Thread: Court rules against Rep. AZ candidates funding

Ruling upends Arizona election
U.S. Supreme Court halts matching-funds program
8 commentsby Alia Beard Rau and Ginger Rough - Jun. 9, 2010 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic .

An emergency Supreme Court ruling halting public matching funds for Arizona political candidates will cut millions of dollars from the campaigns of some of the Republican candidates for governor and attorney general.

The decision, which comes less than two months before early voting begins, is likely to leave the program frozen until the court decides whether it will hear the case. That may not happen until fall.

Early voting kicks off July 29 for the Aug. 24 primary election.

The program gives Clean Elections participants some public funding up front, then gives them matching funds if a competitor running as a traditional candidate spends more money. The court's ruling will deny them those matching funds, even though some non-Clean Elections competitors have raised enough to trigger the match.

Although most legislative races won't be impacted because there won't be enough campaign money spent to trigger matching funds, the court decision will cost three Republican candidates for governor $1.4 million each and could cost one Republican candidate for attorney general $366,322.

Although they acknowledge the loss of funds will hurt their ability to advertise, Clean Elections candidates for governor don't predict a huge change in their ability to compete.

Court history

The majority of state candidates run under Clean Elections, a system approved by voters in 1998.

In 2002, Democrat Janet Napolitano ran as a Clean Elections candidate in the general election against traditional candidate and Republican Matt Salmon. Salmon spent $2.1 million in that race, triggering matching funds for Napolitano, who won. In 2006, Napolitano and Republican candidates Len Munsil and Don Goldwater all ran as Clean Elections candidates. Opponent spending did not reach the level to trigger matching funds.

In 2008, a group of Republican candidates filed a suit arguing that to avoid triggering matching funds for their opponents, they had to limit their spending - and, in essence, their freedom of speech.

In January, a U.S. District Court judge agreed. But a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, saying that matching funds impose a "minimal burden" on First Amendment rights.

The plaintiffs first asked the Supreme Court to issue an emergency halt to the matching funds. That request on its own was rejected, but the plaintiffs filed the request again, saying they intended to appeal their entire case to the high court.

Candidates react

As of Monday, 133 candidates have signed up under Clean Elections.

Among them are Republican gubernatorial candidates - Gov. Jan Brewer, state Treasurer Dean Martin and Tom Gordon - who each will lose out on $1.4 million in matching funds. Their privately financed opponent, Yavapai County businessman Buz Mills, already had triggered the maximum in matching funds, spending $2.3 million as of May 31.

Now, the three will get only their initial $707,447.

Martin, one of the plaintiffs in the Clean Elections lawsuit, acknowledged the loss of matching funds will affect his campaign strategy, primarily by limiting his ability to buy television advertising. But he said he was unconcerned because he views his primary opponent as Brewer, not Mills.

"We'll have a little less to spend, but so will the governor," he said. "So, at the end of the day, we've got the same fight."

Doug Cole, campaign spokesman for Brewer, declined to say how the ruling would specifically affect their campaign plans, but he noted that the "Phoenix media market is very expensive" and that the campaign will have to be creative in getting its message across.

Mills called the court decision "a tremendous victory for Arizona taxpayers and the First Amendment." He rejected claims from the Martin and Brewer camps that he has been trying to "buy" the Governor's Office.

"They counted on the taxpayers to fund their campaigns for them," Mills said. "That didn't work out."

Mills said he is committed to doing "whatever it takes" to win the GOP primary, but he said the court decision means he may not have to spend quite as much money. The other race most affected by Tuesday's court decision is the Republican primary for attorney general.

Tom Horne, who is running as a traditional candidate, said the ruling will enable him to spend more. He had raised $213,923 as of April 19 and, without the ruling, would have triggered additional funds for his Republican primary opponent Andrew Thomas. Now, Thomas is limited to his initial $183,311 allotment.

"If the law had stayed in effect, I would not have been able to spend all the money I raised, which is a violation of my free-speech rights," Horne said.

Jason Rose, a spokesman for Thomas, said they have developed a campaign strategy that will work with or without matching funds.

Attorneys with the Institute for Justice and the Goldwater Institute are representing the plaintiffs in the case.

Goldwater Litigation Director Clint Bolick said candidates knew the risks going into this campaign cycle.

"People were on notice not only from the courts but from Clean Elections folks themselves that matching funds were in serious jeopardy," Bolick said. "People who gambled that public subsidies would be available to them now are reaping the folly of that gamble."

Voter impact

Whatever the race, Nick Nyhart, president and CEO of the non-profit campaign-reform group Public Campaign, said the decision will be a "huge disruption in the election."

"Candidates will have less of an ability to speak up about where they stand," Nyhart said. "It's not so much about what's right or wrong for the politicians, it's about the voters getting to hear more."

Todd Lang, executive director of the Citizens Clean Elections Commission, agreed.

"Before, when there were nasty, misleading attack ads, we would provide matching funds so the record could be corrected," Lang said. "Now, that won't happen."

Joe Yuhas, managing partner in the public-relations firm Reister, agrees the decision transforms politics in Arizona. But he said the change is for the better.

"The lack of matching funds means that well-financed campaigns can take full advantage of their resources without the threat of becoming the biggest fundraiser for their opponent," he said.

He said he sees the decision as returning the power to the voters.

"There's something to be said about a candidate earning his or her support through grass-roots activities, endorsements and fundraising," he said. "There is some argument to be made that those who can marshal broad-based fundraising support are indeed the most serious candidates."

Institute for Justice attorney Bill Maurer, who also represents the plaintiffs, said they will file a petition asking the Supreme Court for a full review of the case. He said the court will decide whether it will hear the case when it returns from its recess this fall.

If the Supreme Court declines to hear the case or hears it and rules the funds constitutional, matching funds will be reinstated. If the court rules them unconstitutional, they will be permanently eliminated, both in Arizona and in states like North Carolina, Maine and New Mexico, which have similar programs.

Republic reporter Casey Newton contributed to this article.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepubli ... z0qOWCX5ll

This goes far byond mud slinging... I wonder who the courts are working for?