Arizona

There is a tradition in politics of dumping bad news on Friday, when it is less likely to catch the attention of the public. Even better to push the bad news into a three day weekend, when the news is already “old news” by the time people get back to picking up the paper and paying attention.

Paying heed to tradition if nothing else, on Friday the Government Accountability Office released its updated report on Arizona and Maine’s “clean elections” programs, the latest fad in the campaign finance “reform” community. By coincidence, the subcommittee the report was released to is chaired by Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois, who happens to also be the lead sponsor of the federal “clean elections” effort, called the Fair Elections Now Act.

We’re just now beginning to really examine the report, but it seems worth pointing out the summary offered by the authors:

While there was some evidence of statistically significant changes in one of the five goals of Maine’s and Arizona’s public financing programs, we could not directly attribute these changes to the programs, nor did we find significant changes in the remaining four goals after program implementation. Specifically, there were statistically significant decreases in one measure of electoral competition—the winner’s margin of victory—in legislative races in both states. However, GAO could not directly attribute these decreases to the programs due to other factors, such as the popularity of candidates, which affect electoral outcomes. We found no change in two other measures of competition, and there were no observed changes in voter choice—the average number of legislative candidates per district race. In Maine, decreases in average candidate spending in House races were statistically significant, but a state official said this was likely due to reductions in the amounts given to participating candidates in 2008, while average spending in Maine Senate races did not change. In Arizona, average spending has increased in the five elections under the program. There is no indication the programs decreased perceived interest group influence, although some candidates and interest group officials GAO interviewed said campaign tactics changed, such as the timing of campaign spending. Data limitations, including a lack of comparable measures over time, hinder analysis of changes in voter participation.

In other words, no real changes as a result of millions of taxpayer dollars dished out to political campaigns. Sounds like what we at the Center for Competitive Politics have been saying for quite some time.

Check out this new web ad from the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry:

An Arizona federal judge issued an order Wednesday striking down the “matching funds” provision of Arizona’s “Clean Elections” program as unconstitutional. Judge Roslyn Silver’s order was stayed for five days pending the state’s near-certain appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Goldwater Institute, which represented the plaintiffs in this case (McComish v. Bennett), has a bit more detail on its case page.

Judge Silver’s latest order is here. Last week, Judge Silver issued a preliminary version of this ruling and in 2008 she ruled the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on First Amendment grounds but declined to strike a blow to the unconstitutional scheme because of the impending 2008 elections.

Free speech scored a victory today in Arizona. A federal judge issue a proposed order — again, preliminarily — that the state’s scheme of “matching funds” violates the First Amendment:

“[T]he regime burdens Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights, is not supported by a compelling state interest,
is not narrowly tailored, and is not the least restrictive alternative,” wrote Judge Roslyn O. Silver in the 18-page order.

The Phoenix New Times published its list of the “10 Worst Ideas of the Decade” over the holiday break, and — no surprise — Arizona’s system of taxpayer handouts to political candidates makes the list:

8. Clean Elections. Okay, so voters approved this “reform” in the late 90s. But it’s only in this decade that publicly funded elections have taken root here. And boy, have the results been lousy. Nearly $15 million in surcharges and court fees go into this fund every year — and the best we have to show for it are a bunch of morons down at the Capitol. Sigh.

A lawsuit challenging the system is still pending in federal court, but a judge has preliminarily ruled that the “rescue funds” provision of the program is unconstitutional. The Center for Competitive Politics filed an amicus brief in the case, McComish v. Bennett.

The New York Times published a pretty balanced story last month examining an effort by retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and other judges to abolish judicial elections in favor of an appointment system.

Of course, O’Connor was elected as a county judge in 1975, and the process apparently never corrupted her. Justice O’Connor has often commented on the challenges and discrimination she faced as a pathbreaking woman in the profession. For that very reason it seems likely that the existence of judicial elections in Arizona gave her a better opportunity than relying on the entrenched establishment for an appointment. Indeed, she might never have become a U.S. Supreme Court justice if not for judicial elections launching her career as a jurist.

A couple ballot petition freedom lawsuits are working their way through the federal courts.

The tireless Richard Winger of Ballot Access News has more…

The Arizona Daily Star, the paper of record Tucson, published a devastating article today on the state’s program for taxpayer financed campaigns.

A snippet:

But even the guy who helped bankroll the campaign to get it approved, former Democratic Party Chairman Jim Pederson, now says it was a mistake — not only failing to achieve those goals, but actually contributing to more partisanship and the exclusion of political minority perspectives.