Sixth District Congressman Jeff Flake may serve as chairman of a committee seeking repeal of the Arizona Clean Elections Act, but if he does, the group will be subject to federal campaign contribution limits, the Federal Elections Commission has decided.

On July 17, Mr. Flake issued a news release saying that he needs more time to consult with legal counsel before deciding whether he will re-join Stop Taxpayer Money for Politicians.

Mr. Flake had signed on as chairman of Stop Taxpayer Money for Politicians when the group filed with the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office in January. The group announced it will seek to repeal the state’s public campaign funding system through a ballot initiative. But in March, Mr. Flake resigned his post with the group out of concern that his role would conflict with last year’s federal McCain-Feingold Act, which regulates funding of campaigns for federal office.

Another potential rub with the federal law was the fact that Stop Taxpayer Money for Politicians proposes to use staff and consultants from Mr. Flake’s re-election campaign. At one point, Mr. Flake was considering challenging incumbent John McCain in next year’s Republican primary for the U.S. Senate.

In March, Benjamin Ginsberg, a lawyer for the Republican Party in Washington, D.C., asked the Federal Elections Commission for an advisory opinion on whether Mr. Flake could resume his role as chairman of Stop Taxpayer Money for Politicians and several other questions related to whether the committee, even though it was promoting repeal of a state law, would conflict with any provision of the federal McCain-Feingold Act, formally known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.

On July 17, a majority of the commissioners agreed that Mr. Flake could serve as chairman of the group, but that it would be subject to the McCain-Feingold law. Under the federal law, contributions from individuals would be limited to $5,000, while corporations and unions would be prohibited from contributing.

If Mr. Flake didn’t chair the group and it didn’t use members of his re-election campaign staff or consultants, it could operate under state law governing ballot measure committees, which allows unlimited contributions but requires reporting on contributions and expenditures.

Mr. Flake had little comment on July 17 on the FEC decision.

“I want to thank the FEC for clarifying what I am permitted to do with regard to state ballot initiatives,” Mr. Flake said in a news release. “I can assure you that I will do all I can under the law to stop politicians from milking Arizona taxpayers to pay for their political campaigns.”

The news release also stated, “Congressman Flake will not comment further until the final decision has been posted and he has had an opportunity to seek advice from counsel regarding the opinion.”

Stop Taxpayer Money for Politicians has yet to file its proposed voter initiative with the Secretary of State’s Office, the next step it will have to take if it wishes to begin collecting voter signatures to get its measure on the November 2004 general election ballot.

Barbara Lubin, executive director of the Clean Elections Institute, a nonprofit group that promotes public funding of political campaigns, said in a statement, “It is disheartening that a federal board can issue a ruling jeopardizing reforms passed by Arizona voters.”

“In a sense, Flake will now be able to raise $7,000 from individual supporters as opposed to the $2,000 limit if he was only running one committee,” Ms. Lubin said, referring to the $5,000 limit set on the ballot-measure committee and the $2,000 limit on individual contributions to a congressional campaign committee. “This 250 per cent increase in the amount he can raise to support his personal agenda is a huge loophole [Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act] supporters could have never anticipated. This ruling is a huge setback for all supporters of campaign reform.”

In a telephone interview with the Arizona Capitol Times, Ms. Lubin said that the FEC advisory opinion would allow Mr. Flake or any other congressional candidate to “vacuum up $7,000 per person, while presidential candidates are limited to raising $2,000 per person.”

“I wonder if this means presidential candidates could open up ballot measures in every state to raise more money?” Ms. Lubin wondered. —