Clean Elections funds blocked

The U.S. Supreme Court put a hold on matching funds Tuesday after opponents argued that subsidizing candidates under the state's Clean Elections law restricts free-speech rights. The law gives Clean Elections candidates a dollar-for-dollar match after privately financed opponents meet a certain threshold.

Although the freeze is temporary until the court decides if it will take the case, Nick Dranias of the conservative Goldwater Institute, noted that the deadline for Clean Elections opponents to file a brief to the court bumps up against the August primary. By the time the court hears an appeal of the matching-funds system and makes a decision, there's little chance they'll be restored for the general.

The GOP gubernatorial primary race will feel the most immediate and visible impact. While businessman Buz Mills spent $2.3 million of his own money by the end of May, Gov. Jan Brewer and state Treasurer Dean Martin are running races with budgets of slightly more than $700,000. To keep pace with Mills' spending, the two had expected, within the next few weeks, to get another $1.4 million in matching funds.

Mills called the ruling "a major victory for the taxpayer of Arizona and for the First Amendment."

Mills said he "agonized" over how much to spend. "Every time we spent a dollar, we knew our opposition got a dollar." And because there were multiple opponents, he said, he even had some taxpayers chide him for running up the bill.

While the program is funded from court surcharges, criminal fines and tax credits rather than the general fund, unused funds are turned over to the general fund - $15 million in 2008.

Martin, who is running a publicly financed campaign even though he has consistently been opposed to publicly financed elections, said he welcomed the ruling. "It obviously shrinks my budget, but it shrinks the governor's as well. And my real opponent is the governor," he said, noting Mills isn't dominating polls despite his money.

Brewer's campaign spokesman, Doug Cole, said while the governor has a campaign plan built around the $700,000 she's received, she was "troubled" by the court decision throwing a monkey wrench into campaigns already under way. "We are two months out from the start of early voting and to make a major change like this, this late in the game, is pretty unprecedented," Cole said.

But Clint Bolick, Goldwater's litigation director, said candidates had ample notice that the funds were in jeopardy, saying they took a gamble and lost. "We do not have any sympathy for candidates who chose to participate with public funds at a time when our state is facing a gaping deficit. The last thing on earth we should be doing is subsidizing politicians."

Todd Lang, executive director of the Clean Elections commission, called the decision "a shame for our democracy."

Lang said critics were unable to show real harm to privately funded candidates and said the governor's race is a perfect example, since Mills already triggered the full match. "That just showed Buz Mills wasn't chilled at all."

He found some irony in the fact that critics wrapped themselves in protecting freedom of speech, while the ruling will have the effect of reducing political speech.

So far, even though some 130 candidates plan to run "clean," only about 30 candidates have actually received checks - including Brewer. Once they receive public financing, they're locked in for both the primary and general elections.

Jeff Rogers, head of the local Democratic Party, predicted the ruling will help Democratic Attorney General Terry Goddard in his governor's race. "He doesn't have to worry about Brewer spending all that money in the primary and making herself better known."

Rogers said he doesn't expect the ruling will kill Clean Elections, saying candidates in less-competitive legislative districts may still continue using public finances.

Other top-of-the-ticket races that might be affected include that for treasurer in the general election, and the attorney general's primary race on the GOP side, where former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas is duking it out with Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne. In 2002, Horne spent more than half a million dollars - most of it his own - to clobber his publicly financed opponents, who were capped at $130,000 in the primary, even with matching funds.

Horne is running with traditional funds again, while Thomas is running with public financing.

Jason Rose, Thomas' campaign spokesman, said Thomas doesn't need a lot of money to get voters riled up about "any number of liberal transgressions" Horne has committed.

Horne said he ran as a privately funded candidate in part because he anticipated needing sufficient money to counteract Thomas' distortions of his record. "I am an example of how it might have had a chilling effect on free speech," he said, adding he was concerned his spending would benefit his opponent.

In January 2010, a District Court judge ruled matching funds are an unconstitutional burden on free speech. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed in May, saying the damage is minimal and the plaintiffs didn't prove actual harm.

Governor's race will feel impact

Two candidates, including Brewer, face loss of public funding

Jan Brewer

Republican

Qualified for $707,447 as a Clean Elections candidate but was expecting to collect another $1.4 million on top of that in matching funds.

Dean Martin

Republican

Hasn't yet qualified for Clean Elections funding but is expected to collect $707,447, and had been in line to receive another $1.4 million in matching funds.

Buz Mills

Republican

By the end of May, reported spending $2.3 million, which would have automatically triggered matching funds for his opponents.

Terry Goddard

Democrat

Has no competitive primary but has already

collected $707,447 in public financing.

Contact reporter Rhonda Bodfield at 573-4243 or rbodfield@azstarnet.com