Despite having a philosophical problem with publicly funded campaigns, successful Republican legislators are taking the money and running in increasing numbers.

In the 2004 general election, 24 GOP legislators who used public funding were winners — 21 were voted into the House and three into the Senate. That compares to the 2002 election when 17 Republican candidates who accepted public funding were elected.

The increased use of public funding among Republicans has not translated to an increased enthusiasm for the initiative passed by Arizona voters in 1998. Often the decision to run publicly funded campaigns has more to do with winning than principle.

“You have to make the decision on how to run based on your highest likelihood of winning,” said Sen. John Huppenthal, R-20. “And that’s one of the deadly allures of Clean Elections. It’s very alluring in terms of participation. It’s a poison.” Mr. Huppenthal ran with public money in 2004.

Mr. Huppenthal, who was cleared of complaints that he had violated contribution limits in 2004, says that bypassing the need to garner support and funding from constituents and businesses sets a dangerous precedent.

“Everything we have in America comes out of our political process,” he says. “Even as frustrated as we are with representative government, it has produced the most incredible civilization that’s ever existed. We casually, and without much thought, decided to go the other way.”

Backers: it puts issues at forefront

Supporters of the Citizens Clean Elections Act contend the measure increases involvement among voters and elected officials by reducing the influence of special interests and thus, eliminating the emphasis placed on fundraising.

“It makes the debate about issues instead of who can raise the most money,” said Todd Lang, executive director of the Citizens Clean Elections Commission (CCEC).

Enforcement of the stringent rules that cover participating and non-participating candidates has angered some GOP legislators, who accuse the commission of selectively targeting Republicans.

Rep. Colette Rosati, R-8, has some strong views about the process. She ran public in 2004.

“The simple fact is that the CCEC has shown time and time again that they are either unwilling or unable to conduct their enforcement role in a fair and nonpartisan fashion,” she said. “We saw this first with the politically motivated investigation of Matt Salmon and it has continued without fail throughout the 2004 election cycle.”

Marcia Busching, the chair of the CCEC, denies Republican allegations of bias against the commission. The five-person commission is made up of two Democrats, two Republicans and an independent.

“Many times the CCEC doesn’t know the party of the person investigated,” she said. “I don’t see and am not aware of the singling out of any Democrat or Republican. The commission members are diverse politically and geographically.”

To cover the cost of a CCEC investigation, Ms. Rosati agreed on Sept. 15 to pay $2,500, stemming from a complaint that she had received an early-voter registration list at a discounted price from a political consultant. The commission had previously sought to impose a $5,000 fine.

Thirty-one Republican House and Senate candidates were investigated for alleged violations during the 2004 election cycle. Seven were penalized and one case remains open. The commission at the same time investigated twenty-two Democrats. Two have been fined and one case remains open. (The political division in the Senate is 18 Republicans to 12 Democrats; in the House, it’s 38 Republicans to 22 Democrats.)

Doug Ramsey, spokesman for the Clean Elections Institute, a nonprofit that supports the public funding system, said that one person had filed a total of 31 complaints against Arizona legislators, mostly Democrats and Republicans he deemed too moderate.

Under current law, any citizen can file a complaint against a candidate. Some of the complaints are filed by opponents who were defeated in primary elections, as in the cases of Ms. Rosati and Rep. Rick Murphy, R-9. Both have refused to rule out the possibilities of running publicly funded campaigns in the future. Both ran public in 2004.

“Clean elections is dirtier than the system we had before,” said Mr. Murphy, who added that he will avoid using public funds if he can, but it “depends on how his race shapes up.”

Complaints of accepting improper in-kind contributions brought against Mr. Murphy by former Rep. Phil Hanson were dismissed by the CCEC.

Accusations of bias against the Citizens Clean Elections Commission and uneasiness with the idea of publicly funded campaigns are common, but not universal among Republican legislators.

“I’ve found my experience to be a positive thing,” said Rep. Doug Quelland, R-10.

Mr. Quelland added that he enjoyed the mandatory debates for participating candidates that “keep him accountable” and that the reasoning behind reducing the influence of lobbyists is positive.

“I resent most run-of-the-mill lobbyists,” he says. “They’re just looking for your vote and will do anything to get it.”

Next meeting

On Oct. 4, the CCEC will hear an appeal by Rep. David Burnell Smith, R-7. The commission voted 5-0 in on Aug. 23 to accept an administrative law judge’s ruling that the CCEC was correct to order Mr. Smith from office and to fine him $10,000 for overspending his 2004 campaign by $6,038.