The Citizens Clean Elections Commission is under fire from Republicans and Democrats that say the agency is overreaching its authority by awarding matching funds to campaigns in response to mail items the parties claim are exempt from commission regulation.
This month the commission awarded matching funds to Democratic publicly funded candidates in legislative districts 23 and 24 that were slammed in Arizona Republican Party-created slate mailings, which typically promote three or more of a party’s candidates.
The issuing of funds prompted a since-aborted lawsuit against the commission and on Oct. 30, the CCEC will continue discussions to determine whether to issue Republican gubernatorial candidate Len Munsil almost $130,000 to compensate for similar mailings sent by the Arizona Democratic Party that touted Governor Napolitano and other Democratic candidates for statewide and legislative offices.
The decision and considerations based on recommendations by CCEC Executive Director Todd Lang has left campaign and party attorneys crying foul against the commission and questioning the role of political parties in Arizona campaigns and the practical effects of Clean Elections Act itself.
Andy Gordon, an attorney for Ms. Napolitano, said statutes covering slate mailings are not contained in the Clean Elections Act, and in the past the commission has only awarded funds for slate mailers that attack opponents.
The commission has also failed to create written regulations to help campaigns better understand what pieces trigger matching funds to aid their opposition and which mailings will not, he said, echoing language contained in the lawsuit filed against the commission on behalf of the state Republican party and Reps. Cheryl Chase, R-23, and Russ Jones, R-24.
“What the hell is the rule here?” said Mr. Gordon, outside of the commission’s conference room. “They have never matched on positive pieces.”
Awarding matching funds in response to the Democratic mailers would create a precedent that would leave campaigns confused and subject to the “whim” of executive directors serving the commission, he said.
But Mr. Lang held firm in the Oct. 25 meeting, telling commission members that Democrats were upset because they took the decision to award matching funds to the LD 23 and 24 candidates as an indicator that only the negative campaign pieces were being targeted.
“You can’t drive a truck through the exception,” he said to the commission as they poured through photocopies of Democratic mailers that included Ms. Napolitano posing with police officers under a “Putting smuggling rings out of business” caption and another that featured her on the cover of a replica of Time magazine, which voted her among the nation’s top 10 governors.
According to Mr. Lang, the state Democratic Party spent approximately $425,000 to send at least one of the several mailers to about 170,000 residencies in Arizona.
Attorneys working for the state GOP and candidate Len Munsil are hoping the commission on Oct. 30 will award matching funds for the mailers, fearing a lack of action will leave the incumbent governor with a substantial funding advantage.
“If they (Ms. Napolitano’s campaign) get by without any kind of matching funds you have increased (Ms.) Napolitano’s money by 80 percent,” said David Maddox, an attorney for Mr. Munsil.
He also questioned the reasoning behind the Clean Elections Act, arguing that it strips citizens of power to influence government while leaving political parties free to operate.
“If you’re going to have clean elections you’re going to have to take the political parties out of it,” he said, after the meeting recessed. “Why do they get a pass and get to do what you or I couldn’t?”
The role of political parties in Arizona’s political campaigns was brought up in the commission’s meeting by Democratic attorney Chuck Blanchard, who said the Clean Elections Act was not intended to minimize the effects of parties because it could run counter to constitutional protections on free speech.
“If you look at the purpose clause of Clean Elections there is no mention of reducing the influence of political parties in the political process,” he said. “The Republican Party, the Libertarian Party, the Reform Party, and Democratic Party each have their First Amendment rights to do so.”
Mr. Lang said he will ask the commission again on Oct. 30 to issue $129,000 to Mr. Munsil’s campaign and that he stands by an earlier recommendation that resulted in payments to candidates in legislative districts 23 and 24 despite criticisms he is receiving from members of both parties.
“It’s our job to issue matching funds when their due,” he said. “It’s not a popularity contest.”