It has become a common slander of the right wing to charge that Clean Elections are welfare for politicians or taxpayer funded elections. It's a slander because it is simply not true.
Clean Elections does not get ANY tax dollars, at all. It accepts only voluntary contributions and surcharges on criminal and civil penalties. Not one penny of taxes.
So imagine my surprise when the Star's political reporter says in the opening graph of her weekly Political Notebook:
"A lawsuit that threatens to hamstring the state Clean Elections law doesn't appear to have slowed the flow of candidates seeking to dip into taxpayers' pockets to pay for their campaign."
Bodfield should know better. She should also issue a retraction every bit as prominent as the misinformation she has just given to Arizona citizens who still read the paper.
It is an extra-special irony that Clean Elections is an advertiser in the Star, at least at AZStarNet.com. Here's a screen shot from my iPhone:
I should think that the Star's reporters would be very careful not to mischaracterize the nature of any advertiser's business. Imagine if Rhonda led one of her notebooks with the statement that Don Diamond's business was mostly to seek preferential tax treatment by bribing and suborning local governments.
Discover more from Blog for Arizona
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
By that logic the state tuition tax credit program that diverts taxes to private schools would clearly violate the Arizona constitution, which expressly forbids tax dollars from funding private schools. The AZSC has not found any violation. So, if Clean Elections uses tax dollars, so do STOs. Which is it going to be, Walt?
Thank you for making my point. The tax credit money to off set state taxes that would normally go to the general fund is being used for Clean Elections. Because any tax money left over is used in another manner is irrelevant.
My complaint with Clean Elections is they seemed to have formed their own Kingdom. They use money for lobbyist’s , advertising and other non candidate related expenditures that are self serving. This really came to a head when they hired lobbyist’s to go to the State Legislature when there was a push to eliminate them. Government lobbying to keep government.
While the program is funded from court surcharges, criminal fines and tax credits rather than the general fund, unused funds are turned over to the general fund – $15 million in 2008.
You are not correct regarding tax dollars. It is a game of musical chairs. They accept donations for TAX CREDIT. Another words you can offset money you would normally be taxed on by giving that money to Clean Elections. You are avoiding state taxes. This money is taken right out of tax dollars that should have gone to the general fund thus they are accepting tax dollars.
How does the State Clean Elections Board justify spending money on advertising and Lobbyists? Maybe this “extra” cash they seem to have should go in the general fund or school system. Oh, they can’t do that it would violate the law.
Uh, sorry Dave. Mike wrote this post.
Good catch, Meanie. I read the Clean Elections piece this morning, and the mischaracterization slipped right by me, as it did, I’m sure 99% of readers.
Let’s hope in her next Notebook, Bodfield writes a retraction piece explaining the nature of Clean Election funds, if a Correction isn’t featured sooner in a prominent place in the Star. That’s the journalistic thing to do.