|
|
Cleaning solution?
Campaign finance reform backers say Arizona ballot measure would give 'public office' back to the public
BARBARA YOST
Special to Jewish News
On the theory that the concept of tikkun olam, healing the world, can be carried out from the ballot box, Valley attorney Louis Hoffman says he's doing his best to follow that commandment by saving Arizona from corrupt politicians.
His vehicle is Arizonans for Clean Elections, a 2-year-old organization that has drafted a ballot initiative to promote campaign finance reform. The proposition is likely to be on the November ballot.
"This is a structural change that will allow us to solve other problems," says Hoffman, who attends Temple Chai. "The government can't do everything, but a bad government can be mischievous."
In 1996, bolstered by polls that showed voters overwhelmingly support finance reform, three public-interest groups banded together to do what they believed the state legislature would never do: write a law to limit campaign spending. The League of Women Voters, United We Stand America/Arizona and Arizona Citizen Action (a group advocating practices for good government) decided only the people, not the politicians, could clean up elections.
How bad is the problem? Josh Silver, campaign manager for Arizonans for Clean Elections, says that, in a hotly contested race, a candidate with a large war chest could spend as much as $100,000 to win a job that pays $15,000 a year. Wealthy candidates can launch negative campaigns and outspend their opponents' efforts to respond.
"Running for office has become a rich man's game," Silver says. "It's not a battle of ideas, but a battle of bank accounts."
Such a system promotes inequality and discourages less-wealthy but qualified candidates from seeking office, he says. Silver, who also is Jewish, says his work with the clean-elections campaign is "an acknowledgment of the fact that in the U.S., Jews are a privileged minority. We have to acknowledge the legacy of oppression. We have to keep in mind the greater good. It's important we ensure that the quality of society and democracy is in tact."
Silver has been working on the campaign for 10 months. Hoffman, a patent, trademark and copyright attorney, was brought on board as the coalition was forming. Long known for his pro bono work on election issues, Hoffman was asked to refine the outline of an initiative that Arizonans for Clean Elections had written.
"They asked me to simplify it," he says with a laugh. "I ended up complicating it."
The committee had already identified "bullet points." Hoffman filled in the blanks.
Voters are skeptical
Public skepticism was the motivation for the campaign, Silver says.
"There's a problem in society with widespread low voter turnout, low registration and cynicism. People see politicians can be bought and sold." In some cases, he says, "These perceptions are absolutely valid."
But loose controls on campaign financing do more than allow elections to be bought and sold, say reform advocates. Those in office are trapped in the money game and often spend as much time running for office as they do holding office, forced to seek donations for the next campaign from the time they are elected.
"It warps what the politician's incentives are," Hoffman says. "The effect is they're beholden to the people who give them money. You want your politicians to look out for Arizona as a whole and not just their contributors."
As evidence, he cites the replacements appointed to fill seats of deceased or departed office holders. They are often of a higher quality than those elected in their own right. When asked why they didn't run for office, appointees commonly express a distaste for the election system, Hoffman says. And many simply don't have the means to run. If money were no issue, Arizonans would see different faces in the legislature, Silver says.
Arizonans for Clean Elections now includes a consortium of civic-minded organizations in addition to the founding members: local chapters of the State Legislative Council of the American Association of Retired Persons, Common Cause and the National Organization for Women. The group's goal is to create a system that will limit campaign spending and level the playing field for candidates and voters, Silver says, adding that voters need to have more diverse choices in candidates.
The ballot initiative pushes for campaign finance disclosure rules and tightens disclosure regulations. Because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1996 that limiting campaign spending was tantamount to limiting free speech, participation in the clean-elections program would be voluntary for candidates. In addition to collecting the signatures required under current law to register as a candidate, the proposal calls for candidates to collect a high number of $5 contributions from voters in their constituency. The number of contributions would range from 200 to 4,000, depending on the office being sought.
Candidates who accept the conditions and meet the requirements of the new program would then be eligible for donations from a statewide clean-elections fund, which would be derived from four sources:
- a $5 check-off on state income tax return and tax credits;
- increased fees on lobbyists - from the current $25 every other year to $100 a year. Arizona has the highest percentage of lobbyists in the country, Silver says, with 20 per legislator;
- a 10 percent surcharge on civil and criminal fines and penalties; and
- a voluntary tax allocation. Any taxpayer could direct up to 20 percent of his or her tax bill or $500, which ever is higher, to the Citizens Clean Elections Fund. From that pool, Silver says, "You're creating a clean source for money."
Under the ballot proposal, no candidates who accepted the public funding could accept money from political action committees. Matching funds, up to three times the original amount raised, would be provided if the participating candidate is outspent by non-participating opponents or if independent expenditures are made against the participating candidate.
A five-member, non-partisan commission would oversee the new system, enforce election laws and recommend minor changes to the system based on ongoing evaluation.
No fast fix
Silver warns, however, that this initiative would not produce better government overnight.
"In our culture, with sound bites and a short public attention span, people are accustomed to laws and changes that are quick," he says. But results may not be seen for several years, as a higher quality of statesman replaces those currently in office, Silver says.
"Ten years from now, this (system) will be much better. It's not a quick fix."
Hoffman says political corruption cuts across the board, tainting all political parties. While increasing legislators' salaries could help, voters consistently vote down raises.
"We don't respect the people in office," Hoffman says.
Silver adds, "It spirals."
Clean-elections laws have been passed in Maine and Vermont, and several other states are currently studying such measures. A federal attempt to significantly reform the campaign-finance process (co-sponsored by Arizona's Sen. John McCain) died in Congress earlier this year.
Some elements troubling
While no organizations have expressed formal opposition to the Arizona clean-elections measure, some groups have expressed concerns about certain aspects of such reform.
Eleanor Eisenberg, executive director of the Arizona Civil Liberties Union, said she could not comment extensively on the Arizona measure because she had not seen its exact wording. But in general, she noted that any new system would have to specifically define the "special interests" whose actions against a political candidate would make that candidate eligible for public funds.
Also, Eisenberg says she is concerned about funding the new program in part through the surcharge on criminal and civil fines and penalties, which she said would amount to a "regressive tax" on the mostly low-income individuals whose cases are processed by the justice system.
Eisenberg says the state ACLU and the national American Civil Liberties Union, with which it is affiliated, are generally in favor of changes aimed at securing public funding for candidates, rather than those putting limits on spending or private contributions. She says the ACLU would have to study the ballot language of the clean-elections measure to be sure it does not raise First Amendment concerns cited by the Supreme Court in its 1996 ruling on the subject.
Over all, Eisenberg says because participation in the proposed clean-elections system is voluntary, its success likely would hinge primarily on how it is supported by the public.
"The public as a whole is fed up with the way candidates are being bought and sold," she says. "But most people want rules to apply to the other guy, not to them."
With strong bipartisan support, Silver believes the initiative has a good chance to pass. More than 195,000 voters signed the petition to place it before voters, while only 113,000 valid signatures were needed. (Organizers filed the petitions with the Secretary of State's Office on June 29. The state will now verify signatures to determine whether the measure is certified for the Nov. 3 ballot.)
"This is a chance for voters to take matters into their own hands." Silver says. "My belief is that it will restore integrity and confidence in our democratic system."
Jewish News Managing Editor Lou Hirsh contributed to this report.
|
