The Senate has passed a measure seeking sweeping changes to the state’s public campaign financing system, including increasing the amount of money provided to publicly funded candidates and raising contribution limits for privately funded candidates.
Senators, who amended the measure, voted 24-4 on May 21 to send it back to the House for approval. But the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Michele Reagan, R-8, said she objected to some of the changes.
One amendment that proponents of Arizona’s publicly funded campaign system want removed would rename the Clean Elections Act to the Publicly Funded Elections Act.
Eric Ehst, executive director of the Clean Elections Institute, a privately funded advocate of public campaigns, has said he regards the proposed name change — covered in an amendment by Sen. Robert Burns — as an attempt to gut the entire system.
Ehst supports most of the changes to campaign finance and reporting laws presented in H2690, but said he will attempt to derail the effort if Burns’ amendment survives.
The changes to Arizona’s campaign laws in the House version of H2690 are extensive and meant to fix problems candidates — particularly privately funded candidates — have encountered when coming up against opponents who use public funds.
H2690 raises combined contribution levels that private candidates for legislative office can receive from political committees to $11,945 from $7,560. Privately funded legislative candidates would be able to accept a total $9,460 from such committees, a raise from the current limit of $7,560.
Individuals and political committees would also be entitled to contribute up to $463 to legislative candidates’ exploratory committees and private candidates’ campaign committees. Now that limit is $300.
Reagan’s bill also reduces the amount of matching funds given to publicly funded candidates when privately funded candidates raise money exceeding set limits. Privately funded candidates have long complained the current dollar-for-dollar matching scheme does not take into account the cost of fund raising, and as a result, private candidates can be outspent by their publicly funded challengers.
It would also nix an existing provision that penalizes private candidates running unopposed in primary elections who will face publicly funded challengers in the general election.
Currently, their primary spending triggers matching funds to the general campaign accounts of their publicly funded opponents, leaving private candidates reluctant to raise more funds.
H2690 would also mandate more money for publicly funded candidates running for statewide offices. Candidates and campaign consultants have sought this increase to help challengers gain name recognition and to offset perceived advantages of incumbents.
Gubernatorial candidates would receive 30 percent more money and candidates for lower statewide offices such as attorney general, secretary of state and mine inspector would receive 60 percent more funding.
Under current statutes resulting from the 1998 passing of Prop. 105, changes to laws enacted by ballot initiative require three-quarters approval of each legislative house and must further the intent of the law.