Editors' Note: We previously noted this now-defeated attack on democracy as a prime example of corporate corruption of the ballot initiative process and the need to reverse the 1978 U.S. Supreme Court decision that allowed corporations to sponsor "citizen" initiatives. We're pleased that this attempt to subvert clean elections has failed, but it will simply be a delay unless that root issue is corrected.

An initiative to overturn Clean Elections, the state's voter-approved system for publicly financing campaigns, is off the Nov. 2 ballot.

The state Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a lower court's ruling to dump Proposition 106 because it violated the "single-subject rule" for making changes to the state Constitution.

The No Taxpayer Money for Politicians initiative asked voters to get rid of public funding for campaigns. But it also would have defunded the Clean Elections Commission and prevented it from regulating campaign-finance laws, holding debates and publishing its voters guide, which prompted a lawsuit from a public advocacy group called the Clean Elections Institute.

Judge Margaret Downie of Maricopa County Superior Court ruled last month that voters might reasonably support one part of the initiative but not the other. Supporters of the initiative appealed, but the Supreme Court backed Downie's decision Thursday with a brief announcement. A complete opinion will be released later.

"We're elated because we felt this campaign was very deceptive and designed to undermine access to our public officials," said Jim Sedillo, a former lawmaker from Flagstaff who chaired the Keep It Clean campaign to fight Proposition 106. "But we don't think the story is over. We'll prepare ourselves for whatever happens in the next election."

Nathan Sproul, an organizer for the $500,000 effort to put the proposition on the ballot, said his group is "disappointed" by the court's ruling and will not give up. The next opportunity for a citizen initiative is the 2006 general election.

"We have every intention of honoring the will of the 280,000 people who signed the petition, and we have every intention of putting this before the people for a vote in the very near future," said Sproul. "This battle is far from over."

In Arizona, Clean Elections candidates forgo private contributions and instead collect a set number of $5 donations that can qualify them for state matching funds. Two-thirds of the matching funds come from surcharges on civil and criminal fines. The rest comes from a $5 state income tax checkoff and a dollar-for-dollar income tax credit for up to $500. So far, the system has distributed more than $13 million to hundreds of candidates.

Lobbyist Kevin DeMenna, who raises money for several legislative candidates, called the court's decision "a travesty." DeMenna said public campaign funding allows fringe candidates with little public support access to the ballot.

"If a candidate is not able to raise funds from private citizens, then it speaks volumes about the viability of that candidate's message to begin with," DeMenna said.

But Sedillo said he saw Clean Elections dilute the power of special-interest lobbyists and increase the power of ordinary constituents during his time in office.

"The way that lobbyists approached a Clean Elections elected official was much different than the way they approached the individuals they had direct funding ties with," said Sedillo, a Democrat. "They came to us asking for advice, rather than telling us what was the best way to go for their interests."

© 2004 Arizona Republic

 

Related feature: Canyon Resources Inc. Seizes the Ballot Initiative

Go to Home Page