Recently, The Arizona Republic published a response to its June 14th editorial broadside against the Citizens Clean Elections Commission by former chair and author of the Clean Elections Act Louis Hoffman.
Commissioner Hoffman is right. Indeed, Doug MacEachern's editorial for the paper was unfortunate.
Unfortunate because it didn’t fairly address the Commission’s duties to
enforce and administrate the Clean Elections Act as passed by the voters.
Voters understand that we need more information in our
elections and more transparency. That’s
why they passed the Clean Elections Act and empowered the Commission and only
the Commission to enforce it on an independent, non-partisan basis. Given our state’s struggle with corruption
and transparency in elections, the purpose of the Clean Elections Act is to
promote participation and restore integrity to state government.
That’s why, in 1998, Arizona’s voters themselves created the
Citizens Clean Elections Commission, tasking the CCEC with three equally paramount
mandates – voter-driven financing of campaigns for qualified candidates; voter
education programs and debates among candidates; and the enforcement of
Arizona’s election laws regarding issues like campaign contribution limits and
the filing of appropriate campaign finance reports by candidates and independent spenders.
It’s this last voter-authorized duty which continues to draw
objections from Arizona’s politicians and from the June 14th
editorial. These complaints come despite multiple court rulings outlining the
Commission’s enforcement role, including exceedingly clear language reaffirming this
authority by the Arizona Supreme Court..
As Justice Ruth McGregor put it, “the Commission enforces
the provisions of (Arizona election laws) dealing with administration and
enforcement.” She added that the Commission’s roles and authorities “do not
relate to the public financing of political campaigns.” Enforcing these laws is a paramount duty,
Justice McGregor wrote in Clean Elections Institute v. Brewer.
The Commission’s authority to enforce election laws is
clear. So is the Commission’s track record of enforcement in a non-partisan,
objective manner.
While the June 14th editorial characterized Clean
Elections’ enforcement role as submitting candidates to the potential for
“double jeopardy” should the CCEC and Secretary of State disagree, I would
submit that’s not the case. (Notably, the out-of-state spender the Commission find is seeking a second opinion from a different Superior Court judge after its appeal was bounced. So much for consistency.).
The only jeopardy faced by most Arizona political candidates
and operatives who flout election laws is being held accountable by the
Commission – a five-member body consisting of two Republicans, two Democrats
and one Independent appointed to enforce the will of the people as transcribed
in law.
Arizona voters are smart. Presented with an elections system full of
gaping loopholes and flush with special interest cash, they created a Clean
Elections system to push corruption out by bringing voters in with information
and opportunities to participate. And, instead
of the so-called “foxes guarding the hen house,” voters instilled in the Clean
Elections Commission the authority to create exactly that – clean elections,
or, at the very least, cleaner elections.
What voters want is clear.
They want resources they can rely upon and they want to cast their ballots
with the confidence that the rules will apply fairly to all. That’s what the Clean Elections Act says and
it’s what the Commission does.
