The Colorado Citizens (Publicly-Funded) Campaigns Initiative 53 is not modeled on Arizona and other states' public funding initiatives that use matching funds to level the election playing field. Foreseeing the direction of conservative Court challenges to matching funds over the past decade in places like Arizona, authors of Initiative 53 instead based candidate funding on the average money required to win any given race over the previous two election cycles.
As in 7 other states and 3 cities that have instituted public financing since 1996, candidate participation in Colorado Citizens Clean Campaigns will be voluntary. A candidate who agrees to Public Financing contributes by raising a set amount of seed money in small donations. A nominal $5-$10 tax is added to each individual state income tax return annually, a small price to end the huge money chase and influence-peddling of modern elections. Other locales have seen increasing participation over the past decade, as more candidates opt for public funding instead of the continuous fundraising required to run for office. Clean campaigns restore candidates' allegiance to their constituents instead of to corporate/special interest puppet masters, permitting refocus of campaigns on issues.
Indeed, Clean Campaigns through public financing are a last bulwark against the erosion of U.S. democracy, as conservative courts have moved the U.S. toward plutocracy.
Activist Supreme Court Conservative Majority Assault on Clean Campaigns
On the heals of anointing corporations as persons with unlimited rights to campaign spending in Citizens United v. FEC, the conservative Supreme Court majority has once again stood on the scales of justice to effectively amplify corporate power and expand U.S. plutocracy. The high court's June 8 intervention served to halt the dispersal of matching funds under the 1998 Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Act, immediately affecting the 2010 election cycle. The high court acted at the request of the ultraconservative Goldwater Institute (web promoters of Glenn Beck) on behalf of three traditional Arizona candidates who face primary challenges from clean elections candidates. The Goldwater Institute was aided by the Institute for Justice, billed as "the nation's only libertarian public interest law firm." Challengers sought an emergency order to block the distribution of Arizona matching public funds, scheduled to begin June 22, until the court can hear the constitutional challenge by opponents at a later date.
Goldwater and IFJ described the court's intervention as a "victory of freedom of political speech" - true if one happens to be wealthy.
Lessons Learned from Arizona Public Financing
Under the 1998 Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Act, candidates who opt for public financing have been able to get matching funds up to two times their base amount when they're outspent by privately funded rivals, or targeted by independent group spending. Additionally, the law provides a set amount of public funds for candidates who agree to abide by limits on spending and fund-raising.
Todd Lang, executive director of the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission, told a Colorado Be the Change forum in February that the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Act has faced numerous repeal attempts, and is despised by those who have traditionally had a hand in selecting Arizona candidates, e.g., the Chamber of Commerce and newspaper editorial boards. Some incumbent legislators have opposed the Act, presumably unwilling to face clean candidates.
Ironically, special interests have consistently challenged Arizona Clean Elections as an infringement of First Amendment free speech (of the wealthy). An early challenge held that funding by tax money and surcharges was "compelled" speech (May v. McNally).
In 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the "Millionaires Amendment" - the part of the McCain-Feingold Act intended to level the financial playing field by allowing a candidate to raise more in larger donations when a rich opponent invests large sums in his own political campaign. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. called the provision a "drag" on the free speech rights of a millionaire candidate because he was penalized for spending more on his race. After elimination of the Millionaires Amendment, Arizona court challenges shifted to the triggering of matching funds - said to "chill speech" of the wealthy.
Lang observes that the strikedown of matching funds will likely result in "much less speech and exchange of information in the marketplace of ideas." In his eyes, the court's position represents the right of the wealthy to "freedom from rebuttal." Indeed, prior to the current Supreme Court conservative activist intervention, a senior First Circuit Court judge wrote in 1999 that there is a right to speech, but "no right to speak free form response."
The Rise of the Corporate Court
People for the American Way dates the accelerated rise of the 'Corporate Court' to the Supreme Court 2000 presidential election decision to halt the counting of more than 100,000 votes in Florida. The selection of Bush-Cheney was a gift to such corporations as Halliburton, Enron, Blackwater, Exxon-Mobile, AIG, Godman-Sachs, etc.
Fast forward to 2010, when the Supreme Court raised a question that had not been asked in Citizens United v. FEC. They proceeded to answer it in such a way as to reverse "numerous Supreme Court precedents" and to topple dozens of long-standing federal and state campaign finance laws, effectively remaking popular democracy into 'corporate democracy,' writes PFAW. The large-scale judicial showdown between corporate power and public interest that began with the Rehnquist Court has accelerated and intensified under the current Roberts Court to the point where the Supreme Court has degenerated into the "most dangerous" branch of government, asserts PFAW.
Reclaiming Democracy
Two Democratic Colorado state candidates have vowed to run campaigns without special interest PAC money -- U.S. Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff and Attorney General candidate Stan Garnett. Former Speaker Romanoff cites the need to end the poisonous pay-to-play environment of Washington. Campaign public financing at every level would relieve all participating candidates from the constant money chase of high-cost campaigns, and reclaim democracy for the people while restoring public trust in leaders and institutions. Legislators must be extricated from the pockets of corporate moguls, and the playing field leveled.
Legislators, heal thyselves - the federal Fair Elections Now Act (S. 752 and H.R. 1826) deserves full support to provide public campaign funding for U.S. Senate and House candidates. Efforts like Colorado Initiative 53 for Clean Campaigns deserve support at the state level.
Rabbi Michael Lerner advises change on a large scale. The full weight of corporate power will be brought to bear in either case, whether proposed change is small or large. Lerner and others at Tikkun are advocating redress on multiple fronts under the umbrella of their proposed ESRA: Environmental and Social Responsibility Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The draft proposal is a clarion call to social and corporate responsibility toward the planet and its inhabitants, and restoration of participatory democracy.
Now is not the time to think small.