The decision of the Court of Appeals to strike down the Clean Elections law was wrong and motivated by special interests. All the court did was give us the best free speech money can buy.
Freedom of speech is not at issue here. Anyone can speak. But if no one can hear because the voice lacks the fundraising to give it volume, then I can hear only a limited range of messages. And that denies me a true choice in who to vote for.
If anything, the free speech and freedom of choice problems are reversed � I can only choose between the most qualified of successful fundraisers, not the most qualified candidate.
Other nations have had this problem of a limited field of candidates � the USSR, Nazi Germany, Afghanistan, Iraq . . . the list of oppressive regimes could go on.
Public financing of elections will allow us to hear a full range of available candidates who can devote their campaign time to the issues and the job they are elected to do, rather than to fundraising. If the Republican element which opposes this voter-approved measure really believes they have a better grasp of the issues, and are better for Arizona, than the meager competition, they would not be afraid of this.
But they are, which makes us believe they expect to lose elections because of this law unless it is stopped.
Representative Steve May committed a civil offense, for which a fine is prescribed. Now he wants to avoid paying that fine because he doesn�t like how it will be spent. Well, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in 1923 that a taxpayer has no standing to file suit objecting to the outlay of public money, just by virtue of being a taxpayer. In Representative May�s extant case, it is not even taxes, but a fine levied for breaking a law. The interests of the taxpayer � and the lawbreaker � as to how tax money is spent is represented by his elected officials, and his voice is heard in the election, not the courtroom. The same principle applies to Representative May�s fine. � more so, since the fine itself is legitimate regardless of how it is spent. The only difference from the cited case is that this law was passed by the voters, not the legislature. Representative May�s appeal of the fine on the basis of free speech should have been denied for lack of standing. Our legislature spends lots of money on things we object to � financing private business, for example (can anyone spell �stadium tax�?) � yet we have no standing to sue to stop this, but must instead rely on the ballot box. Too bad there�s no one and nothing to choose from, now.
Representative May�s lawsuit is simply another example of an elected official in Arizona undoing the will of the voters, which is why the voters pass these measures in the first place. Conservatives whine when liberals use the courts to enforce real civil rights, but don�t seem to mind using the same method themselves to maintain their plutocratic hegemony. If the legislature would do its job and truly represent the people of Arizona, we wouldn�t have needed to pass the Clean Elections law in the first place.
Since many candidates relied on a valid law, the court�s decision puts those candidates far behind on the private fundraising they now must do, and has the effect of deciding at least one election for us � that of Governor Matt Salmon, in particular. The U.S. Supreme Court already elected the U.S. President; are we to now repeat that same process in Arizona, handicapping candidates after the fundraising process has already begun, by voiding the Clean Elections law?
I have no objection to people making lots of money, or to their spending it on whatever they choose � except elected officials. I don�t want anyone buying my government for me.
If we truly believe in a Democratic society � a meritocratic one � we will have publicly-financed elections. We voted it in as an option, and were overruled by our own elected officials � legislative and judicial � who are afraid they can�t get elected on their merits.
This very act demonstrates on its face that they do lack merit, and should be voted out at the upcoming election. If anyone is left to run against them.