PHOENIX - Foes of public financing of elections, who want voters to kill the system next year, have gone to court to squelch some Clean Elections spending to influence the public.
A suit filed in Maricopa County Superior Court contends the Citizens Clean Elections Commission is illegally using public funds to influence an election outcome.
Attorneys for the Goldwater Institute, representing former state Sen. Jonathan Paton and his No Taxpayer Money for Politicians Group, wants a judge to bar future spending it considers improper.
But Todd Lang, the commission's executive director, said nothing illegal is being done. He said the 1998 voter-approved law empowers his agency to spend money educating voters about the system, including a public relations campaign to promote it as a better alternative to having candidates seek donations from special interests.
People are also reading…
"What they're really trying to do is silence our program," Lang said.
It will be up to Judge Mark Brain to decide who is right.
The law allows - but does not require - candidates for statewide and legislative office to get public funding if they agree not to solicit private donations. The amounts available depend on the office sought.
Most of the money comes from a surcharge on civil, criminal and traffic fines. But there also are dollar-for-dollar tax credits available to donors.
There is a plan to put a measure on the 2012 ballot to constitutionally bar using public funds to finance political campaigns, a move that, if approved, would effectively kill the program.
A different judge ruled this summer that last year's vote by the Legislature to put the issue on the ballot was flawed. Paton said he will fix the problem and put the issue back on the ballot.
Goldwater lawyers complain that the commission spent money to keep voters from getting to make that decision and is likely to do the same this session to block Paton's move.
They cite the $6,500 a month being paid to a lobbyist as well as the $5.5 million paid to a media firm since July 2008. That firm, in turn, came up with an "education plan" that was designed, at least in part, to counter "opposition to the system and intent to eliminate it."
The lawsuit also cites various e-mails involving Lang's efforts to short-circuit that measure.
"We feel that they are expending public funds in an attempt to influence the outcome of an election," he said.
Lang does not deny he actively worked to kill the legislation to put the constitutional amendment on the ballot, or that money was spent to convince Arizonans of the benefits of public financing, with a campaign with the theme "Clean Elections works in Arizona."
"If there's misinformation out there that's going to turn people off, it's our obligation to correct that so that people understand Clean Elections is a good program that works, gives them an opportunity to get involved" in politics, Lang said.
But Paton argues the education component is limited to things like telling people the mechanics of the system and mailing out the biennial brochures with statements from each candidate.
"It's something totally different when you're using that money to basically extol the virtues of Clean Elections itself," he said.
Lang counters the commission is entitled to try to influence any legislation that affects Clean Elections.
