Legal Commentary

Over at Concurring Opinions, Deborah Hellman makes an interesting First Amendment argument in defense of Arizona's system of public finance of political campaigns, called "Clean Elections."  The Supreme Court just lifted a Ninth Circuit stay of a U.S. District Court injunction against Arizona's grant of matching funds.  Professor Hellman may be right about the constitutional issues, and there certainly is something to be said for "democratization" of the campaign process.

However, on the ground in Arizona, there is a sense, shared by people like Justice O'Connor, that Clean Elections is an experiment that failed.  Unquestionably, it has radicalized Arizona politics, particularly on the Republican side.   It was once necessary to be the Republican nominee to have the support of the Chamber of Commerce crowd, responsible business people.  Now, candidates need no money to get on the ballot, only a number of $5 donations.  As a result, many Republican legislators owe nothing to the business community and do not take its interests into account because they don't have to.  The cuts to education and closing of the public parks are not popular in the business community, because they impair business competitiveness in the long run.  In addition, business people absolutely hate the Legal Arizona Workers Act, and I think are not crazy about SB1070, the new Arizona immigration law.  (Here's David Selden of Ballard Spahr talking about SB1070; he sometimes represents the Chamber of Commerce and looks like an establishment lawyer to me).   If Clean Elections goes away, in many quarters it will be unlamented.