Howard Fischer/Capitol Media Services
|
|
The 5-3 vote, with Republicans in the majority, would leave in place the law that allows - but does not require - candidates for statewide or legislative office to receive public funds fo their campaigns. In exchange they have to limit their spending to what they get.
But SCR 1036 effectively would leave the system unable to function by diverting all the public dollars that now provide the lion's share of the revenues into the state general fund.
In 2003, the most recent figures available, the Citizens Clean Elections Commission collected $10.9 million. Nearly $6.8 million of that came from a 10 percent surcharge on civil, criminal and traffic fines.
Close to another $4 million was generated from a provision that allows taxpayers to divert $5 from their individual tax returns to the election fund. But the cost really is borne by the state as the taxpayer gets a dollar-for-dollar tax credit.
Sen. Dean Martin, R-Phoenix, said he supports the concept of "clean elections.'' But he said this system, approved by voters in 1998, does not attain that goal.
"What I don't support is dirty, muckraking, dishonest elections using taxpayer money,'' he said. Martin said there is nothing inherent in public funding that makes for more honest campaigns.
But Sen. Bill Brotherton, D-Phoenix, said the law has done what it was supposed to do. "Anything that opens up the system and allows more people to run for office is, overall, a good thing,'' he said.
Dennis M. Burke, a lobbyist for the League of Women Voters, called the measure a "cynical abuse'' of legislative process.
Burke noted that the proposal, which now goes to the full Senate, eventually would be placed on the 2006 ballot. He said if lawmakers want to repeal the public financing system they should be honest with voters and put that on the ballot; this confuses the issue by leaving the law in place but simply removing virtually all of its funding.
Comments