When Michael Crow outlined his vision for the New American University, one of his focal points was access. Charting the school’s path into a new century, he placed a strong emphasis on scholarship and financial aid for deserving students.
Crow hardly invented the concept. American universities have offered financial aid to good students for decades, and thousands of graduates have gone on to prove that what you can pay doesn’t always reflect what you can achieve.
As Americans, we believe potential is not defined by wealth, and where you come from shouldn’t limit where you can go.
In 1998, Arizona voters passed the Citizens Clean Elections Act, incorporating these same principles into the way we elect public officials.
The act provided public financing for Arizona candidates who demonstrated a significant level of public support and “matching funds” if other candidates raised more. It allowed ordinary Arizonans to access political office the way financial aid allows ordinary students to access higher education.
Supporters of public finance recognize that fundraising success may be a poor indicator of leadership ability. What a candidate’s war chest best reflects is the wealth of that candidate’s supporters, and it’s a simple fact that some platforms have more wealthy supporters than others.
Public financing invigorates our political discourse by supporting those opinions and interests that might otherwise be priced out of an election.
Last week, Judge Roslyn Silver decided the matching funds portion of the Clean Elections Act violates the First Amendment rights of candidates who fund their own campaigns. The winning argument went like this: If a privately funded candidate spends money, his or her publicly funded opponent gets money too. Therefore, some privately funded candidates choose to censor themselves.
Speech encouraging more speech — that sounds like a healthy debate. Do we have elections to hear multiple opinions and make informed choices? Or should we tailor the system to candidates who are afraid of competing messages?
Regardless of how this case fares on appeal, there’s a certain irony in arguing the constitutional merits of a law that protects poor peoples’ access to government office. When they framed the constitution, did our founders, landowning White men who were comfortable with slavery, lose much sleep about whether an expensive campaign system would price out segments of the population? Probably not.
In truth, today’s political system bears little resemblance to the system they envisioned centuries ago. But we measure this democracy by its evolving moral standards, and our growing commitment to inclusion is something to be proud of. It took almost 200 years to open up our polls. How much longer will it take to open up public office?
Reach John at john.a.gaylord@asu.edu
