We’ve run three legislative cycles under the Clean Elections Act. The act’s philosophical opponents have brought all the constitutional challenges they can. Short of another referendum or initiative to junk the whole act, Clean Elections is a fact of political life in Arizona.

Reluctantly, a number of the act’s opponents have come to this conclusion. So, now the game turns to revising and adapting Clean Elections to the maximum advantage of Arizona’s political class. Almost certainly the 47th Legislature will be asked to refer a measure to the ballot that will propose changes in the act.

Let me say right from the beginning that I am a lawyer, a lobbyist and huge supporter of the Clean Elections Act. I also think that, like any government program that largely gives other people’s money away, the Clean Elections program is full of waste, fraud and abuse. And it only partially meets its creators’ objectives. But I’m a big fan.

The principal reason that I’m all for Clean Elections is that it has created a system of campaign regulation that is enormously complex and full of ticky-tacky regulatory traps. Who has more fun with statutory complexity and regulatory hand grenades than lawyers? I know that candidates don’t — both Republicans and Democrats. The result is that anyone making a serious run for state office has got to retain legal and accounting consultants.

You’ve got to love that.

The act proceeds from the notion that money in politics is bad, and no one should have a competitive advantage because of money. The only good political money is money washed through the Clean Elections Commission. During the 2004 cycle, the Commission passed out more than $4.3 million. Three years ago, when all statewide offices were up, the Commission passed out more than $12.8 million. What do we have to show for that money?

One thing is a lot more consultants running campaigns. Another is a lot more mail and more signs in the right of way. I hope all those citizens who moan about “ugly” political signs know they are paying for that ugliness.

The framers of the act want legislators free from obligation to evil lobbyists. Ironically, many of the framers also decry the lack of moderates in the Legislature — well, what did they expect? The big, bad business community with its mind-altering lucre is also the biggest force for moderation in the state. Freed from the need to attract money from the moderate business community, conservatives no longer feel any compunctions about running aggressively conservative campaigns. And, since Clean Elections often does “level the playing field” (or even tilt it in favor of the participating candidate) in terms of money, other things being equal, the conservative candidate usually wins the primary.

What the act certainly does do is empower ideologically driven groups. The hardest part of Clean Elections is getting together the $5 qualifying contributions. Anyone who can get a couple of hundred people together in a room is the candidate’s new best friend.

Who is more likely to pull that trick off then single-issue organizations with a membership list of true believers?

No part of the Clean Elections Act has altered the political game in Arizona more than matching funds. First, we match off of expenses and then off contributions. And we match off independent expenditures that “expressly advocate” election or defeat. Expressly advocate has come to mean sending out an unflattering picture of your opponent if you do it close enough to Election Day.

The matching funds game also makes the Clean Elections Commission the de facto investigator, prosecutor, judge and jury of Arizona politics. By law these all-powerful commissioners must have little to no practical experience in the world of politics themselves. That’s like asking me to judge Olympic ice skating. (I don’t skate.)

The very best part of this regulatory scheme is that the Commission is accountable to no one. Elections work on well defined timelines. Regulatory bodies work when they think they have all of the facts, regardless of how long that takes. What makes our legal system work in this country are appeals. If you’ve been wronged you go to court and complain.

And if you don’t like the ruling you can go to another judge and then another and then a few more. Eventually we get what most of us regard as a fair outcome.

In the political world, no one has enough time to challenge an unfair Commission ruling.

Time and time again we have represented clients who thought the Commission was completely wrong but opted to pay a penalty and get the focus back on their election.

This isn’t the Commission’s fault; due process and equal protection take time. An impeding Election Day doesn’t permit that luxury.

Eliminating matching funds will eliminate most of what’s wrong with the act. It will eliminate the gamesmanship, the lawyers and most of the complaints. Instead, give any legislative candidate who turns in a fair number of qualifying contributions a $15,000 grubstake for the primary and $15,000 for the general election. In order to qualify for this funding a candidate must turn in qualifying contributions from at least 10 different precincts in their district. Let’s come up with similar requirements for statewide offices.

Importantly though, we should permit all candidates to raise additional private money if they indicate, at the time they turn in their petitions, that they intend to do so. Candidates can change their mind on taking private money up to three days after petitions are due. Purists can either refuse the public money or limit themselves to the government stipend.

If lack of money is what holds many potential candidates back, this scheme gives everyone a modest level of funds to spread their message. If their message is resonating, they ought to attract additional private funding. Requiring qualifying contributions from around the district forces the candidate to walk the district. It mitigates but does not eliminate the power of say one church group or one HOA.

Eliminating the utopian concept of matching funds will make Arizona’s system of campaign finance simpler and just as equitable.

Lee Miller is a partner with the Phoenix law firm of Miller, LaSota & Peters, PLC.