as well as candidates who choose to forgo taxpayer dollars and instead raise their own funds for their campaigns. For every dollar an independent group opposing a publicly financed candidate or a traditionally funded candidate spends above a certain amount, the government hands taxpayer dollars over to the publicly financed candidates in the race. This allows the government-subsidized candidate to “match” the spending—and thus the speech—of the independent group or privately funded candidate opposing him. The harder an independent group or traditionally financed candidate works, the more the government-subsidized candidate benefits. The Act curbs speech, discourages participation and limits what voters will hear about politics."

As usual, IJ also has a funny video to go along:

Video

IJ is seeking to overturn “Clean Elections” in the state of Arizona in the case of Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett. On November 23rd the SCOTUS will decide whether or not it will hear the case. Earlier actions by the SCOTUS lead IJ to believe that their case will be heard:

" In June of this year, in a very unusual step, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed an order of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and reinstated an injunction against Arizona’s unconstitutional “matching funds” law. A federal district court in Arizona struck down “matching funds” in January as a violation of the First Amendment, but the 9th Circuit stopped that ruling from taking effect and later reversed it. The Supreme Court’s decision allowed the 2010 Arizona election to occur without the government placing its thumb on the scale in favor of those politicians who receive government subsidies.

Bill Maurer, an attorney with the Institute for Justice, said, “The purpose of this law was to limit individuals’ speech by limiting their spending. But the First Amendment does not permit the government to restrain Americans from robustly exercising the right of free speech.”

Maurer said, “Matching funds violate the First Amendment rights of candidates, citizens and independent groups. The government may not give an electoral advantage to one candidate by ‘leveling’ the speech of his opponents. The system is set up to punish those the government believes are speaking too much, while subsidizing those it believes are speaking too little. In a free society, the government has no business micromanaging how citizens debate, of all things, who should run the government.”

In this challenge, IJ represents independent expenditure groups—ordinary Americans who have banded together to speak out about elections—as well as traditionally financed candidates. After the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United earlier this year, it is clear that campaigns are not the private domain of candidates, but that independent groups have every right to speak and try to get their message heard.

Maurer said, “Arizona’s ‘Clean Elections’ Act is nothing less than welfare for politicians.”"

[shibumi]

Here is a direct link to the video, minus the blog.

[shibumi]

Click here to read less about this and other issues.

[azcap]

Clean Elections is an outrage. I live in AZ and it is disgusting to see politicians of all parties taking the taxpayers dollars for their campaigns. I think it would be fun to make an example out of the foolish system by exploiting it publicly. I own the Arizona Cap Company, a screenprinting, embroidery, advertising business based in AZ. During election season we make lots of t-shirts, magnets, caps, etc for candidates - perfectly legal and I might add effective advertising for their campaigns. I am tempted to to do this (with as many reporters and blogs following it as possible.) - Register as a clean elections candidate for the state legislature. Pay $1000 to a couple of signature gatherers to collect my needed 220 signatures and $5 donations. Receive my $14000 in state welfare for politicians. Spend every penny of it on t-shirts that say vote me for me and support political welfare. With 4400 signatures and $5 donations I could get a $1,061,171 to run for governor. That’s a lot of t-shirts!