The Tucson Weekly, which bills itself as Tucson’s alternative newspaper and seems to have a decidedly progressive/leftist slant, provides their perspective on Arizona’s so-called “clean elections” program in a recent column. You’ve got to read the last line.
HOW ABOUT MORE STATE DOLLARS FOR BOZOS?
The state’s Clean Elections program, which doles out public funds to candidates for state office, has a big problem: A federal judge suggested last year that a matching-funds provision, which gives additional dollars to publicly funded candidates if their privately funded opponents cross certain spending thresholds, may be unconstitutional.
The case still needs to go to trial, but U.S. District Judge Roslyn Silver seems to be leaning in favor of a group of Republicans who challenged the matching-funds provision based on a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
…[advocates of] Clean Elections are pushing for a legislative resolution in the meantime.
To make it happen, the Clean Elections backers–you know, the folks who want to eliminate the influence of special interests–have hired Michael Williams, who happens to be one of the most prominent lobbyists in Phoenix. They hope that some kind of deal can be struck that gives candidates twice as much money as they now receive in exchange for the elimination of matching funds.
That’s sure to make great headlines: Lawmakers cut spending for schools while giving themselves twice as much money for junk mail and yard signs…
We’ve told you before why we don’t like Clean Elections: It’s been effectively used by hard-right conservatives to purge the Legislature of moderate members of the GOP. In Southern Arizona, for example, we’ve essentially replaced Marian McClure, Jennifer Burns and Pete Hershberger with David Gowan, David Stevens and Al Melvin. Up in Maricopa County, the RINO hunts have resulted in their share of hides.
That’s what happens when you give anyone who can qualify tens of thousands in public dollars to establish name ID. Eventually, they win elections, and we get the current Arizona Legislature, which is so ideologically pure that even the business community no longer has a leash on them.
If this is what Clean Elections get us, we’d rather see our politicians a little more corruptible.
I haven’t done a whole lot of thinking about the impact of these welfare for politicians schemes in creating more homogenous and ideological caucuses in the legislature (although I’m familiar with arguments that this occurs in states where gerrymandering is particularly severe, such as California), but it does make sense, particularly in light of recent research by CCP showing the ability of organized interest groups to support their favored candidates in “clean elections” schemes (these groups are often composed of ideologically similar and passionate individuals, after all).
An interesting perspective, and one worth thinking about.
