The Alaska Clean Elections Initiative will create more problems than it solves. The initiative attempts to take the influence of “special interests” out of the political election process by funding candidates using public funds and limiting private contributions.

But in doing so it takes grassroots politics out of the hands of citizens, creating a system where the state (aka “big brother”) creates a “level playing field” by giving everyone the same amount of money to use, and supervises candidates like preschoolers at a T-ball tournament.

It’s also a blatant give-away program that takes money from the state general fund and moves it into a few citizens’ pockets without any direct benefit to the state. It’s expensive, complex, exposes the state to lawsuits, muddies the political process, and lowers the bar for political candidates who would otherwise be weeded out through lack of support because the public perceives they have little to contribute to the collective political dialog.

What does it do?

As written, this is a complex piece of legislation–hard to read, hard to understand, and probably even harder to comply with. Here is a simplified summary of the clean elections process:

1. A new state bureaucracy is created under the Alaska Public Offices Commission by the appointment of an administrator to oversee the provisions of the Clean Elections Act. A new fund is created in the state’s general fund for the sole purpose of funding political campaigns of candidates running under the “clean elections” rules.
2. Each candidate has the option of declaring that they are a “clean elections candidate” (hereafter: participating candidate) for the office they are seeking. They have a set period of time to collect enough signatures and “seed money” to qualify as a participating candidate. Once they are certified, they can only use the fixed amount of public money given them by the state plus small, specifically limited amounts of private and political party contributions.
3. Amounts vary according to the office that is sought, and whether the upcoming election is a primary or general election. The state’s contribution ranges from $16,000 dollars for a primary candidate for the state house, to $500,000 for a gubernatorial candidate in a general election race. After the election, candidates return the unused portion of their money.
4. If a non-participating candidate (Would that be the “dirty elections” candidate?) spends more than the amount provided to the participating candidate, then the state will increase the contribution to the participating candidate to match. Under this circumstance a participating candidate can receive state funds up to three times the normal limit written in the law.
5. Non-participating candidates are required to submit reports to the clean elections board on a strict schedule–weekly until two weeks before the election, then every two days.
6. Outside parties who independently spend money on behalf of non-participating candidates are also required to report their contributions to the clean elections board–and the state will match these amounts in contributions to the opposing participating candidate.

Confused yet? We expect candidates will be too. There are civil penalties listed in varying amounts for candidates who do not comply exactly with the requirements of this law. A non-participating candidate who is found in violation can be required to pay a civil fine or reimbursements to the state, or even directly to a participating candidate.

The cost

The clean elections process will use money from Alaska’s general fund–a lot of money.

First, the new bureaucracy created will necessarily be a large and expensive. With the complexity and the performance requirements built into the law, and the responsibility assigned to the state, the costs of running this program will be significant. By injecting the state into the middle of the campaign process, it exposes the state to tort claims by candidates who perceive they are disadvantaged during the election cycle for any reason that can be blamed on the state.

There will be additional costs to every candidate’s campaign, whether participating or not, due to the additional reporting requirements. A full-time accountant or bookkeeper will be required to keep books up to date at all times and to insure compliance with state laws and reporting requirements. And the system invites sabotage, i.e., accusing another candidate of violating the strict campaign requirements during the campaign.

In some states, the average cost of a campaign has soared, partly due to added pressure on every candidate to spend more because the state is funding opposing candidates.

Finally, other states that have adopted “clean elections” laws have seen a dramatic increase in the number of candidates running during an election, so the state’s total funding costs are likely to be larger than forecast.

Experiences in other states

The state of Maine estimates a direct cost of 40 million dollars per election cycle. But they are having some trouble with funding and are starting to ask if the cost is worth it. According to an article at www.fosters.com the clean elections law has added to the problems of elections officials rather than cleaning up elections. Among other problems, they have had difficulty reclaiming unused funds from losing candidates, thus turning the job of election official into that of collection agent.

The State of Arizona adopted clean elections laws in 1999. Of particular interest are investigations into the Arizona clean elections laws by the Goldwater Institute Center for Constitutional Government. There is considerable material here for the person who wishes to research both sides of the issue.

The Goldwater Institute points out:

Continued support for the Clean Elections law, and for Arizona’s restrictions on privately funded campaigns, is based on a belief in two myths about money and politics. The first myth is that there is a direct connection between money and influence. However, analysis of the actual performance of Clean Elections legislators in Arizona suggests that they do not vote differently than privately funded legislators from the same party.

The second myth is that money given by private donors is a unique source of political influence. This obsession with money overlooks numerous other ways of influencing candidates. Is a politician less beholden to a union that gathers the $5 contributions to qualify for Clean Elections money than to a trade association that donates the same amount in one lump sum?

And the Goldwater Institute’s conclusions about clean elections?

It is ironic that a law intended to make running for office more accessible has instead made campaigning a regulatory nightmare. Instead of discussing issues, candidates are explaining accounting lapses. Instead of spending money to reach voters, they are spending it on lawyers…

…If Arizona voters are serious about enhancing democracy, they should repeal the Clean Elections law, along with the state’s other burdensome campaign regulations.

The bottom line

A vote for clean elections isn’t something to be taken lightly. This would be a major expense to Alaska, and a major change in our elections laws with the potential to create chaos during election campaigns. And Alaska’s remote locations, tentative travel and occasional communications technical difficulties will only aggravate the chaos.

There are also some constitutional issues including the first amendment and the right to free association that we haven’t even touched on yet. The bottom line is this–Do you want the state to have ownership of YOUR election campaign?

We say “No thanks.” Let’s keep political campaigns “of the people, by the people and for the people,” a grass-roots independent activity, not a government-sponsored charade.

References:

http://www.alaskansforcleanelections.org/

Is Cleanliness Political Godliness?: Arizona’s Clean Elections Law after Its First Year
Robert J. Franciosi, Arizona Issue Analysis #168, November 30, 2001

Clean Elections Law Not Doing Job
Robert J. Franciosi, Arizona Republic, August 31, 2002

Campaign Promises: A Six-year Review of Arizona’s Experiment with Taxpayer-financed Campaigns
Allison Hayward, Goldwater Institute Policy Report #209, March 28, 2006