More money sought for publicly funded campaigns in Arizona

  PHOENIX - The director of the Citizens Clean Elections Commission wants state lawmakers to increase - and in some cases double - the amount of money available for publicly funded candidates.

  Todd Lang told Capitol Media Services it is obvious that U.S. District Court Judge Roslyn Silver will permanently bar his commission from providing extra "matching'' funds to candidates when their privately financed foes raise more.

  That, he said, would put those taking public dollars at a big disadvantage. It also could lead to fewer candidates - if any - agreeing to forego private donations, essentially undermining the purposes of the entire 1998 voter-approved program.

  But the move will get a fight from the Arizona Chamber of Commerce, which unsuccessfully fought the 1998 measure. Glenn Hamer, the organizations's president, said he wants to return to the time when all candidates for statewide and legislative office had to rely solely on donations of supporters.

  Hamer may have the advantage: State Rep. Jonathan Paton, R-Tucson, said he also opposes fixing the Clean Elections system.

  Paton will head the Senate Judiciary Committee for the new legislative session, the panel through which any changes to the election law may have to pass. And if killing any changes fatally cripples public financing, Paton said that's just fine with him.

  The 1998 law gives public funds to candidates who agree to limit their spending to the amount provided. Funding comes largely from a 10 percent surcharge on civil, criminal and traffic fines.

  Those who choose not to participate can spend whatever they want, though other laws limit how much they can take from any one individual or political action committee. But if they spend more than was given to publicly financed opponents, those opponents get a dollar-for-dollar match, up to three times the original allocation.

  Silver ruled earlier this year that match is unconstitutional. But she refused to immediately suspend the provision, ruling that candidates for the 2008 elections had relied on the financing scheme.

  Silver, however, said a final ruling on the law's constitutionality will have to wait until a full-blown trial next year.

  Lang said he has little hope Silver will change her mind. He said it is possible the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals would rule otherwise. But Lang said that ruling would not come until late next year, if not later, well into the time when candidates will begin announcing for 2010 elections.

  That, said Lang, makes changing the law now the best course of action. Lang said the best option at this point appears to be raising the amount of money given to publicly financed candidates to compensate for the fact they won't get matching dollars.

  He figures candidates for statewide office should get twice as much money.

  In 2006, gubernatorial candidates got $453,849 for their primary race and $680,774 for the general election. That normally would be adjusted to account for inflation.

  Lang wants to double that inflation-adjusted figure.

  Legislative candidates this year got $12,921 for primaries and $19,382 for the general. Lang said they should get 50 percent more, plus inflation.

  The alternative would be to allow publicly financed candidates to solicit private dollars once their foes outspend their allocations. Lang said, though, that is not as attractive an alternative.

  "If they're raising money, they're open to all the alleged influences'' that come with having to seek donations from special interests.

  Hamer said there should be no changes, even if leaving the law as is causes it to collapse because no one will use it. In fact, that is what he wants.

  "Ideally, elections should be privately financed,'' he said.

  Marc Osborn, who lobbies for the Arizona Manufacturers Council, agrees. "A free market of ideas is far more appealing to business members (of the state chamber) than having a subsidized system,'' he said.

  Paton said he sees Silver's ruling - and the problems it creates for the Clean Elections system - as an opportunity.

  "We actually have a chance of getting rid of this,'' he said of public financing. Paton said he will do what he can to block the kind of fixes that Lang proposes, saying it will make Clean Elections "basically useless,'' with few candidates willing to take public dollars if they know they can easily be outspent by their privately financed foes.

  Paton said when voters approved public financing they thought it would minimize the influence of money on elections. What has happened, he said, is donors have found loopholes in the system, like giving cash to political parties who then go out and run attack ads, something that is perfectly legal.

  "Somebody found a way to 'game' the system,'' he said.