Chad Campbell hasn’t been a lawmaker for long, but he’s taken an active role in shaping policy and now serves as a leader in the House Democratic caucus. The gregarious and friendly IT consultant scored a victory in his first term when he worked with Republicans to craft legislation that fixed problems with the Clean Elections system and was able to garner the three-fourths majority needed to pass the bill.
Now in his second term, Campbell was elected minority whip in the fall. He spoke with Arizona Capitol Times on March 2 about the state’s massive budget deficit, expected federal aid and the prospects of the 21st Century Fund.
How is the session going so far, considering the Democratic caucus is a couple of members lighter and you don’t have the influence you had last term, and the Republican caucus seems more conservative?
All things considered, the session’s going well. With the budget situation we’re facing, obviously we’ve got some tough choices we’ve got to make. We got through fiscal year ’09 for the most part, but fiscal year ’10 is going to be the big one.
But I think the signs from the other side have been more encouraging in terms of how they want to handle the 2010 budget — a little bit more transparency, slowing things down. We’re hopeful that’s the case. I know that the indications from the Ninth Floor, from Governor (Jan) Brewer when we’ve met with her, is that she wants to slow things down (and) wants to analyze the stimulus package and see exactly how we can maximize those dollars, and then make sure we plug them in properly in the 2010 budget.
So, we’re hopeful that things will continue to improve in terms of how we deal with the budget.
How do you see those stimulus dollars affecting the process for the 2010 budget?
Hopefully, it’s going to close our gap significantly. Early indications are that if we use the money to its full extent and get as much money as we can, we’ll probably be looking more at like a $1 billion shortfall, as opposed to a $2.5 billion shortfall, so that’s a very good thing.
But, just as importantly, it helps us backfill some of the cuts that we had to make in ’09, which I think is critical. And the Governor’s Office has said she wants to go back and work on fixing some of the child care issues that were cut, and that’s something that’s important to us as a caucus, so we support that as well.
If you guys are looking at a $1 billion deficit for fiscal 2010 after the stimulus money, that’s still a lot of money. Do you expect Republicans to push for more cuts to close the gap?
I think some Republicans will be, but I think there’s a lot of people on the other side of the aisle who don’t want to do what they did in fiscal year ’09, and they understand that if we compound what we did in ’09 with more cuts in 2010, we’re setting back the state 20 or 30 years.
I think there’s some drive on both sides of the aisle to work on more creative ways to deal with the budget shortfall, and I’m hopeful those conversations will start picking up steam and gain some momentum.
I don’t think a lot of people down here think they can cut their way out of this (deficit). We all know that it’s going to (take) some creativity and bipartisanship to solve this problem.
Do you think you’ll get that from Republican leadership? Have you been getting signals that they want to move in that direction?
We haven’t had too many conversations with (Republican) leadership yet, but I think there are many members in the House who have indicated they do not want to repeat the ’09 budget process or the decisions that were made, and they want to look for other ways to solve this crisis in fiscal year 2010.
Your caucus has been fairly silent on the issue of increasing taxes, while Governor Brewer is talking about temporarily raising taxes as a solution. Where do you stand on that?
Right now, at this time, we’re still trying to figure out how much money is coming from the federal stimulus and how we can maximize those dollars. I’m hopeful we can have those numbers figured out in the next two or three weeks — I mean, there’s a time limit, obviously, so we’re going to have to know it soon.
Once we know that, then we’ll know the shortfall we’re dealing with, and I think that can help us tailor the options that will get us out of this situation.
We’ve said from the beginning that everything needs to be on the table: cuts, taxes, closing loopholes, whatever it may be. We need to have it all on the table so we can make a wise decision. Nothing’s changed for us. We’re looking at all of the options.
Once we can figure out where the federal stimulus money is, I think we’ll be ready to offer up our vision of what the 2010 budget should look like.
You guys have also talked about having a plan to reform the tax system in Arizona. What’s the status of that?
Again, that goes hand in hand with the federal stimulus package. I think that helps us look at what options we need to consider for tax reform, if we need to consider any options. But our view has always been that we need to figure that out first, because we don’t want to take any type of unnecessary action. If the shortfall is knocked down to $500 million, that changes the options we need to look at than if the shortfall is $1 billion.
I’ll tell you, it’s tough figuring out exactly where this (federal) money is going. Nobody’s even sure what money we’re actually going to receive yet, so we’re really waiting to see how much we get, where it goes, and then we’re going to figure out our options.
Do you think the stimulus money will help turn Arizona’s economy around?
Yeah, I think so. To what extent depends on how much we get and where we use it, but I definitely think so. That infusion of money — especially when we’re talking about money for green development — will create jobs and hopefully lead to new companies coming in here to set up shop, and that’s really what we need. We need high-tech jobs. If we can continue to build on that, it brings better jobs to this state, which pay higher wages, provide more benefits and bring in more revenue for the state.
I think the stimulus package will help spur some of that economic development.
In the past few years, Democrats have been supportive of the 21st Century Fund, which became a point of contention in the fix to the 2009 budget. Those lawmakers who pushed for it to be completely cut in January are now saying they won’t support a 2010 budget that gives any money to the program. How do Democrats view the situation?
We have always been supportive of the 21st Century Fund, and I’ll tell you why: Plain and simple, it is a way to bring more economic development and more capital into the state, and capital that’s focused on the high-tech sector.
It is creating jobs, it is creating revenue for the state. It’s bringing in more private investment to the state, which is, ultimately, something I think we should all be supporting down here. Really, the bang for the buck when you look for the numbers, we’re getting a very good return on the money we put into the 21st Century Fund.
Now, in terms of the budget process and where we are at in 2010, again, all options are on the table, so we don’t want to make
any blanket statements about whether we would support a budget with or without it. I know we did not want to see a full sweep of the funding in the ’09 budget. That was something that we were opposed to, but, unfortunately, it happened.
What about the claim from critics that it is “corporate welfare” and it isn’t right to give money to large corporations while the state is cutting education, health care and social services?
I think you can’t pick and choose what’s corporate welfare and what isn’t corporate welfare. We do all kinds of credits for corporations and all kinds of incentives for corporations that are fully supported by Democrats and Republicans.
We’ve had bills down here this session that have looked at expanding credits for enterprise zones to bring in corporations that then can deduct money (from their tax liability) for the jobs that they bring into this state. I don’t see how that’s any different than actually infusing capital to attract companies and investment.
There are many types of things down here that would be considered subsidies for corporations that are supported by Republicans. So, I think to say that is kind of picking and choosing. If you have an issue with what the 21st Century Fund is bringing in, as far as types of jobs, then maybe that’s a legitimate argument. But saying that’s corporate welfare and this isn’t? It’s a little tough for me to swallow that argument.
You’re in leadership this year — how are your legislative duties different as minority whip than they were when you were just a rank-and-file member?
I think I try to look at legislation more from a caucus view than an individualistic view. I’m trying to be more supportive of caucus members and their bills — obviously, that’s part of my job — trying to get them heard in committees and get support from the other side.
But it really gives me more of a view that is more representative of the caucus as opposed to something that might just benefit my district. It gives me a more holistic view.