‘We’re really trying to make this a win-win bill whether you love Clean Elections or hate Clean Elections.’ — Rep. Michele Reagan

A broad bill pertaining to Arizona’s system of publicly funded political campaigns passed the House Government Committee on Feb.13 despite concern that it allows privately funded candidates to raise too much money from political action committees.
Rep. Michele Reagan, R-8, the principal sponsor of H2690, told committee members the bill is a work in progress, but that it will help simplify campaigns and provide equal incentives to run private and public campaigns.
“We’re really trying to make this a win-win bill whether you love Clean Elections or hate Clean Elections,” she said. “There is something in here that will make your next campaign easier.”
Both the Citizens Clean Elections Commission and the non-profit advocacy group, the Clean Elections Institute are neutral on the bill, which institute executive director Eric Ehst said implements 14 substantial changes to the Clean Elections Act.
Proposed changes include the deregulation of slate mailings featuring three or more candidates sent by political parties and a deduction of fund-raising expenses incurred by private candidates when awarding matching funds to publicly funded candidates.
PAC limit
But for the institute and several Democrat committee members, H2690’s effect of raising the aggregate funding limit privately funded legislative candidates can accept from political action committees (PACS) from $7,568 to $26,274 remains a point of contention.
“That seems to be something less than furthering the intent of the voters because the voters intended to take PAC money out of the equation,” said Rep. Steve Farley, D-28, a freshman Tucson legislator who ran a publicly funded campaign in 2006.
A new aggregate PAC limit is only fair, said Reagan, mentioning that current individual PAC contributions are limited at $1,512 and the amount restricts private candidates from interacting with business and interest groups.
“That’s basically saying that traditional candidates can only receive five PAC checks or five companies with employees can have input and that’s it,” said Reagan, a privately funded Scottsdale Republican.
And considering that Rich Crandall, R-19, for example, a publicly funded legislator on the committee, received approximately $47,000 in public funds for his primary and general election campaigns, the current PAC limit seems “pretty low,” she said.
If the proposed aggregate amount traditional candidates can accept from PACs is not reduced in Reagan’s bill, Ehst said his organization would actively oppose the measure because candidates not running with public funds would have little incentive to seek contributions from individuals.
“This would allow non-participating [privately funded] candidates to accept more money in PAC contributions than a participating candidate can receive overall and they wouldn’t have to talk to a single voter to do it,” said Ehst. “In our view that’s a killer.”
Currently, qualified legislative candidates receive $11,945 for use in the primary elections cycle and $17,918 for the general election campaign. Candidates opting for public campaign financing also receive up to three times their primary or general election funding amount to counter private candidates that exceed contribution limits and independent expenditures made on behalf of private candidates.
Legislative candidates qualify for public funding by collecting 200 individual $5 contributions and signatures from registered voters.
Weiers: Concerns over PACs misplaced
Rep. Jim Weiers, R-10, the speaker of the House and House Government Committee member, said the sentiments among people that PAC money has a corrupting effect on lawmakers is misplaced because interest groups and lobbyists also hold sway over publicly funded lawmakers.
“What’s even more disingenuous about this whole process is that when you take organizations that are promoting certain philosophies they may not at that point contribute the $5 (to help qualify), but they go out and collect them (for the candidates),” said Weiers, who spent a record-setting $196,000 during the 2006 election cycle. “There’s no difference. They get you on the ballot as to the signatures and to the $5.”
The committee’s six Republican members, Kirk Adams, R-19; Ray Barnes, R-7; Tom Boone, R-4; Warde Nichols, R-21; Rich Crandall, R-19; and Weiers voted to support H2690.
But the Republican support for Reagan’s legislation is not an indication of a complete softening among some GOP members toward Arizona’s system of publicly funded elections.
Nichols, while explaining his vote, said he has been randomly selected for campaign finance audits after the last three elections.
“I can support this bill because it’s going in the right direction, but it’s hard to, given my personal belief Clean Elections shouldn’t even be in existence,” said Nichols, who ran a publicly funded campaign in 2006.
Democrat Reps. Steve Farley of District 28 and Lena Saradnik of District 26 voted against the measure, while Martha Garcia, D-13, and Anthony Desimone, D-11, voted present.
The bill still must be approved by the House Judiciary Committee where it was also assigned, but so far it has not been scheduled for a hearing.