Clean Elections Commission fights to retain its unconstitutional power

Passed a dozen years ago by voters responding to its slick name, the Citizens Clean Elections Commission created a publicly funded cash cow for statewide and legislative candidates. Those participating in the process are called “Clean,” creating the inference that traditionally funded candidates are “dirty.” That perception alone creates a compelling reason to engage in the process.  The other, even more persuasive argument is that once a participating candidate qualifies by collecting the requisite number of $5 contributions, they get “free money” to fund their campaigns.

Proponents of the venture say it allows people who might otherwise not run for public office to do so. In return for the money, the candidates agree to participate in debates.

In the election arena having a message that resonates with voters should be the determinant of who rises to the top and generates support. Campaigns are not welfare, but in the case of publicly funded “Clean” elections candidates, that is exactly what it becomes. Taxpayers are compelled to finance, to the tune of millions of dollars, candidates with whom they might vehemently disagree.

And the “matching funds” provision actually penalizes traditional candidates who raise funds, by allowing substantial infusions of public money to be added to the campaign coffers of their publicly funded opponents. Recently, three Arizona elected officials filed an amicus brief in opposition to this “trigger provision” in Connecticut’s law.

Yesterday, a federal court judge — erroneously called a superior court judge in the commission’s press release — ruled that the matching funds provision is unconstitutional and will not be available for the 2010 election cycle. The Commission is appealing Judge Roslyn Silver’s ruling to the liberal Ninth Circus Court of Appeals — the most overturned court in the nation.  The commission is distressed that a number of candidates have already qualified for the public funding.

The issue of timing is irrelevant, since there is never a time that would be agreeable to the commission.

There is another, even more insidious aspect of the so-called “Clean” Elections Commission. The unelected panel has the ability impose hefty fines and remove duly elected officials from office, and has, to date, done so twice. Arizona stands alone among the 50 states with having to endure such an overreach.

[Via http://seeingredaz.wordpress.com]