Supporters of the state’s public campaign funding system plan to file a legal challenge to the official state election pamphlet description of the No Taxpayer Money for Politicians initiative.

The initiative, expected to appear on the Nov. 2 general election ballot as Proposition 106, proposes to forbid the use of public funds of any kind to pay for political campaigns. The effect is to divert funding now used for the Clean Elections system to the state general fund. About two-thirds of Clean Elections funding comes from a 10 per cent surcharge on civil and criminal court fines, and the balance comes from sources that include a state-matched $5 check-off on individual state income tax returns and the hundreds of $5 contributions that candidates must collect if they want to qualify for public funding of their campaigns.

Paul Eckstein, attorney for “Keep It Clean,” said a challenge will be filed in the Arizona Supreme Court, possibly as early as July 19.

Keep It Clean was formed to oppose passage of the No Taxpayer Money for Politicians initiative. The description of the initiative that will be challenged was approved in a meeting of the Legislative Council on July 7.

The council — composed of seven members each of the House and Senate — spent nearly three hours arguing about how to fairly describe Prop. 106. Ultimately the description was passed 8-6 with the majority Republicans in favor and the minority Democrats opposed.

The Democrats had succeeded in persuading some Republicans to join them in accepting some amendments to the description but voted against the final version anyway.

Sen. Pete Rios, D-23, was among Democrats who felt the final version, even as amended, left out too much background information. The board of Keep It Clean agreed, said spokesman Doug Ramsey.

Changes Sought

Mr. Ramsey said Keep It Clean’s challenge will seek three changes to the description that will appear in the election information pamphlet, which is called the “publicity pamphlet”:

• A statement that makes it clear the measure would effectively repeal the Clean Elections system.

• Substitution of the phrase “public fund-ing” for the phrase “taxpayer money.”

• A statement that the Clean Elections Act was approved by voters.

“The anti-Clean Elections forces know that in poll after poll voters say they support the Clean Elections system, so they just want to mislead people by calling it ‘taxpayer money’ instead of Clean Elections,” Mr. Ramsey said.

Nathan Sproul, a consultant to No Taxpayer Money for Politicians, said he doesn’t understand why the Keep It Clean organization is unhappy with the publicity pamphlet description.

“They got a lot more in the description than we did,” Mr. Sproul said. “I’d think I would be happy with that if I were them.”

The publicity pamphlet description of Proposition 106 pays “an inordinate amount of attention to one specific program instead of recognizing that this is a constitutional amendment that is about a broader prohibition against using taxpayer money to fund political campaigns,” Mr. Sproul said.

The Language

This is the Legislative Council-approved summary of Prop. 106 that the supporters of Clean Elections want to change:

Proposition 106 would amend the Arizona Constitution to prohibit the use of “taxpayer money” to fund any candidate for a statewide or state legislative election. “Taxpayer money” is defined as any revenue collected by state or local governments and any amount eligible for a state tax reduction, donation or other tax feature. Proposition 106 also provides that the surcharge, penalty and other money in the Clean Elections fund on and after the effective date of Proposition 106 shall be deposited in the state general fund.

Funding for the publicly funded campaign system, known as the Citizens Clean Elections Act, comes from a 10 per cent surcharge on civil penalties and criminal fines, penalties arising from election law finance violations, $5 contributions collected by candidates and other voluntary donations. Taxpayers who donate are eligible for a tax credit in the amount of the donation up to 20 per cent of the tax owed or $550, whichever is greater. This Proposition has the effect of removing the dedicated funding source for the Citizens Clean Elections Commission. —