TODD LANG, ARIZONA CITIZENS CLEAN ELECTIONS COMMISSION

The top administrator of Arizona’s system of campaign public funding has responded to a post I wrote a week ago that predicted a slow demise of Clean Elections after a federal judge voids future matching funds as unconstitutional. Here is Todd Lang’s full commentary:

Le Templar’s latest piece on Clean Elections deserves some praise. After all, the Tribune’s editorial staff has been consistently calling for the end of Clean Elections for more than a decade now, and Templar manages to stay on message despite the overwhelming success of Clean Elections in Arizona.

Some measures of that success: More than 65 percent of all candidates were participating candidates in 2008. At a time when Arizonans disagree on numerous issues, 80 percent of voters surveyed by Behavior Research say that Clean Elections is somewhat or very important. In addition, 70 percent of all currently sitting officeholders used Clean Elections for at least one race. Many of the legislators who no longer participate used Clean Elections to get into office.

As Templar observes, once in office, incumbents have no problem raising money from lobbyists. The important thing is that even opponents of campaign finance reform are able to run for office because of Clean Elections.

Clean Elections lets good candidates run, regardless of their viewpoint. It gives voters real choices and a real opportunity to vote for candidates with which they agree.

Some argue that we should return to the time when interest groups like the chamber of commerce or newspaper editorial boards decided who wins the primary. We believe that the people are the most qualified to choose who will represent them. In other words, our democracy is run by the voters, not special interest groups. That some newspapers and other organizations resent this success is no surprise.

What does come as a surprise is that Templar believes that matching funds are a problem. After all, matching funds let the voters hear “both sides of the story” — something most editorial boards value.

The complaint about matching funds boils down to a simple principle: The plaintiffs would prefer that their political speech stand alone without any form of rebuttal.

Of course we would all prefer to speak with no possibility of rebuttal — debates are much easier to win that way. But the foundation of the First Amendment and our democracy is a robust “marketplace of ideas” in which voters can hear all points of view and all sides of the debate.

Matching funds allow candidates to respond to their opponents — so that voters are exposed to both sides of the debate and, as such, can make a meaningful choice at the ballot. Matching funds also provide a candidate the opportunity to respond to the nasty, misleading attack ads by unknown independent expenditure committees that we all see on occasion.

Thus, matching funds result in more information and better information for the voters. The First Amendment and our democracy is well-served by matching funds.

Templar’s reference to the trio of candidates who misspent funds in 2004 is an obvious red herring. Templar fails to mention that the Citizens Clean Elections Commission caught those candidates, obtained repayment agreements, and the leader of the trio is currently in jail. Because of strict enforcement of the Citizens Clean Elections Act over the years, these sorts of problems have not recurred.

The commission works closely with candidates in order to help them comply with the statutes and rules and to help identify and eliminate possible abuses. Candidates and voters find that Clean Elections is important, effective, helpful and successful.

The commission will continue to implement rules and policies that improve the act, and it welcomes public suggestions, comments, and participation. Clean Elections will continue to serve Arizona and provide opportunities for candidates to run for office and for voters to receive complete information and be encouraged to participate in the political process.
—
Todd Lang is executive director of the Citizens Clean Elections Commission.