Clean Elections Timeline 

June 29, 1998:
Arizonans for Clean Elections files 187,206 signatures to put the Clean Elections Act on the November 1998 ballot.
Oct. 22, 1998:
A lawsuit filed with the Arizona Supreme Court that threatens to keep Clean Elections Act (Prop. 200) from ballot on grounds that it lacked a title loses unanimously in Meyers v. Bayless.
November 1998:
Voters pass Prop. 200 by a margin of 51 to 49 percent, making Arizona the second state behind Maine to adopt publicly funded campaigns.
December 1998:
Clean Elections Institute formed. Members include Mike Valder, Howard Mechanic, Renz Jennings, Marge Mead, Jim Driscoll, Jim Lewis and Carol Mattoon. The institute is a nonprofit that advocates for public funding of campaigns. It is funded through grants and donations and is not connected with the Citizens Clean Elections Commission.
January 1999:
Arizona Chamber of Commerce files original action in Arizona Supreme Court to challenge CCEC. The court declines to accept the case.
Feb. 16, 1999:
U.S. Department of Justice approves Clean Elections Act.
July 6, 1999:
Arizona Chamber of Commerce files lawsuit in Maricopa County Superior Court to prove the act violates the separation of powers clause. The chamber is partially successful — the Supreme Court eventually hears the suit and rules on June 16, 2000, that expanding the Commission of Appellate Court Appointments’ power to screen proposed commission appointees is unconstitutional in Citizens Clean Elections Commission v. Myers. However, the rest of the 1998 legislation is left largely intact. Power to appoint commissioners is delegated solely to state officeholders of alternating political parties.
Sept. 9, 1999:
The Institute for Justice, a Washington, D.C.-based think-tank, files lawsuit against Clean Elections Act in U.S. District Court on behalf of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce. The motion challenges the lobbying fee and civil and criminal fine surcharges, claiming they violate the First Amendment by forcing citizens to make political contributions. Plaintiffs include lobbyists Tim Lawless of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Rick Lavis of the Arizona Cotton Growers Association and Rep. Steve May. The District Court rules that it has no jurisdiction to hear the case and it is filed in Maricopa Superior Court. There, Judge Colleen McNally rules that applying fees to lobbyists to fund the commission is unconstitutional in Lavis v. Bayless on Dec. 19, 2001, but upholds legality of applying surcharges to criminal and civil fines in May v. Bayless in October 2002.
Clint Bolick, litigator for the Institute for Justice, said he is “pleased that lobbyists will be freed from the yoke of supporting politicians against their will,” but he is also “disappointed that the court did not strike down the coerced funding of politicians by Arizona citizens.”
Cecilia Martinez, executive director of the Clean Elections Institute, said, “We’re elated; this is a huge victory for us. This is the second time that the Clean Elections Act has been found constitutional.”
Mr. May takes his case, May v. McNally, to the Arizona Court of Appeals. He wins on June 17, 2002, but the matter moves to the Arizona Supreme Court, which rules on Oct. 11, 2002, that the surcharges are neutral of viewpoint and therefore, do not violate the First Amendment.
The battle against using civil and criminal fine surcharges ends when the U.S. Supreme Court refuses to hear May v. Brewer on March 24, 2003.
July 10, 2000:
Barbara Lubin, who would later become the executive director of the Clean Elections Institute in November 2002, becomes the first candidate in Arizona to be authorized to receive public funding for a campaign. She runs and loses as a Democratic candidate for the Arizona Corporation Commission.
Election 2000:
All 90 legislative seats up for election. It is the first election complying with Clean Elections Act. Out of a total of 59 participating candidates, 16 are elected — 14 legislators and two corporation commissioners. Other statewide offices including governor, attorney general, superintendent of public instruction, treasurer, mine inspector and one seat on the corporation commission were not up for election. Forty-four publicly funded candidates won primary elections. A total of $1,928,923 is disbursed by the CCEC.
May 2001:
CCEC introduces its mascot “Five Dollar Bill” and launches campaign to increase awareness of the CCEC, the $5 tax check-off box and the dollar-for-dollar tax credit for contributions made to the commission.
October 2001:
Poll by the Behavioral Research Center questioning 703 Arizona residents contacted by telephone reveals the following:
• 84 percent of Arizonans believe the traditional methods of funding campaigns have “great or some” influence on how elected officials vote on topics affecting their contributors.
• 58 percent said they “don’t know” what the Clean Elections Act does.
• 39 percent said they would be more likely to support a candidate who accepts public funding for campaigns (the question included a description of what the Clean Elections Act does). Thirty-five percent said they would be more likely to vote for a privately funded candidate, 17 percent said the source of funding would have no impact on their voting and 9 percent said they did not know how they would vote on the basis of campaign funding sources.
• 53 percent would “favor or strongly favor” expanding the CCEC’s role to include funding judicial candidates, while 31 percent said they would “oppose or strongly oppose” the idea.
2002 Legislative session:
Seven bills affecting the publicly funded candidate system are introduced. One bill pertaining to pamphlet distribution passes.
Proponents of the Clean Elections Act argue that traditionally funded legislators unfairly kill any potential improvements to the system. “There seems to be this attitude that if there is anything to do with Clean Elections, they’re just going to vote against it — even anything that could make it work better,” said Colleen Connor, executive director of CCEC.
Opponents of the voter-passed initiative and the CCEC charge the Clean Elections Act amounts to “welfare for politicians” and the supervising body lacks necessary oversight.
“Tell me the name of any group or agency that’s accountable to no one that hasn’t done anything but a bad job. When there’s no accountability, the wheels fall off the wagon sooner or later,” said House Majority Whip Robert Blendu, R-Dist. 15.
June 2002:
KAET poll reveals 66 percent of Arizonans support Clean Elections.
October 2002:
CCEC Deputy Director Matt Shaffer is fired. He contends his termination is the result of whistle-blowing on what he felt to be a politically motivated investigation into the campaign finances of Republican gubernatorial candidate Matt Salmon. The commission alleged Mr. Shaffer had “willingly and deliberately concealed” violations of Mr. Salmon.
Mr. Shaffer files a defamation lawsuit against the commission, Ms. Connor and her husband Chad Jacobs in U.S. District Court. Ms. Connor wrote a letter to the Department of Public Safety alleging Mr. Shaffer schemed to defraud the commission and did not fulfill the responsibilities of his job.
In September 2005, a federal jury awards Mr. Shaffer $1.1 million after concluding that Ms. Connor defamed him.
2002 Elections:
Seven of nine statewide candidates win races using public funding, including the first governor elected with public funds, Janet Napolitano, who received $2.2 million to run her campaign.
About 56 percent of the 247 total candidates abandon traditional fundraising for campaigns, and in the general election 89 of 170 candidates run with funds distributed by the CCEC.
Thirty-two members of the Legislature (27 from the House, 5 from the Senate) are elected after running publicly funded campaigns.
In total, 22 Republicans and 17 Democrats are elected after running publicly funded campaigns.
A total of $12,862,881 is allocated to candidates for primary and general elections.
Compared to 1998, the last election year before the adoption of the Clean Elections Act, the number of candidates in primary elections increased by 24 percent (199 to 247). There is also a 64 percent increase in candidates running for statewide offices (14 in 1998 to 23 in 2002).
Enforcement of CCEC rules begins. A total of 76 complaints against candidates are filed (28 against traditionally funded candidates). The CCEC investigates 24 of the complaints and 21 violators settle by paying fines by order or part of settlement. Fifty-five cases were dismissed or settled without a fine.
2003 Legislative session:
Four pieces of Clean Elections legislation are introduced, including one resolution to let voters decide to repeal the Clean Elections Act on the 2004 general election ballot. House Speaker Jake Flake vows to avoid hearing Clean Elections bills, preferring to wait for an upcoming 2004 ballot initiative to attack the CEA.
2004 Legislative session:
Five bills concerning publicly funded campaigns are filed. None is heard in committee.
Jan. 29, 2004:
The Institute for Justice files lawsuit against provisions of the Clean Elections Act in the U.S. District Court. Among the plaintiffs: Sen. Dean Martin, R-6, 2002 Republican gubernatorial candidate Matt Salmon and the Tucson-based Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. The lawsuit argues that the system dilutes the freedom of speech of donors by having the state grant equal funding to participating candidates they oppose. The plaintiffs also seek to suspend the use of certain spending report requirements for non-participating candidates. They state that mandatory reports are excessive; and an unfair matching fund provision practically forces candidates to run campaigns with public funding.
Judge Earl Carroll refuses to issue an injunction against the Clean Elections Act on July 8 and the plaintiffs file an appeal with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on April 8, 2005. The case is still pending.
June 24, 2004:
Nathan Sproul, former executive director of the Arizona Republican Party, forms No Taxpayer Money for Politicians to take on the Clean Elections Act via an initiative. The group collects 275,100 signatures, launching Prop. 106, a ballot measure that would forbid the public funding of campaigns.
July 21, 2004:
Keep it Clean, a group led by attorney and former Congressional candidate Chuck Blanchard, files a lawsuit in Maricopa County Superior Court to stop the proposition from reaching voters. The Clean Elections defender insists the writing on pamphlets mailed to voters violates the state’s single subject clause. The initiative will not only forbid public funding, it will also prevent the CCEC from performing its secondary task of voter education- “duties unrelated to the public funding of political candidates and campaigns,” as described by Mr. Blanchard.
July 29, 2004:
Judge Margaret H. Downey of Maricopa County Superior Court blocks the initiative from appearing on the Nov. 2 ballot. An appeal is filed with Arizona Supreme Court.
Aug 12, 2004:
Arizona Chief Justice Charles E. Jones of the Arizona Supreme Court rules against an appeal brought by the backers of Prop. 106, upholding the lower court ruling.
Aug. 25, 2004:
A lawsuit is filed against consultant Constantin Querard, who works for several Republican candidates using public campaign funding, by Tom Liddy, the chairman of Maricopa Republican Party, the party itself, and two GOP sitting legislators.
The group claims that Mr. Querard misled voters through an early ballot mailer strategy to gain advantage for his clients. The case is eventually dropped by the Maricopa County Republican Party, but it is ordered that voter information he obtained be turned over to the Maricopa County director of elections.
Sept. 10, 2004:
Mainstream Arizona, a 527 non-profit group formed to counter what it perceived as a growing influence of the ideological right in the Legislature, sues the CCEC in Maricopa County Superior Court.
The group, whose members include former Attorney General Grant Woods and Board of Regents member Jack Jewett, felt the CCEC had improperly issued more than $65,000 in matching funds to 15 legislative candidates to offset the value of mailers they had distributed before the primary election.
Mainstream Arizona maintains the mailers were not expressly advocating the election or defeat of clearly identified candidates, but sought to promote awareness of moderate public policy and therefore should not have triggered matching funds.
Oct. 4, 2005:
Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Edward Burke rules in favor of the CCEC, believing the commission was correct in finding that the Mainstream mailings had “expressly advocated” the election of nine GOP moderates. The decision was not appealed and the group soon disbands after the Attorney General’s Office rules Mainstream Arizona is not a non-profit partisan 527 group, but a political committee and therefore subject to state regulation and reporting requirements.
2004 Elections:
Of 195 candidates running for office, 118 (59 percent), run with public funds in primary election. Eighty-eight candidates, of 156, who campaign with money distributed by the CCEC make it to general election, and 42 are elected to legislative offices.
All seven candidates for four open seats on the Corporation Commission run publicly funded campaigns.
Almost half of the Arizona Legislature is comprised of users of Clean Elections (42 of 90). The CCEC disburses $4,357,526 to candidates.
The 77 reported complaints investigated by the CCEC remained stable in number compared to the 2002 election cycle (76). However, the 2004 election cycle had 21 percent fewer candidates than in 2002 (195 to 247), when more statewide offices were up for election. Twelve investigations of complaints are still open, including David Burnell Smith, R-7, who stands to possibly become the first elected official removed from office for campaign violations in the nation.
2005 Legislative session:
Twenty bills and concurrent resolutions dealing with publicly funded campaigns are introduced. Two pass the Legislature, including H2505, which would greatly increase the limits officeholders can raise for expense accounts set aside to communicate with constituents. Both are vetoed.
November 2005:
The Citizens Clean Elections Commission estimates that it will disburse $17 million dollars to participating candidates for their 2006 campaigns.
2006 Legislative session:
Ten pieces of legislation are introduced, including HCR2046, which would allow voters to decide whether to repeal the Clean Elections Act. A strike-everything amendment is also added to SCR1013, which was altered to lessen campaign contribution limits and to redirect funding away from the CCEC.
Another bill, H2762, would require that repeated newspaper or magazine endorsements of a political candidate would qualify as an independent expenditure and therefore trigger matching funds to opponents.
An attempt is made in H2379 to reduce the amount of matching funds given to publicly funded candidates by the amount of early contributions that candidate is permitted to raise.
Most bills pertaining to Clean Elections in the session do not reach a floor vote. A Senate bill that requires the county recorder to report daily verified totals of a candidate’s private contribution slips to the Secretary of State’s Office is signed into law.
Jan. 26, 2006:
The Arizona Supreme Court orders David Burnell Smith, R-7, to be removed from office. The ruling makes Mr. Smith the first legislator in the nation’s history to be forced from office for campaign finance violations.
“This ruling required Mr. Smith to keep his promise to the Commission and to the voters that he would abide by the rules when he takes public funding,” wrote CCEC Executive Director Todd Lang in a commission bulletin.
Feb. 23, 2006:
Constantin Querard, a political consultant for socially conservative legislators, loses lawsuit against the Citizens Clean Elections Commission, which he alleges to have invaded his right to privacy by subpoenaing his bank records during an investigation into the 2004 campaign of Rep Colette Rosati, R-8.
Mr. Querard states his offer to release his records for internal examination by the commission to avoid having them become public record was refused.
March 27, 2006:
Tom Liddy, former Maricopa County Republican chairman, successfully defends himself from a defamation lawsuit brought by Mr. Querard. The consultant sued Mr. Liddy for sending an e-mail in July 2004 that Mr. Querard claimed unfairly accused him of money laundering.
At the trial in Maricopa County Superior Court, Mr. Liddy, an elections law expert and syndicated radio talk show host, said Mr. Querard had unlawfully commingled funds from his work at the Arizona Family Project with funds given to him from legislative candidates in a scheme to create an advantage for his clients in the 2004 Republican primary elections.
The consultant adamantly denies using money from the AFP to benefit his clients.
One Republican lawmaker tells the Arizona Capitol Times that information released during the trial could be damaging to several legislators that donated to the AFP and used Mr. Querard as a consultant in the 2004 elections.
“This could be the AzScam of post-Clean-Elections politics in Arizona,” said the legislator on the condition of anonymity.
June 14, 2006:
220 candidates file necessary nominating petitions with the Secretary of State’s Office to campaign for the 2006 elections. Of the 220 legislative and statewide candidates, 168 will attempt to qualify for public funding.
Source: Arizona Capitol Times files
Compiled by Christian Palmer