Todd Lang is a former assistant attorney general and current executive director of the Citizens Clean Elections Commission. The job of leading the five-member commission is described by Capitol insiders as a “political maelstrom,” “intense,” “difficult,” and most importantly, subject to constant scrutiny.
The commission’s decisions don’t always please candidates and consultants. Mr. Lang, or Todd, as he prefers, has earned respect from Republicans and Democrats alike.
He has defended the controversial Clean Elections Act from a challenge in the Arizona Supreme Court that, if successful, would have bankrupted the commission that oversees the public funding of statewide and legislative campaigns. And though he doesn’t hide the fact that he fully supports publicly funded elections, party figures and policy buffs credit his neutrality and efforts to combat candidate attempts to take advantage of the state’s elections system.
The soft-spoken lawyer recently sat down with Arizona Capitol Times to discuss being the center of attention, the future of Clean Elections, and the recent political trends affecting this year’s elections.
How did you develop an interest in campaign finance reform?
I was a political science major in college and I’ve always been interested in politics. I went to law school in order to go into public service and so working in elections and campaign finance was a natural extension of that interest.
Have you always been drawn to public affairs? When did that start?
When I was a kid. My parents encouraged it. My parents were involved in public issues and my dad always encouraged me to be involved in doing the right thing and so it was a natural progression.
Do you like your job?
Very much. It’s challenging, interesting and it keeps me on my feet.
Are you surprised by the amount of attention the commission receives?
No. I would have been five years ago when I was the assistant AG giving legal advice to the commission. But I’ve seen the sort of attention the commission receives and given what it’s doing, which is making tough decisions in a political arena where everyone is very charged and usually quite partisan, it’s not a surprise at all the commission receives a lot of attention.
The attacks on the commission and publicly funded elections in general can get pretty fierce. Do people do a good job of separating you from your job?
I think most people do. There are a few exceptions, but we find that most people support public funding so those attacks aren’t that common.
You have helped defend the Clean Elections Act before the Supreme Court, you have gone to court against Mainstream Arizona, and you have also debated the merits of publicly funded campaigns at the Goldwater Institute, which is not exactly a den of admirers for the system you oversee. Do you enjoy the fighting?
Sure. Yeah. It’s interesting and they have interesting points and I enjoy talking with them. The fact that we ultimately disagree doesn’t change the fact that I enjoy hearing their point of view and what they have to say.
Does criticism of the system, at least from elected officials and candidates, slow down during elections?
I think every time we make a decision, whether to enforce or not to enforce, one of the parties is going to be unhappy. We anticipate criticism from the aggrieved party. That’s just the natural outcome. Folks that don’t get what they want are usually unhappy about it.
An initiative to impose Arizona-style Clean Elections in California is on the 2006 ballot. Would you like to see it pass?
Sure. I believe in campaign finance reform. I believe the system can work and it’s a good idea.
With the advantages of your experience, what would you recommend California’s initiative include or exclude?
Well, it sounds like they’ve got plenty of funding for their candidates. One of the concerns folks have raised here is we don’t have enough money for some of the statewide offices and it sounds like they’ve already addressed that. It sounds like quite an ambitious program.
Any concerns besides the funding differences?
Nothing specific. We’ve learned a lot about specifics, about little changes we’d like to make to our laws in order to make them more clear. I’ve think they’ve already learned that there and have done a good job of drafting.
What sort of changes do you think the commission will be looking at after the elections?
We’ll always be looking at improving our rules and clarity. Each election cycle a new issue comes up and so the commission always instructs staff on taking suggestions and concerns raised by candidates. What we’re doing now is collecting notes and comments from candidates that occur over the election cycle and then after the elections we’ll take a look at them and take another look at the rules to address those concerns.
Are most of the issues enforcement related issues? What makes up the bulk of the concerns?
Certainly enforcement is part of it, but part of it is just clarity on what you can spend your money on and what you can’t spend it on and that sort of thing. For instance, we believe the rules are quite clear regarding when you can spend your money. But in the Napolitano matter, that campaign obviously disagreed. And so what we would like to do is take a look at the rules and see if any clarity can be added. (Note: Mr. Lang is referring to an earlier dispute regarding the reporting of candidate payments made to political consultants.)
Ms. Napolitano has always been a vocal supporter of Clean Elections. What sort of feeling did her campaign create in you when they told the commission that they lacked the power to define that issue?
I think any good advocate is going to bring up any argument they can to stop an enforcement order, and so it didn’t bother me at all. Anytime your dealing with an enforcement matter good lawyers and good advocates are going to come up with arguments as to why we shouldn’t do what we plan to do and that case was no different. We agreed to disagree and ultimately we worked it out. They agreed to abide by our rules as we saw them.
This year the U.S. Supreme Court struck down political contribution limits set in Vermont. Do you think that this decision gives a green light to campaign finance reform opponents to file more challenges, perhaps something that could end Clean Elections?
Not at all. In fact, the Vermont case expressly did not apply to voluntary public finance systems. In terms of Clean Elections it doesn’t present a problem at all. Does that mean we won’t see litigation? I don’t know. But the opponents of campaign finance reform are always looking for a new angle so they may well file something but I’m confident that Clean Elections will survive any attacks based on the Vermont case. This is a voluntary program, which makes it very different than what Vermont was imposing.
How concerned are you about the amount of push-polling, the attack Web sites and the emergence of election season independent expenditure groups?
Unfortunately, that seems to be a nationwide trend and we see that in most states. It’s a shame that kind of behavior occurs. Push polls are inherently dishonest because what they pretend to be a poll to find out your opinion, but in fact what they’re trying to do is change the listener’s opinion. But unfortunately it seems to be a part of politics. I don’t think it has any relation to Clean Elections expressly, it’s just something that happens in every state whether or not they have campaign finance reform.
What do you think has helped create that wave?
Well, politics and political strategy seems to work in trends and right now that’s the trend folks are trying. Independent expenditure committees are more popular nationwide. We saw the success of 527s in the national races and when folks see something works like that they are going to try it on the state level.
Can the importance of money ever be removed from politics?
I think that money is always going to be important. But what campaign finance reform does is it gives folks that don’t have access to money a chance to run. And it gives voters greater choices. In that sense it reduces the impact of money because now you don’t have to have to have a lot of money to run a viable, legitimate campaign. And if you win, that’s wonderful. But if you don’t win it’s still important because you give the voters a choice and because what you have to say may change or affect the positions of your opponents. I think that money will always be there but I think that Clean Elections and other campaign finance reforms enable the people of Arizona to reduce the importance of money.
That about does it. Thank you.
OK. You’re welcome.
Up closer
Are you a dog or a cat person? I like both, but I have two dogs and no cats.

Favorite sport? As a spectator, football. As a player, soccer.

Best advice you’ve ever received? Do the right thing and don’t worry about what people think.

Favorite vacation spot?
Colorado. Beautiful hiking and the wilderness.