From childhood, we are taught that clean is good. You must "clean up after yourself," "clean your room," "clean up your act," and "think clean thoughts." My all-time favorite has always been, "cleanliness is next to Godliness."
Arizona's Clean Elections Act, passed by voters in 1998, is clearly intended to "clean-up" the election process by providing qualified candidates equal funding sans the influence of special interests. How can you argue with that? Pretty easily, it turns out, especially if you believe it's OK to buy an election.
Opponents of the act cite First Amendment rights of association and privacy as justification for repealing the act. They are usually the same people who want the government to invade your privacy and prosecute you for consensual activity you engage in behind closed doors.
The act has three clear purposes: 1) To encourage more people to participate in the process by providing funds for them to run for office. 2) To "level the playing field" by providing matching funds so participants have an equal opportunity to get their message to the electorate. 3) To let candidates concentrate on issues rather than funding.
It's working. There are more people running for office than ever before and, after the initial push for signatures, they only have to concentrate on getting their message out, without worrying about offending some special interest group or pimping themselves to another group in return for a big check.
Is the law perfect? Of course not, it needs tweaking, especially in terms of regulating accounting procedures used by non-participants as a way to delay funding to participants. Moreover, there is concern that participants use large organizations to get the signatures needed to qualify for funding.
With that said, anyone who opposes the underlying principle of the act (including all those calling for its repeal) is simply a money-grubbing opportunist or someone willing to prostitute him/herself to get elected. These are the same people who want to ram their narrow-minded beliefs down everyone else's throat. Some of them are even so arrogant as to claim that the connection between money and political influence is a myth.
It is interesting to note that it was an ASU professor who was the first Clean Elections candidate in the state. Professor and Senator Jay Blanchard qualified for Clean Elections funding in his 2000 campaign against alt-fuels guru Jeff Groscost. Blanchard, who is currently running a Clean Elections campaign for state superintendent of public instruction, calls himself the "accidental candidate," and says that the Clean Elections Act made his campaign "immeasurably easier." Clean Elections is the only viable venue for a citizen without a seven-figure bank account to run for office. It is also the best indicator of a candidate's attitude and morals. When you file to run a Clean Elections campaign, you are telling voters that you will not be influenced by anyone other than those people who vote for you. You are saying that you will not sell you soul to the highest bidder. You are, in other words, telling voters that your message is really your message, not some sugar daddy's.
Just as you should grab your wallet and run when you hear someone say, "I'm not trying to sell you anything," when you hear someone saying that Clean Elections is unfair and unconstitutional, you should grab your vote and run.
Terry Moore is a graduate student in English. Reach him at: limerick@asu.edu.
