Tim Keller, Executive Director of the Institute for Justice – Arizona Chapter, wrote a spate of editorials which appeared in newspapers across our country this past President’s Day weekend. In them, he calls for the reversal of Arizona’s Clean Elections Act, a constitutional appeal on the basis of ‘Free Speech’ which was heard by the 9th U. S. Circuit Court of Ap-peals in San Francisco last week.
It appears to me that Mr. Keller is promoting those who believe in the power of the dollar to elect candidates, using market forces to elect our representatives, rather than a pluralistic Democracy. Is this Privatization of the polling place?
Let me get this straight: for example, Bill Gates, multizillionaire, wants to run for Governor of [your State]. Should he be able to buy the office or ask his friend, Warren Buf-fet, to use his fortune to wrestle control of it, or should there be limits which level the playing field a bit, so a qualified minority candidate could compete on issues?
Tim suggests that those who support public financing of elections are misguided, call-ing publicly-subsidized candidates part of a “political welfare system” that “tilts the playing field in favor of those who feed at the public trough.” WHAT?? Public financing of elections is “feeding from the public trough?” To hear Tim tell it, the Arizona Clean Elections Act will “take the incentive out of private political speech, participation and initiative.” His complaint is that, “the harder a privately financed candidate works, the more his taxpayer financed op-ponent benefits.” To me, that’s a good thing – shift the focus of elections toward discussions about issues and away from $1000 a plate dinners.
Not being a believer, Tim suggests that candidates “flush with cash” from the Act’s matching funds provision, and somehow “unaccountable to donors” will go on “spending sprees of negative advertising.” Admittedly, there have been instances where this practice has emerged, and even prevailed. But how is that different from common practice today in dis-tricts without Clean Election guarantees? Not at all. The reality is we will all need to work against negative campaigning long after implementing Clean Election initiatives, in Arizona and across the country. If political parties are to survive in forms that resemble their current incarnations, we must work to end the negative campaigning trend. This has nothing to do with public financing of elections.
Matching Public Financing of elections will help shift candidates away from seeking financial support for their ideas. Instead, they will have to rely on their vision, record and message to succeed at the polls. Characterizing Clean Elections as reaching “into your wal-let” to pay for campaigns is misguided. Not the other way around.