The U.S. Supreme Court is currently considering whether to hear Arizona Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, a First Amendment challenge to Arizona's unconstitutional "Clean Elections" system of public funding for political campaigns. This system provides taxpayer dollars to candidates simply because their opponent--or even an independent group--chooses to spend or raise more than a limit set by the government. As my research shows, the effect of these "matching funds" is to punish the speech of candidates who refuse government handouts.
To see how this Byzantine system works, consider a general election Arizona House race between three candidates--Alex, Bob and Carol. Bob and Carol participate in the public funding system, but Alex does not. Instead, Alex works hard and raises $20,000 more than Bob and Carol each receive from public funding initially. Meanwhile, an independent group spends $10,000 apart from Alex's campaign, urging voters to elect him. Under Arizona's system, Bob and Carol receive additional subsidies of $60,000 ($30,000 each) from the government (less a small amount to account for Alex's fundraising costs). You read that correctly. Alex's successful fundraising, exceeding an arbitrary government-mandated limit by $20,000, plus the decision of a group he has no control over to spend $10,000 supporting him, mean that his opponents receive nearly $60,000 in additional government funds.
Arizona officials claim that nobody is being prevented from speaking under these rules, and that privately funded candidates are free to spend however much they want running for office, as are independent groups that want to speak in support of a privately funded candidate. That's like saying that a runner is free to run a race as long as he does not outrun his opponents. The truth is, a rational candidate must question whether $1 of additional campaign spending is worth it if his opponents each receive $1 in return.
My research demonstrates that many privately supported candidates facing this dilemma alter their speech as a result. Specifically, Arizona candidates at risk of triggering matching funds delay their fundraising and spending until the last possible minute in a campaign, holding fire in order to postpone the distribution of matching funds and make them less useful to opponents. Certainly, it is a common campaign tactic to make a last-minute push for votes, but I found that the late fundraising and spending of candidates facing the prospect of matching funds far outstripped that of other privately funded candidates not threatened by matching funds--by four to one in the two weeks before Arizona House primary campaigns and, in competitive races, by three to one in the two weeks before the general election.
These candidates, along with independent groups whose speech is likewise "leveled" by matching funds, are making a savvy choice to minimize the harm caused to their campaigns by their own speech under Arizona's system--but it is a choice they should not be forced to make under the First Amendment. In a free society, the government simply should not have a say in whether, or when, candidates speak.
Moreover, these harms to free speech and free elections come without any of the benefits promised by supporters. Public funding of elections is the Holy Grail of campaign finance reform, with supporters claiming that it will restore trust in government, increase the competitiveness of elections, and reduce the influence of "special interests" in politics. But the reality is at odds with the rhetoric: There is virtually no evidence that public funding has improved politics on any of these dimensions, as my research, the research of other political scientists, and research conducted by the nonpartisan U.S. General Accountability Office has established.
The case against Clean Elections in Arizona is a damning one. The system stifles speech during elections and has utterly failed to accomplish what its supporters promised. It's time to restore First Amendment rights to Arizona elections.
David M. Primo is associate professor of political science at the University of Rochester and served as an expert witness in Arizona Freedom Club PAC when it was before the federal district court.
If Alex is so hard working and industrious, and he is also running for office, wouldn't his efforts be better spent building a campaign platform and fleshing out the ideas within that platform than it would be running around asking for $$? And, if he can do both, wouldn't his efforts be more fruitful if he specializes in one or the other? Since people are kinda greedy, isn't it more likely that he'll choose getting $$ when the time comes? Is that the best use of time for someone in public office?
Or, forget about money. Speech is about being heard. Distribute air time. We own the air waves and I gotta accept the fact that I can't see Team America on ABC without cutting out 1/2 the movie. Perhaps the parents of the children that would be hurt by that movie could handle some prime time political programming. Certainly the station owners aren't gonna miss a meal if they lose a few minutes of ad time. And, if you really admire one's ability to acquire money so much, then cap the air time distribution at 80% of the top spot or something. Alex still gets an advantage that way.
How exactly is the candidate who gets private financing not allowed free speech?
"The truth is, a rational candidate must question whether $1 of additional campaign spending is worth it if his opponents each receive $1 in return."
Yes, and that is a beautiful thing. The candidate can spend more time on the issues, and less time schmoozing. That money not spent on a campaign can be used to finance a business, pay workers, whatever. Most importantly, that politician will not be beholden to private interests, and if elected may then vote according to the will of his constituency rather than the people he needs to fund his next campaign.
Most disturbing, hidden in plain sight in this argument is the notion that political rights should be based upon some economic principle. The entire point of "liberal democracy" (19th century definition of liberal) was of "reciprocal recognition" of one's rights as a human being/citizen that are not supposed to have economic determinants. Of course, in the real world, they do. But, that is hardly a principle of democracy.
Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
Allowing corporations to buy out elected officials lock, stock, and barrel makes a mockery of the idea that our government is supposed to be one of we, the people, not we, the rich, or we, the corporations.
The First Amendment does not refer to "free speech," it refers to "freedom of speech," as in free of government limit.
Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129259183
What the H*&# is going on with elections? Why are we allowing ourselves to be manipulated without being able to investigate the source of it? This is twilight zone election politics!