Advocates for publicly funded elections and newspapers are curious about the intent of a House bill that would give campaign money to publicly funded opponents of candidates who have been repeatedly endorsed by newspapers and magazines.

Barbara Lubin, executive director of the Clean Elections Institute, a private group in support of publicly funded elections, is not aware of candidates in the past feeling disadvantaged during campaigns because of newspaper endorsements of an opponent.

With the absence of that specific gripe, Ms. Lubin suspects another motive behind the bill, H2762, sponsored by Rep. Warde Nichols, R-21.

“I think it’s an attack not so much on Clean Elections, but on the press,” she said. “They’re using Clean Elections to curtail First Amendment rights.”

Arizona’s system of granting public funds to qualified candidates provides matching funds for participating candidates when privately funded opponents exceed specified spending amounts during primary and general election campaigns.

Independent expenditures made by a candidate or policy group that expressly advocate or oppose a candidate or candidates trigger matching funds equal to any excess of the reported primary or general election limit.

Newspapers have an absolute right to endorse candidates, according to Mr. Nichols. His bill, he said, would simply be an improvement to the Clean Elections Act, which strives to create a level playing field for candidates.

Multiple endorsements by newspapers, particularly those with a large number of subscriptions, are inappropriate attempts to influence elections and should be treated as independent expenditures like any other advertisement or endorsement from private groups, he said.

“If you want to get to the nuts and bolts of Clean Elections, it’s free speech — with strings attached,” said Mr. Nichols.

Matching funds trigger

Setting off matching funding for opposing candidates is a strategic blunder, but campaign committees have no control over the activities of the wide variety of citizen groups that can trigger matching funds, said Paul Bentz, a campaign consultant with HighGround, a political consulting firm.

“You don’t want to trigger the other people’s money because you’re trying to tell your story and not give your opponents a chance to respond to what you’re saying,” he said.

Determining what endorsements or materials meet the requirements to trigger matching funds is difficult and so is arriving at the value of such expenditures, said Todd Lang, executive director of the Citizens Clean Elections Commission.

“That’s more challenging because they (advocacy groups) don’t always report their spending accurately,” he said.

The commission’s usual monthly meetings become weekly as the primary and general elections get nearer to accommodate the importance of matching funds, said Mr. Lang.

“It requires them to meet quite often because matching funds need to be issued right away,” he said.

John Moody, a lobbyist for the Arizona Newspapers Association, told the House Judiciary Committee, which later voted 6-3 along party lines to advance the bill, that no connection exists between an opinion published in a newspaper and campaigns. The ability to freely publish should not be impaired, he said.

“It’s not advertising, it’s not a political contribution, it’s an expression of free speech and it’s absolutely imperative that the newspapers maintain that independence,” he said after the committee adjourned.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Eddie Farnsworth, R-22, took issue with Mr. Moody’s stance that determining the value of the editorial endorsement by basing it on the cost of comparable paid advertising in the publication as required by H2762, would be nearly impossible to implement.

“You can’t come up with the price for a newspaper ad≠” he said. “I’m sorry, I just don’t buy that.”

Endorsements: A mixed bag≠

The actual value of an editorial endorsement to a candidate in terms of good publicity might be overrated and certainly is less important than critical newspaper reporting, said Rep. Ben Miranda, D-16.

“We get hurt more by a bad story than helped out by an endorsement,” he said.

Mr. Bentz, who serves as a political consultant for Secretary of State Jan Brewer, calls newspaper endorsements a “mixed bag” that could do as much damage as benefit, depending on the reputation of the newspaper.

If the backing from a newspaper or magazine could trigger matching funds, it might raise the future possibility that recognition or awards presented by business or other groups could do the same.

Comments made in committee by Rep. Jonathan Paton, R-30, who found it “interesting” that newspapers that have been supportive of Clean Elections oppose the measure, might indicate the reason behind the legislation, said Mr. Moody.

“I think it may have something to do with the politics of Clean Elections, but I don’t know that for a fact,” Mr. Moody said.

“If we endorse a certain idea and then it’s held against us for expressing our opinion — our editorial board’s opinion — that can result in legislation. If we take an opinion in favor of Clean Elections, the question is who is ‘we≠’”

As of Feb. 23, H2762 had yet to be approved by the House Rules Committee before it could be debated on the House floor.