Clean Elections Act tossed

A Superior Court judge has tossed out a voter-approved law that provides tax dollars to political candidates who agree to limit their campaign spending.

The ruling, which does not address the basic concept of publicly financed campaigns, throws into question the status of seven candidates who signed up for the Clean Elections Act.

"This is definitely going to put a damper on how we proceed at this point," said Rep. Leah Landrum, D-south Phoenix.

Landrum was the first to file as a Clean Elections candidate for her re-election bid and has been gathering the required minimum 200 $5 contributions needed to qualify for matching funds. Her dilemma: even if she were to change her mind and scrap a Clean Elections campaign, state law forbids her to accept campaign contributions from lobbyists during the legislative session.

Attorney General Janet Napolitano said she will seek an immediate stay, which would keep the law in place while her office pursues an appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court.

Among the early celebrants of Monday's ruling: the Arizona Chamber of Commerce, which challenged the validity of the 1998 initiative.

"We would advise those candidates out there gathering (qualifying contributions) to make alternative meal-ticket plans because they are not going to be able to dine at the public trough," said Tim Lawless, president of the chamber, which registers more than 60 lobbyists and is a major campaign contributor.

Presiding Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Robert Myers did not touch on the Clean Elections concept in his ruling. Instead, Myers focused on how the five-member Clean Elections Commission that enforces the law is chosen.

Myers ruled that voters had no authority to assign the job of nominating commissioners to another panel, the Commission on Appellate Court Appointments. He said that voters would not have approved the Clean Elections Act "absent the involvement of the Commission on Appellate Court Appointments, or some other specified entity, to screen candidates."

Tim Hogan, attorney for the Clean Elections Institute which pushed the initiative, criticized the Chamber for trying to undo the decision of voters, who approved the plan by 51-49 percent.

Chamber officials "liked the old system where they could make contributions to candidates and gain access and influence over them," said Hogan, executive director of the Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest. "The people voted on it and the Chamber decided they didn't know what they were doing."

Rep. Herschella Horton, D-Tucson, is conducting a statewide Clean Elections campaign for Corporation Commission and was pursuing 1,500 $5 contributions. Horton said she does not raise money during the session anyway, but would have lined up significantly more than the $10,000 cap for Clean Elections exploratory funds.

"Still, if I had to do it all over again, I'd do it the same way," Horton said.

Rep. Steve May, R-Phoenix, after shouting a hearty "Victory!," said his separate federal lawsuit challenging Clean Elections will be put on hold until the Arizona Supreme Court rules. May is challenging on other fronts, in particular the indiscriminate use of taxpayer money for all candidates.

"It's unconstitutional to require me to support a political candidate I disagree with," May said.

Chamber of Commerce officials said the notion that Clean Elections was a popular voter mandate is dubious, citing its slim margin of victory and the overwhelming amount of money spent on its campaign compared with its opponents. They also pointed out that the initiative group's treasurer was Gary Tredway, a k a Howard Mechanic, a political protester of the 1960s who was arrested after his status as a fugitive was exposed during his bid for the Scottsdale City Council.

"Whether you're a king, president or the governor, no one has the right to trample one's constitutional rights," Lawless said.

Reach the reporter at Robbie.Sherwood@Arizona Republic.com or (602) 444-8146.