Other articles by Howard Fischer:

Napolitano diverts $1.6M from Arpaio Senate OKs AIMS graduation bill Legislature votes to overturn emissions standards Schools can order uniforms for kids, Circuit Court rules Governor drops builders from tax plan Redistricting advocates drop initiative Arizona abortion providers might increase Governor calls for boost of 1 cent in state sales taxState panel OKs new standards for greenhouse-gas emissions Coalition pushing tax for roads

Dental
Dr. John Carson, DDS, PC
Dental Asst/Treatment Coordinator General
Big State
Sell construction tools and supplies nation wide. Health Care
Mountain View Retirement Village
LPN General
Chapel Haven West
Program Staff Trades/Construction
Paragon Electric
Electricians Trades/Construction
arizona portland cement
maintenance electrician Sales and Marketing
Xentel
Business & Residential Callers

PHOENIX — Foes of public financing of elections are trying once again to void the 1998 voter-approved law, or at least parts of it.

New legal papers filed in federal court Tuesday contend provisions of the law unconstitutionally coerce candidates to accept public money — and the restrictions that come with it — rather than finance their campaigns with private donations. That's because the Citizens Clean Election Commission provides dollar-for-dollar matches of money privately financed candidates raise, plus money spent by others on their behalf.

That's the same argument U.S. District Judge Earl Carroll rejected two years ago from the Institute for Justice. The judge said the government is entitled to enact regulations to prevent not only corruption, but even the appearance of corruption, in the election process.

Carroll will be the one hearing the new arguments.

But Tim Keller, the organization's state director, said the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has directed Carroll to reconsider the case, this time allowing the foes to present evidence and testimony.

The 1998 law allows candidates for statewide and legislative office to get public funding. That measure was approved by voters despite objections of several business groups of the type that contribute heavily to political campaigns.

Most of the money for publicly funded campaigns comes from a surcharge on civil, criminal and traffic fines.

Keller conceded courts have upheld similar public-financing arrangements in other states.

Arizona's law, however, gives more money to publicly funded candidates when privately financed foes raise additional donations. Keller said it is not the job of the state to equalize funding among candidates.

Another provision of the law provides additional money to publicly financed candidates when independent groups take out ads attacking them or supporting their privately financed foes. But independent expenditures made on behalf of the publicly funded candidate are not considered.

Keller said all of that amounts to illegal coercion of candidates to accept public funding because people will be unwilling to donate to their privately funded opponents or even to run ads for a favored candidate.

"If they speak in opposition to a publicly funded candidate, the government steps up to the ATM, or in this case, 'Arizona taxpayers' money,' and gives money directly to the candidates they oppose," he said. "That is unconstitutional because it coerces them to either fund their opponents or not to speak at all."

In his 2005 ruling, Carroll rejected the coercion argument. He said the advantages and detriments of accepting public funding are "roughly proportionate" to those of deciding to seek office with private contributions.

There have been several efforts to ask voters to repeal the law, all of which have stalled.