In Arizona's 2004 general election, 46 candidates for state legislature and
corporation commission were elected running "clean." Ten of Arizona's
statewide elected officials, including its governor, attorney general, treasurer,
and the entire Corporations Commission have been elected under Clean Elections.
Fifty-eight percent of the state house and 23% of Arizona state senators ran
"clean." This is an increase from 2002, when the house was 45% and
the senate 17% clean.
In Maine's 2004 primaries, 71% of the candidates ran "Clean"--up
from 50% in 2002 and 31% in 2000. The Portland Press-Herald reported that
the bumper crop of candidates resulted in the most contested party primaries
in almost a decade. This fall, nearly 80% of Maine legislative general election
candidates ran "Clean" and 83% of that state's senate and 77% of
the house is composed of legislators who participated in the Clean Elections
system.
And the candidates credit Clean Elections with making the difference: "There’s
a number of people who could not afford to have run had it not been for the
Clean Elections Act," Republican Robert Haggett of Biddeford, a House
candidates, told the Press-Herald. "I’d like to go into the Legislature
not being beholden to anybody," said Timothy Driscoll, another House
candidate who ran "clean." Echoing other prior participants in Clean
Elections, Driscoll said "It’s all about getting out door to door."
Knowing you don’t have to raise private money, he added, "gives you more
time to do that."
In addition to changing how candidates run for office, and expanding the
choices before voters, Clean Elections is also starting to make a difference
in legislative outcomes.
While Congress was passing a Medicare prescription drug bill that pours tens
of billions into the pockets of pharmaceutical companies, HMOs and doctors--without
doing anything to limit their price gouging--Maine was putting the finishing
touches on Maine Rx+, which went into effect this past January. Under this
program, all but the wealthiest families in Maine, and anyone with high drug
costs, will be able to buy any drug on the Medicaid list for the Medicaid
price, saving as much as 60% off market prices. The state is also negotiating
for price rebates from drug manufacturers. If a company refuses, Maine will
require doctors to get prior approval before prescribing that company’s medication.
The state also recently passed laws requiring prescription drug manufacturers
to disclose how much they spend advertising their products in Maine and requiring
retail prices on receipts to show the actual costs of drugs.
Senate Majority Leader Sharon Treat gives three reasons for the passage of
Maine’s far-reaching prescription drug plan, which she has been fighting to
implement and expand. First, because Maine’s districts are small, "Campaigning
is hugely grassroots oriented." She adds, "Because of campaign finance
reform, we’re spending more time door to door, rather than fundraising."
She continues, "that means you’re out there hearing from people about
what they care about--health care and prescription drugs, especially the prices."
All of Maine's legislators "get very direct contact with the public"
when they campaign, "and the public is desperate." A second reason
is that severe budget pressures are prompting legislators to reduce Medicaid
costs by limiting drug prices and the third being campaign contributions.
"Look at how much money the pharmaceutical companies have given to people
running for Congress. In Maine, campaigns for state office are largely publicly
funded, so you don’t see that same level of direct contributions from the
pharmaceutical industry to state legislators," she says.
It looks like change is also coming to Arizona politics as well. Two years
ago, Arizonans had a unique choice on Election Day: a candidate for governor
funded by wealthy special interests or a candidate for governor who was running
with full public funding and not had taken a contribution of more than $5
from any voter. They chose the Clean Elections candidate, Janet Napolitano.
The first fruits of the transformed leadership have begun to appear. On the
day she was sworn into office, Gov. Napolitano issued an executive order establishing
low-cost prescription drug subsidies for seniors - something her opponent
wouldn’t have done - having run the old-fashioned way, depending on big money
from special interests like the pharmaceutical companies.
In May 2004, a coalition of Republican moderates and Democrats in the legislature
over-rode conservatives who hold the leadership of the state assembly and
enacted a budget that guarantees all-day kindergarten for more than 150 of
the state’s poorest schools this fall, raises subsidies to community colleges,
and provides financial help to thousands of working families in need of child
care--provisions long opposed by top lawmakers indebted to private contributors.
Twenty-six of the thirty-one votes needed to pass the budget in the state
assembly came from Clean Elections candidates and supporters.
In a typical state legislature, any such maverick tendency would be cut off
by leadership threatening to turn off the campaign money spigot, by going
to influential lobbyists and PACs if necessary. But in Arizona, when a candidate
runs Clean she is no longer subject to that kind of dirty dealing.
AAHH! is an occasional
e-mail bulletin on how Clean Money in politics can help average citizens,
published by Public Campaign, a non-partisan, non-profit organization devoted
to comprehensive campaign finance reform. Every day, we pay more as consumers
and taxpayers for special interest subsidies and boondoggles because of our
system of privately financed elections. It's time for a change. This AAHH!
is a compilation of AAHH! #8 and AAHH! #9 and includes data from November
5th, 2004 Public Campaign press release.
Public Campaign
1320 19th Street, NW, Suite M-1, Washington, DC 20036, Ph. 202.293.0222,
FAX 202.293.0202
www.publicampaign.org info@publicampaign.org
