Saturday, April 08, 2006

They can't get a repeal of clean elections through up front, so they are trying to sneak it through.

Those righty rascals are at it again, trying to make and end run around Arizona's clean elections law.

A "strike all" amendment to SCR 1013 on judical retirements, proposed by Russell Pearce (which should be enough in itself to tell you everything you need to know about what it is worth) replaces the entire bill with a revision of the Arizona clean elections law that essentially guts the whole thing.

They never give up, do they?

In fact, our clean elections law has largely spared Arizona's citizens from the dirty, nasty sorts of smear campaigns that we see in races for Federal offices, has protected the integrity of elections by ensuring that candidates who run clean can compete on an even field, and most importantly has spared us the same kind of big money scandals that we see now playing out on the national scene. In fact, Arizona's model for elections is something that if anything, should be replicated in Federal elections (not that that will happen with the present Congress-- they like their big contributors too much).

But if anyone has a reason to question why we need to keep our clean elections law, I have three answers for them: Duke Cunningham, Jack Abramoff and Tom DeLay.

Do we really want any of that interjected into our state politics?

2 comments:

Kralmajales said...

Hell...I would be surprised if Conservatives support this...or why they would. They tend to be organized, can get the $5 amounts fast (see Munsil) and frankly it can get their wingnuts enough money to run and get their ideas out.

Eli Blake said...

Krajmajales:

You may be right about the wingnuts, but Republicans in general have an idea (with some justification, though not as much as they seem to give it) that if there were no limits on contributions then they could go raise a ton of money because more wealthy people would give them big donations than would give Democrats donations. This is why at the national level, Republicans, backed by big money from corporations and wealthy individuals, have outraised Democrats even when Democrats have had more individual donors.

It is true that Democrats have their 'big money' bases as well (unions and some wealthy individuals) but not as many.

The problem is that all this big money comes with strings. If you're a politician and I'm rich, and give $100,000 to your PAC, then when I call you about something, the chances are you're going to take the call. And what I ask for, you will take under serious consideration. As soon as that happens, the system has been corrupted and I have been moved to the head of the line for your 'services,' ahead of people who may have more important issues, but who either only gave you $20 (what they could afford), who gave you nothing, or who gave money to your opponent-- the all deserve your attention, but I'm getting it first because I paid for it.

That is why we see all the influence buying scandals going on right now in Washington. What the Arizona clean elections law has done is take that sort of stuff out of our state politics.