Glenn Hamer’s latest attack on campaign finance reform (“Supreme Court, Legislature poised to kill public funding for political campaigns”) in the White Mountain Independent is predictable. Mr. Hamer has been fighting to end campaign finance reform in Arizona for many years now and is currently the President of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce. Anyone in that position would likely be hostile to Arizona’s Clean Elections program.
Why? Simply put, the Chamber harkens for the “good old days” when decisions on who would run for office were made in “smoke filled rooms” made up of party insiders, cronies, and the Chamber of Commerce. Clean Elections enables average citizens to run for office and results in more candidates and therefore more choices for voters.
Because of Clean Elections, it is the voters, not political insiders like the Chamber of Commerce, that get to decide who will represent them. In a vibrant democracy, the voters are the decision-makers. The Chamber does not like some of the decisions the voters are making, and so it would like to take away those choices by repealing Clean Elections.
A genuine disagreement is good for our democracy, and that is what Mr. Hamer and I have when it comes to Clean Elections. But I was disappointed when Mr. Hamer misleadingly implied that the funding for Clean Elections is coming at the expense of health care, education, and a larger deficit. He knows that is not the case.
Mr. Hamer knows very well that Clean Elections funding does not come from the State’s General Fund. . He knows that Clean Elections has a separate source of funding, through a surcharge on fines and penalties, as well as voluntary donations.
In fact, the program generates revenue for Arizona. Clean Elections has transferred more than $64 million dollars to the state since the voters of Arizona passed the law in 1998 -- money that would not have otherwise been there but for the Clean Elections program.
Mr. Hamer also knows that the large majority of Arizonans support Clean Elections. After all, it was the voters of Arizona who approved Clean Elections because they were sick of the status quo.
It’s ironic that many Arizona lawmakers who first used Clean Elections to win office as relative unknowns are now attempting to eliminate the program so others may not have the same opportunity they had.
How does one persuade the voters to repeal a law they support? By causing them to think that it is funded by general revenues during a budget crisis when we are facing huge cuts in health care, education, and other essential programs.
Misleading tactics are being used to try to end a system that enhances the First Amendment values of our democracy. Fortunately, Arizona’s voters are quite shrewd and will not be fooled.