| WASHINGTON
- May 14 - With filing deadlines closing for office-seekers in Arizona, Maine and Massachusetts, a bumper crop of serious contenders are lining up to run "clean" for statewide office in 2002, showing deepening support for these states' far-reaching systems of full public financing for candidates who agree to raise little private money and abide by strict spending limits.
In Arizona, 29 out of the 34 declared candidates for statewide office are participating in Clean Elections, including 7 out of 8 major candidates for governor. Janet Napolitano, the current Attorney General and leading Democratic gubernatorial candidate, has already handed in more than 6,000 qualifying contributions of $5 and received her first grant of $409,950 in public funding. So far, 44% of the candidates for state legislative office have announced their participation, up from 27% in 2000.
In Maine, two gubernatorial candidates, a Republican, Jim Libby, and a Green Independent, Jonathan Carter, have been certified for Clean Elections funding. A total of 206 out of 375 candidates for the state legislature have been certified, or 55%. That's a big jump compared to 2000, when 31% of all the primary candidates ran "clean."
"Now that the 2002 elections are moving into higher gear, we're seeing a real vote of confidence in Clean Elections in Arizona and Maine," said Nick Nyhart, executive director of Public Campaign. "With such high participation rates, both state's legislatures will be filled with lawmakers who owe nothing to big donors. The future of campaign finance reform is here: Donor-free Clean Elections are taking hold in America."
In Massachusetts, the intransigence of state legislative leaders has led to a showdown with the state Supreme Court over funding for the maiden run of the state's Clean Elections program. Still, one gubernatorial candidate, former state senator Warren Tolman (D), has received more than $700,000 in public funds, and about two dozen other candidates, including several for statewide office, are still gathering their qualifying contributions. The high court has rebuked the Legislature for failing to fund the system, which was passed in a ballot initiative in 1998, and has given Clean Elections advocates the power to seize and sell state property to finance those candidates' campaigns. Auctions of cars, furniture, and other goods are expected to continue if the legislative impasse remains unresolved. "It's strong testimony to the attractiveness of Clean Elections that candidates are interested in running 'clean' even when the whole system is under attack by insider political bosses," said Nyhart.
"One dirty little secret of American politics is that most politicians are as dismayed by the private money chase as is the average voter," added Nyhart. "Given the option of a clean alternative that frees them from constantly dialing for dollars, and puts them on a level-playing field with their opponents, hundreds of candidates in Arizona, Maine and Massachusetts from across the political spectrum are showing that there's a better way." (See first chart following for a complete list of candidates.)
Cecilia Martinez, the director of Arizona's Clean Elections Institute, said, "Four and half months from our primary elections, we are already seeing a positive impact on Arizona elections. Clean Elections candidates are spending their time with scores of voters, rather than a handful of donors."
Doug Clopp, Democracy Project coordinator of the Maine Citizen Leadership Fund, added, "Participation rates have nearly doubled for both incumbents and challengers in this primary. Seventy-seven percent of all Senate candidates, and 50% of House candidates are running their races free of special interest money. One hundred percent will always be our goal. It's great to see that we are making huge strides in that direction."
Speaking of Massachusetts, David Donnelly, director of Mass Voters for Clean Elections commented, "Candidates participating in this system deserve a 'Profile in Courage' award. In some cases, they have risked their electoral success to lead the way on this issue, and to reverse Massachusetts' dismal second-to-last national ranking in contested races, here in the cradle of democracy."
Each state's qualifying system and funding program is slightly different. To illustrate this, the second chart following shows qualifying thresholds, contribution limits and funding maximums for the offices of governor and state senator. Funding levels are based on the average of what it took to run a competitive race in previous elections for that office. In all three states, substantial additional matching funds will be given if a candidate faces a high-spending opponent or is targeted by independent expenditures.
For more details on each state system, contact Doug Clopp, Maine Citizen Leadership Fund (207-780-8657), Cecilia Martinez, Arizona Clean Elections Institute (602-840-6633, www.azclean.org), or David Donnelly, Mass Voters for Clean Elections (617-451-5999, www.massvoters.org). For more on the overall movement for Clean Elections, in the states and in Congress, contact Nick Nyhart, executive director, Public Campaign (202-293-0222) or Micah Sifry, senior analyst, Public Campaign (914-478-8308).
###
|
