There is no consensus among elections law experts and Capitol insiders if a recent U.S. Supreme Court knock-out punch to campaign spending and contribution limits set in Vermont will present a significant threat to Arizona’s Clean Elections Act and existing contribution limits.
Sen. Dean Martin, R-6, currently involved with a lawsuit against the Clean Elections Act in U.S. Court of Appeals 9th Circuit, believes the June 26 ruling in Randall v. Sorrell will present a danger to the state’s system of publicly financed elections for a number of reasons.
“This decision will drive a stake through the heart of our law,” said Mr. Martin, one of the listed plaintiffs in Association of American Physicians and Surgeons v. Brewer, a lawsuit filed against the Clean Elections Act by the Institute for Justice.
The court’s ruling that Vermont’s limits on campaign spending and contributions were set too low will strengthen legal challenges to campaign finance laws in Arizona, which now boasts the most stringent limits as a result of the decision, he said.
The act imposes a different standard for legislative candidates, who can collect individual contributions up to $296, while another statute permits candidates for local offices to receive donations 20 percent greater, or $370.
This makes using public money for campaigns coercive by making it nearly impossible to raise enough funding to overcome the detriments of the act’s matching funds provision, which gives publicly funded candidates the same amount raised by their private competitors — without deducting the expenses incurred while raising the money, Mr. Martin said.
This “arbitrary and capricious” contribution difference of the Clean Elections Act, together with the overwhelming 6-3 Supreme Court decision to nullify Vermont’s strict campaign finance laws could have dire consequences for Arizona’s Clean Elections Act and campaign contribution limits, Mr. Martin said.
“This court does not like this system,” said Mr. Martin, who adds that a formula used by Justice Steven G. Breyer to determine Vermont’s contribution limit dollar-per-constituent ratio bodes even worse for Arizona.
“In Vermont you have to stretch a dollar to reach 1,562 voters,” he said, citing Justice Breyer. “In Arizona, you have to stretch it to reach 7,342 voters. You have to be able to communicate your message to the people.”
The population formula is not the rule, but does lend evidence that “there might be a problem” and it demonstrates the impact of too-strict contribution limits, he said.
No threat on the horizon
Tim Keller, executive director of the Arizona chapter of the Institute for Justice, said the June 26 decision will probably not play a major role in the organization’s case against publicly financed campaigns in the state.
“The IJ is not planning on filing any new cases based on this decision (striking down Vermont’s limits), but we may use it for supplemental arguments,” said Mr. Keller, who hailed the decision.
The Supreme Court “certainly put Arizona into the crosshairs,” but legitimate threats to the state’s funding of campaigns and its contribution restrictions are not on the horizon, said Chuck Blanchard, an attorney of the Clean Elections Institute, a non-profit campaign reform advocacy group.
“There will be some consideration but in the end I don’t think it will be a winner,” he said.
Mr. Blanchard argues that differences in campaign finance laws of Arizona and Vermont make drawing clear comparisons between the two states difficult. Vermont places sharp restrictions on the power of political parties and requires the expenses of volunteers be reported as contributions, while Arizona does not.
Also, candidates running with public funds participate voluntarily and there is no evidence that Arizona campaign finance laws doom challengers or unfairly protect incumbents, he said.
“The reality is that you get a big check and history shows this (Clean Elections) has been pretty friendly to challengers,” he said, referring most specifically to the defeat of many legislative incumbents by publicly funded newcomers in 2004.
State has few election lawyers
An attack on Arizona’s contribution limits would also prove to be very difficult given that supporters benefit from 20 years of experience defending and examining the restrictions, which were passed in the mid-1980s. The state also has a relatively small number of election-law lawyers and few seem likely to go on the offensive, he said.
“I have not sensed that there is a strong opposition to campaign limits here,” said Mr. Blanchard, who estimates even a “low end” attempt to overthrow the laws would cost about $150,000 to 250,000.
Like Mr. Blanchard, noted campaign finance law expert Lee Miller is not convinced the ruling will result in a successful push against Arizona’s campaign finance laws, but for different reasons.
Drawing from personal experiences in Vermont, the opponent of publicly financed campaigns believes their strict limits on contributions and spending were created to hinder recently arrived people looking to “buy their way into a campaign.”
The limits on contributions from individuals, candidates and parties were set low to make it impossible for challengers to raise enough money to overcome the name-recognition advantage enjoyed by incumbents, he said.
While the decision reached in Randall v. Sorrell may inspire legislatures to push for a referendum in the future, a successful lawsuit is unlikely because unlike Vermont, Arizona has a system of publicly funded campaigns — and arguments can be raised that it provides enough money to launch viable bids for most offices, he said.
“What Randall stands for is that you can’t set up an election system that sets up an advantage for incumbents,” he said.
However, though officeholders are occasionally defeated, a case could be made that the combination of Clean Elections and its enhancement of contribution limits for legislatures has the “practical effect” of guaranteeing victory for incumbents, he said.