Posted: 11/04/2006 14:00:05
PHOENIX (AP) -- As lawyers for Republican gubernatorial candidate Len Munsil urged a state commission to give Munsil extra campaign cash because of fliers mailed by the Democratic Party, a Munsil campaign strategist waited outside for the outcome.
"Every day counts," campaign consultant Nathan Sproul said between calls on his cell phone. "We can't commit to a (television ad) purchase until we have the money."
The Citizens Clean Elections Commission on Monday ended up approving $132,000 in matching funds for Munsil's underdog campaign because the fliers mentioned other Democratic candidates but mostly served to promote Gov. Janet Napolitano's re-election campaign.
It wasn't the only time that the commission that oversees Arizona's public campaign funding system has been called on to make a similar determination in a state where smart publicly funded candidates not only pay attention to what their opponents are saying but also to any spending affecting their race.
Established under a 1998 voter-approved law, the Clean Elections system supplements each publicly funded candidates' basic allotment of cash with extra dollars intended to match higher spending by privately funded opponents or dollars spent on so-called "independent expenditures" by political parties or other interest groups.
The $132,000 award to Munsil came just days after the commission gave $290,000 to Napolitano to match a private group's spending on a TV spot criticizing her on illegal immigration.
Those amounts aren't small change to publicly funded campaigns in Arizona where the basic allotment for a gubernatorial candidate for the Nov. 7 general election was only $680,884. That's just about enough for a bare-bones campaign organization, some mailers and one or two television ads.
"More often than not the piece that triggers matching funds is a hit piece," attorney Lee Miller said, referring to negative advertising about a candidate. "Every candidate at every level wants some cash to mitigate the hit."
Typically, matching funds are provided in cases involving independent expenditures, not spending by a privately funded candidate, Miller said.
That was only partly the case in 2002 when Napolitano got more than $1 million in matching funds during her successful 2002 campaign. Some of it was due to a critical mailing by the Republican Party but higher spending by Napolitano's privately funded GOP rival also provided her with extra cash.
Meanwhile, Democratic Party spending in 2002 against the Republican candidate didn't trigger matching funds because he was privately funded.
That situation helped spur opponents of the Clean Elections system to mount an initiative campaign in 2004 to ask voters to dismantle its funding sources -- primarily surcharges on criminal and traffic fines -- but a court ruling kept the measure off the ballot.
The parties have been maneuvering over matching funds this year, too.
Munsil campaign attorney David Maddux said the prospect of providing Napolitano with matching funds prompted Munsil's campaign to ask the Republican Party to limit its attacks on Napolitano, and a GOP official said a 181,000-piece mailing critical of Napolitano on border issues was not sent because of that concern.
Meanwhile, the Republican Party sued the commission when it matched the party's costs for sending mailers that promoted three or more candidates in two legislative districts where key state Senate seats are hotly contested.
The Republicans cited state election law that allows parties to send so-called "slate" mailers.
However, the party dropped the lawsuit when it concluded it was too close to the election to get it resolved in time.
Meanwhile, the Democratic Party objected when the commission awarded the $132,000 of matching funds to Munsil for Democratic mailers even though they didn't include criticism of the Republican opponents.
The commission in 2004 provided matching funds for the multicandidate mailers only if they attacked opponents.
"It is fundamentally unfair to change it now," said Napolitano campaign attorney Andy Gordon.
The current, broader interpretation of the law's requirement for matching funds is best for an educated electorate, commission Executive Director Todd Lang said. "It lets everyone hear both sides."
On the Net:
Citizens Clean Elections Commission: http://www.ccec.state.az.us
(Copyright 2006 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
Current Top Stories Arizona National International Headlines
Click here for International News Stories
