Jonathan Hoffman: State campaign finance laws don't measure up

Campaign finance laws are sold to the public with promises of increased participation of average citizens as candidates, reducing the time and energy spent on fundraising, reducing the influence of large contributors and special interests, and more; but have these promises been fulfilled, and if not, what must we do?

The recent Democratic Party primary for the mayoral race in the city of Tucson may provide some answers.

Regina Romero won the primary and will be the Democratic candidate. On her campaign website she states, “Elections should be determined by who has the best ideas, not who has the coziest relationship with special interests. That’s why I’m proud to be the only Democrat participating in the city’s Clean Elections program. Our campaign is 100% people-powered. I answer only to the voters — not big money special interests.”

First, I feel the need to point out that Regina Romero is not participating in the state’s Clean Elections program, but in a Tucson city “clean election” program called Public Matching Funds that operates with the same purpose.

The Public Matching Funds program matches donations from individuals dollar for dollar. Donations from PACs, corporations, and candidate’s personal monies will not be matched. There are also limitations on expenditures.

All these benefits and limitations are by contract between the campaign and the city of Tucson. Beyond those two parties, people, including people represented by organizations, can say and spend whatever they want independently of the candidate.

Which brings us to the revelations of Steve Farley, who also competed in the Democratic primary. He contributed an opinion piece to azcentral.com titled, “Why did donors in Phoenix and D.C. want me to lose the Tucson election?”

To be clear, Farley has no problem with Romero or her campaign. He stated, “The victor, Regina Romero, is a good person and will likely do a fine job as Tucson mayor. I endorsed her candidacy for the general election.”

Farley noted that, while the Romero campaign did not take PAC money, “… it was spending by PACs and other outside groups that helped deliver her victory.” He added, “The cynicism displayed by these PACs was breathtaking. Mailers featured her ‘no PAC money’ pledge directly above a disclaimer that told us that the piece was paid for by a PAC. PAC-paid canvassers told voters at their doors that Romero deserved their vote because she took no PAC money.”

The point here is not to argue that the Romero campaign did anything wrong or that Farley was some sort of victim. The whole episode demonstrates that all the government financing of campaigns and attempts to restrict speech have not made campaigns any “cleaner” than they were.

So, instead of doubling down on government regulations that do not deliver what they promise, we the people should evaluate candidates based on their behavior as well as their policy positions. In fact, the more we allow candidates to reveal themselves through their behavior, the better the basis upon which we make our decisions.

Start out by reading the news reports. Truly objective reporting is hard to find, so read reports from different sources with different perspectives. Do not be afraid to ask questions of candidates or their campaigns. Imagine if, for example, Farley’s revelations came to light during the campaign and not by a post-mortem.

It is an immutable condition of a free society that the citizenry is responsible for its maintenance. The government helps us maintain it, but if we hand it over to government we are no longer free.