Brewer's attorney blasts CCEC for inaction on matching funds

Lisa Hauser, Gov. Jan Brewer

Gov. Jan Brewer’s campaign attorney accused the Citizens Clean Elections Commission of abdicating its responsibility after commissioners decided not seek help for publicly financed candidates who are now forced to run their campaigns without the benefit of matching funds.

The commission considered asking U.S. District Court Judge Roslyn Silver to clarify an earlier ruling against matching funds, which could have opened the door for publicly funded candidates to raise private contributions to offset the loss of matching funds. But at a June 14 meeting, the commissioners decided not to seek clarification from Silver, arguing that doing so could jeopardize their position when the case goes before the U.S. Supreme Court.

“I am extremely disappointed, if not disgusted, by the route that you have taken here today,” Brewer attorney Lisa Hauser told the commission. “You have walked away and turned your backs on participating candidates, and it’s disgraceful.”

The commission said individual candidates could ask Silver for clarification themselves, but that the commission had a greater responsibility to the Clean Elections system as a whole. Commissioner Louis Hoffman, responding to Hauser’s criticism, said it is not the commission’s duty to intervene on behalf of one candidate or one race.

“We have to think not only of the effect on one race, but the effect on all candidates,” Hoffman said. “All stages of litigation need to be taken into account, and our position has to be as consistent as possible. If that means the chips fall where they may, the chips fall where they may.”

The governor’s race is the only campaign in which a candidate has spent enough to trigger matching funds for his opponent. Northern Arizona businessman Buz Mills has already spent $2.3 million in pursuit of the GOP nomination, which would have triggered $1.4 million in matching funds to Brewer and state Treasurer Dean Martin.

Hoffman would not say how a request for clarification from Silver would threaten the commission’s defense of the matching funds system. Hauser insisted that the commission should explain how it reached that conclusion, but to do so, Hoffman said, would require it to disclose confidential legal advice from its attorneys.

Commissioner Gary Scaramazzo said the entire commission was frustrated with the Supreme Court’s recent decision to block Arizona from distributing matching funds, but “we don’t want to do any more harm than has already been done.”

“We do feel that the candidates have the best chance of righting this wrong,” Scaramazzo said.

Hauser said the Brewer campaign would discuss whether to seek direction from Silver, but was wary of the possibility that the commission might oppose any such request. Hoffman said the commission might support or oppose any request for clarification, or stay completely neutral, depending on whether it might damage its case.

“You have basically punted … to the candidates, candidates who depend on this commission for many things,” Hauser told the commission.

The U.S. Supreme Court on June 8 barred Arizona from distributing matching funds while it prepares to hear the Goldwater Institute’s appeal in the case. The next day, the commission considered whether to allow Clean Elections candidates to make up the difference with private fundraising, but was concerned that Silver’s ruling prohibited them from doing so.

Arizona Revised Statute allows the commission to declare an emergency and allow private fundraising by publicly funded candidates if the commission cannot pay them the money they are due under the Clean Elections system. But the commission’s legal counsel advised it that Silver’s ruling likely prohibits it from declaring an emergency over the matching funds ruling.

At its June 9 meeting, the commission declined to declare an emergency, but said it would ask its legal counsel to investigate the matter further.