The Goldwater Institute is a conservative, libertarian-leaning Arizona-based think tank that has been bashing Clean Money/Clean Elections initiatives throughout the country. The following “myth-fact” sheet should help create responses not just to the Goldwater Institute’s arguments, but also to other opponents of publicly funded elections.
MYTH: Publicly funded elections are too expensive.
THE FACTS:
• The cost of Clean Elections is minimal. In 2004, some $12.1 million was given to Arizona candidates running under the Clean Elections system. That translates to about $1.61 per voter annually1 —less than the cost of a half-gallon of milk at a Safeway in Phoenix, AZ2 and a sensible amount to pay to change politics.
• Paying for Clean Elections is far less expensive than the cost consumers must shoulder in a pay-to-play system, in which lobbyists and corporate interests win expensive policy paybacks. In privately funded election systems, lobbyists and big money interests win all sorts of special policy deals that prove expensive for everybody else. Consider how much more money we all pay for prescription drugs, cable television, and in bank charges, for example, because the well-heeled lobbies that represent these industries earn subsidies and favorable regulatory treatment. There are some things in life worth owning, and democracy is one of them.
• In this country, we believe voters benefit when different candidates offer a variety of viewpoints and voters then pick the candidates they most agree with—that’s what makes our democracy strong. In this country, we acknowledge that there are many points of view and voters have the right to make their selections after the candidates have all had their say. Under a Clean Elections system, because more candidates could have access to campaign funding, voters have more opportunities to make meaningful choices.
• Campaign spending dropped in Maine under Clean Elections. In the first year of the Maine Clean Election Act, the number of legislative candidates rose from 407 to 426 over the previous election, but spending dropped by 18 percent, according to the Bangor Daily News.
MYTH: Clean Money politicians misuse public funds.
THE FACTS:
• The Clean Elections enforcement system works. There will always be people who take advantage of the system, whatever the system is. That’s why enforcement of the law is so important. When three libertarian candidates in Arizona earned headlines for violating the law, spending their Clean Money funds in outlandish ways, they paid for their crimes. One plead guilty to a perjury charge and the other two reached settlements with the Citizens Clean Elections Commission, the agency that oversees Arizona's system of public campaign financing.3 The state has been reimbursed for the funds that they spent illegally. Meanwhile, the vast majority of the candidates who participated in Clean Elections did so honestly and with no abuses.
• The amount of funding Clean Elections candidates receive is limited. Thus not only do we finally put a stop to skyrocketing campaign costs that cause many good people to stay out of politics, all the participating candidates are forced to prove that they can run a viable campaign on a limited budget—good training for overseeing the state budget once in office.
MYTH: In 2003, the U.S. General Accounting Office concluded that Clean Money/Clean Elections does not increase voter turnout.
THE FACTS:
• The GAO analysis of voter participation does not include recent data, which show that voter turnout is up in both Maine and Arizona. The GAO analysis of voter participation included data only through the 2000 elections. However, in 2002, in Arizona, voter turnout increased 22% over 1998, both gubernatorial election years. In 2004, voter turnout was a full 67% higher than in 1998.4 In 2004, the turnout in Maine hit a record high of 73.75%, in a year that 77% of candidates ran as Clean Election candidates.5 Clearly, changes in voter turnout will be affected by a lot more than the provision of public funding. That said, the GAO made a conclusion based on out-of-date data.
• Under Clean Money, voters in Arizona and Maine gave more small contributions. There are many ways to look at voter participation, turnout at the polls being only one easily quantifiable example. Another important element is the extent to which voters are mobilized into supporting candidates. In 2002, voters in Arizona made 90,000 $5 qualifying contributions to support a candidate’s efforts to qualify for public funding; voters in Maine made about 30,000 such contributions. These numbers are triple the number of private campaign contributions made in Arizona and five times the number made in Maine.
• Voters were more active in campaigns. Anecdotal evidence from participating candidates also suggests a greater degree of voter participation in the campaign process. Indeed, the vast majority of participating candidates told the GAO that the program allowed them to spend more time discussing issues with voters, as opposed to raising money. Press reports and statements from participating candidates also show a much greater emphasis on involving voters as grassroots volunteers in their campaigns.
MYTH: Publicly financed elections do not increase candidate participation.
THE FACTS:
• Maine races are more competitive. In Maine, the number of contested primaries in 2004 reached 39, up from 31 in 2002 and 25 in 2000. This is quite significant, since with gerrymandering the norm, party primaries are often the most important site for expanding voter choice. All but two of those contested primaries included at least one Clean Elections candidate. The overall number of candidates in Maine's primaries was up 12%, giving voters many more choices.6
• In Arizona, a last-minute court redistricting decision—not Clean Elections—skewed candidate participation rates in 2004. Candidate participation in the Arizona 2004 races dropped dramatically after the courts threw out a plan for new district lines that would have created three new competitive races. Instead, candidates were required to run under 2002 district lines. Forty-four candidates—18 percent—dropped out of their races when the decision was announced.
• Candidate participation has increased in Arizona’s statewide races. Meanwhile, Arizona’s statewide races, such as the race for governor and secretary of state, which were unaffected by the court decision, were more competitive. Many of these races used to be uncontested, but in 2004 every single one was contested and voters had more choices. In addition, 10 out of 11 of state-wide offices in Arizona are held by Clean Elections participants.
MYTH: Publicly financed elections do not increase the number of women in office.
THE FACTS:
•In every year since the adoption of Clean Elections, more women have run for the Arizona State Legislature than was the case under privately funded elections.7
• The number of women in Arizona running “clean” and winning their elections has increased. In 2000, three women were elected under Clean Elections; in 2002, nine; and in 2004, 17.
• Female legislators in Arizona say that Clean Money was key in their campaigns:
o Phoenix Rep. Leah Landrum Taylor says that Clean Elections “opens up the playing field for women and minorities.” Landrum Taylor says first-time candidates just don’t have the necessary connections to PACs and other special interest groups. “You probably would never have an opportunity (without Clean Elections) to actually win or be able to at least run a competitive race. It would just be very difficult. Not impossible, but certainly extremely difficult.”
o Representative Kyrsten Sinema credits Clean Elections for her win at the polls. “Because I used the Clean Elections system, I was able to spend all of my time going door-to-door and meeting voters, which is what I think got me elected.”
o Tempe Representative Meg Burton Cahill says “Oftentimes, people running for office are connected to money, to power already in other aspects of their lives. And traditionally women have fallen behind because I think we have a lot of different challenges in our lives than our male counterparts.”
• In Maine, the number of women using Clean Elections to fund their legislative campaigns has increased. The number of women who opted to run “clean” in Maine rose 29% from 2002 to 2004, from 68 to 86.
• Maine Senate President says Clean Elections is crucial in encouraging female candidates to run for the legislature. Maine Senate President Beth Edmonds recently told the Waterville Morning Sentinel that the decline in the number of women serving in the Maine Legislature was not as severe as in other states. One reason: “The Clean Election law, which allows candidates to use public money to pay for political campaigns, makes it easier for women who may not have the money needed to win a seat.”8
MYTH: Under Clean Elections, unions and other “special interests” still flex their muscles by acquiring the thousands of necessary qualifying signatures and $5 contributions for politicians seeking statewide office.
The FACTS:
• Clean Elections levels the playing field by encouraging small ($5) in-district donations that most citizens can afford. Clean Elections does not aim to rid the political system of money—that’s impossible. What Clean Elections does is level the playing field, so that any qualified person—not just those with access to big money—can run a competitive campaign for office. There is nothing corrupting about an organization, wherever it lies on the political spectrum, from using its grassroots networks to help raise small $5 qualifying contributions for a candidate to qualify for public funding. Opponents of publicly financed elections would prefer that candidates prove their viability the old way, by collecting a large amount of money from a few wealthy donors, rather than demonstrating a broad base of support from average voters in their community. What Clean Elections means, in fact, is that citizens who are part of, for example, an organization of parents concerned about schools can match the clout of a big corporate interests, which must also organize their own “constituents” to contribute small qualifying contributions.
• More voters are making contributions under Clean Elections than under the old system. Under Clean Elections, Arizonans more than tripled the number of contributions to gubernatorial campaigns, from 11,234 in 1998 to 38,579 in 2002.
• If you want to see real political back-scratching, just look at elections under privately funded systems. When big corporate donors fill politcians’ campaign chests, they expect—and they get—policy paybacks in the form of special tax loopholes, special subsidies, and other favorable treatment. As a result, we all pay more for everyday items, such as pharmaceutical drugs and cable television, and our health suffers because of dirty air, unsafe food, and lack of medical care, to name just a few examples.
MYTH: The Goldwater Institute follows the example of Barry Goldwater in opposing campaign finance reform.
The FACTS:
• The late Republican Barry Goldwater, the Goldwater Institute’s namesake, spoke out against the corrupting influence of money in politics. In 1987, Goldwater said, “The fact that liberty depended on honest elections was of the utmost importance to the patriots who founded our nation and wrote the Constitution. They knew that corruption destroyed the prime requisite of constitutional liberty, an independent legislature free from any influence other than that of the people. Applying these principles to modern times, we can make the following conclusions: To be successful, representative government assumes that elections will be controlled by the citizenry at large, not by those who give the most money. Electors must believe their vote counts. Elected officials must owe their allegiance to the people, not to their own wealth or to the wealth of interest groups who speak only for the selfish fringes of the whole community.”
Footnotes:
1. 2000 U.S. Census, $$ to AZ Clean Elections candidates from Autumn Southard/AZ CCEC.
2. A half-gallon of milk was selling for $2.19 at a Phoenix, AZ Safeway on 3/3/05.
3. Associated Press, December 27, 2004.
4. Communication with Doug Ramsey, Communications Director, Clean Elections Institute, March 2, 2005.
5. Communication with Jon Bartholomew, Maine Citizens for Clean Elections, March 3, 2005.
6. Maine Secretary of State Office, provided by Maine Citizens for Clean Elections.
7. Communication with Doug Ramsey, Communications Director, Clean Elections Institute, March 2, 2005.
8. Waterville Morning Sentinel, January 24, 2005.
