Clean Elections Act Great Vs. Not so Great.

The courts have supported, denied and then supported Clean Elections Act the opponents to the Act promise to take it to the Supreme Court claiming that it violates the First Amendment.

You can find this argument for Clean Elections Act at http://www.azclean.org/. I have used Arizona as an example; however, three other states have also adopted this act. They are Maine, Massachusetts and Vermont.

...

Great:
Search for more information

“Arizona’s Clean Elections system encourages election competition and increases voter choice. Arizona has more contested races than in previous elections. The 2000 Primary election has seen a 62% increase in contested races—from 51 races in 1996 to 82 races in 2000. Voters have more choices between candidates. More Third Party candidates are running in 2000 than in 1996.

Arizona’s Clean Elections system provides participating candidates with adequate resources for campaigning. Arizona citizens who in the past were turned off to public office because of the high cost of running campaigns can now afford to run for office. The 2000 election has seen a 60% increase in candidates from 1996. When a non-Participating candidate attempts to out-spend their Clean Elections opponent, the Clean Elections candidate can receive matching funds.

Arizona’s Clean Elections system returns political accountability back to the voters by reducing the influence of Special Interest groups and their Big Money. In order to qualify for monies from the Clean Elections Fund, a candidate must limit spending and forgo contributions from special interest groups. The Clean Elections system restores citizen confidence. The Clean Elections returns integrity to government and public officials.”

All the points that make the Clean Elections Act great do not highlight the main arguments against the Act. In order to raise enough money to fund these “clean” elections the following, among other money raising methods, is true.

“A 10% surcharge shall be imposed on all civil and criminal fines and penalties collected. Civil offenses: traffic violation, violation of fish and game statutes, or violating the initiative’s reporting requirements. Criminal offenses: felony (i.e. robbery, rape, murder), battery, embezzlement, trespassing. This surcharge will bring in approximately $2.5 million per year.”

The Clean Election Act forces people to contribute to political candidates simply because they broke the law. These same forced contributors do not know which candidate their funds will go to. They have no control over their “donated” money. The government, then, decides where the money will go.

Further, by “matching contributions” the government itself becomes a Special Interest Group. The Act only limits donations from Special Interest Groups. This too can be abused, especially if one Special Interest Group backs a candidate and donates the minimum amount to his campaign knowing that any money raised in opposition will be matched by the government. Smaller, less popular special interest groups will have a larger say in the elections.

To combat some of the problems the Act requires a participant to get a number of $5 contributions showing that the candidate has enough support to run in the election. The number of $5 donations range from 200 for the Legislature to 4,000 for the Governor’s race. I haven’t found it in black and white yet, but since the $5 donation is actually made to the state it is a tax write off. A person can only give one donation per candidate but can donate to many candidates.

Sources

All of the great statement and the second paragraph in the not so great statement is quoted are from http://www.azclean.org/. I have seen the information misquoted so many times that I wanted to make sure it was word for word. I have only been following this Act for a few months now but it seems to be a hot topic in certain circles and I have seen quite a few debates and I have read a lot about this Act.