Guest Op/Ed: Making Political Office the Exclusive Domain of the Wealthy

In the continuing saga of judicial erosion of public campaign finance laws, a Florida federal judge has eliminated the matching funds provision in the Florida Election Campaign Finance Act. The ruling follows and models the June 27 Supreme Court decision declaring the matching funds provision of Arizona’s Clean Elections law unconstitutional.

Florida’s law, dating from 1992, enabled the election of Democratic Governor Lawton Chiles and Republican State Treasurer Bob Milligan, both using only small donations to defeat well funded opponents. Though still in effect today, Florida’s law was soon made moot by the legislature through raising the expenditure limits to levels that ensured only candidates raising large private donations could compete. It has not been effective in removing big money influence from elections since at least 1996.

Arizona’s law is more recent, and better designed, using what is known as the “Clean Elections” model. Clean Elections provides complete public financing for candidates who agree not to use any private financing. After an initial outlay to run the campaign, Clean Elections provides a limited amount of additional funding (the matching funds in question) to participating candidates who are being heavily outspent by privately financed opponents. It is this additional matching money that has been declared unconstitutional.

The Arizona law has survived since 1998 and is widely credited with positive results: controlling corruption, routing public money away from special interests and into necessary public goods and services, improved environmental protections, and a significant improvement in the ethnic and economic diversity of both voters and office holders. Clean Elections has been under continuous attack by special interests since its inception, but has always been successfully defended until the recent Supreme Court ruling. Annual polls have always shown that Arizonans favor the laws by huge, nonpartisan majorities.

Both Arizona’s and Florida’s matching funds provisions were blocked during the 2010 elections, which may have helped Rick Scott win the Republican primary over Attorney General Bill McCollum, and was certainly responsible for the election losses of several Clean Elections incumbents in Arizona. Unless alternatives can be quickly and successfully implemented, the loss of matching funds probably means the end of both programs as effective instruments for improving elections.

Already having a dysfunctional public campaign financing system, the loss to Florida will be slight. We will merely be treated to a yet more blatant display of special interest funded and/or personally wealthy candidates purchasing our public offices. The loss in Arizona and other Clean Elections states may be severe. The court ruling could mean the end of those hopeful days when an intelligent and public-spirited Maine waitress or small farmer, or a poor Hispanic Arizona social worker can run and win seats in a state legislature.

Through a long chain of cases, the courts have followed the logic that money equals political speech, more money equals more political speech, more political speech equals better democracy, and implicitly, that political office is the exclusive domain of those who can bring the most wealth to bear.

These rulings are clear victories for those who believe that wealthier candidates will ensure better elections and better government. We disagree.

Fred Markham is a member and Director of the Florida Initiative for Electoral Reform