In pursuit of clean elections

In a Dec. 1 editorial headlined “High court should kill Arizona law,” the Review-Journal sided with opponents of clean elections who claim the matching funds provision of the law chills free speech.

In reality, the matching funds provision of the “clean elections” law adds to the marketplace of ideas. It adds to free speech and it promotes First Amendment values.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which overturned a lower court ruling against matching funds, found no real harm to the plaintiffs despite claims to the contrary. The same is true for the U.S. District Court, which initially struck down the matching funds provision.

Assertions that matching funds have dampened overall campaign spending in Arizona are false. The 9th Circuit stated: “It is undisputed, however, that overall campaign spending in Arizona has increased” since the passage of the Clean Elections Act in 1998.

Money to fund the law comes from a dedicated source approved by voters. Most of the funding comes from a surcharge on civil and criminal penalties. The rest comes from voluntary contributions.

It is important to note that Clean Elections has no impact on the Arizona general fund. In fact, Clean Elections has given money to the state to help with its budget crisis. Last month, the Citizens Clean Elections Commission gave the state $20 million.

Since 2003, the commission has contributed more than $64 million to the state general fund.

Clean Elections has achieved its goal of attracting more people to participate in the political process. Since voters passed the act 12 years ago, the percentage of people using the system has increased every election cycle since 2000. More than 65 percent of those running for office in 2008 used Clean Elections.

Ironically, some of the plaintiffs seeking to eliminate Clean Elections actually used the system to win elective office. Now that they’re in, they want to close the door of opportunity for others who are not part of the system.

Thanks to Clean Elections, people who are not independently wealthy or don’t have access to big insider money are now able to run a viable campaign that allows their message to be heard. The measure of a candidate is not how much money he or she raises, but how many votes the candidate receives. Voters of Arizona — not political insiders, lobbyists or big donors –should decide who is elected. Clean Elections enables that to happen.

Public support for the system remains strong. A recent Behavior Research Center survey shows 77 percent Arizonans believe the Clean Elections Act is important to Arizona. Clean Elections works well and will continue to work well to allow Arizona voters — not special interests — to decide elections.

Todd Lang

Phoenix

The writer is executive director of the Citizens Clean Elections Commission in Arizona.