Public campaign financing in Arizona

Public campaign financing only started in the state of Arizona in 2000 and has demonstrated remarkable success during the relatively short time it has been in effect. A comparison of the 1998 and 2002 political seasons is extremely instructive. In 1998 there were no publicly funded campaigns. In 2002 and 2004 there were. Here's a quick overview of some of the things that changed:

• Citizen support increased -- The most recent polls show over 65% of voters support public financing. Public approval for the Arizona State Legislature's performance has gone up 12%.
  
  
• Issue based campaigns increased -- In 1998, money, not issues, was the decisive factor in statewide and legislative races. In that year, candidates won 79% of the elections where one candidate had significantly more funds than an opponent. By 2002, with the support of public financing, disparate funding was a factor in only 2% of races. In fact, out of 90 legislative races and nine statewide races, only five of the 2002 contests even had disparate funding.
  
  
• Voter participation increased -- Since 1998, voter turnout has increased more than 10% in Arizona.
  
  
• Minority candidates increased: Under Arizona’s public financing law minority candidates tripled between 1998 (the last year with privately financed elections) and 2004.
  
  
• New candidate attitudes emerged -- According to a new U.S. General Accounting Office study, 81% of Arizona's participating candidates said they accepted public financing because they "did not want to feel obligated to special interest groups or lobbyists."
  
  
• Competition increased -- In 1998, 20 out of 30 state senate races were uncontested; in 2002, only 9 senate races went uncontested.
  
  
• Winners increased -- 10 out of 11 offices elected statewide, including the governor, were won by participating candidates.
  
  

“It is a system that allows those of us who have no access to wealth . . . an opportunity to be beholden to no one other than the people who elect us . . . . The [public] campaign financing gave me the freedom of not having to take money from the financial powerhouses in the borough of Brooklyn. It gave me the freedom that I didn’t have to enter into any arrangements, whether spoken or expected, in terms of payback if I become elected.”

New York City uses a $4-to-$1 match which makes it just as worthwhile for a candidate to campaign among voters who can write $250 checks as special interest political action committees that make $1,000 contributions. The $4-to-$1 match also makes it possible for candidates without access to $1,000 donors to run competitive campaigns.

Una Clarke, a Caribbean-American city council member elected in 1991, said that the public financing program enabled “a larger number and a more diversified group of persons, both economically and racially, to run an effective campaign and to win.”

Since 1989, the program has seen increasing success. In 2001, 3 times as many candidates participated in the program as in 1989. In addition, 47 of 51 city council members elected were participants in the public financing program.

In 1987, Tucson, Arizona was the first locality in the United States to adopt public financing. While only 60% of the candidates participated in Tucson’s program in 1987, program participation has steadily risen in the ensuing years, eventually reaching 100% in 2001 and 2003. As Tucson City Clerk Kathleen Detrick put it, “The test of the fact that our program works is that people participate in it.”

Tucson’s public financing has helped preserve a grassroots political culture in a city of nearly 500,000 residents. The public financing program has become so widely supported among Tucson voters and media, that candidates who chose not to participate in the program must be prepared to suffer the consequences. According to mayoral candidate Tom Volgy:

“And every time you, as a politician, run against [public financing] you say, “I think the public is stupid for doing this.” And the public’s response is, “Go away. We don’t want you to represent us.”

In fact, not a single candidate who has opted out of the public financing program has won office in Tucson since 1989.

Candidates in Tucson, when speaking about public campaign financing, have also consistently emphasized their grassroots campaign styles. City Clerk Kathleen Detrick commented:

“It’s tough to get people to give you money. It’s a lot harder than candidates think initially. So a lot of our candidates will get 150 contributions, 180 contributions, and then they find that they better go out there pounding the streets and talking to people about issues, in order to get them to give them the ten dollars. I really think the program does work well. I think it does get the candidates out into the community.”