Related articles:

Judge scraps part of Ariz. public-election law Judge to keep hands off election-fund law, for now Don't change election rules in mid-campaign

Other articles by Howard Fischer:

Governor: Return Guard troops to border Gov's possible exit puts budget fix in flux Brewer could bring clear rightward tiltNew jobless claims hit 30,000 Jobless rate Gov. calls for more funding of public works If 'SNL' spoof means you've arrived, then Napolitano has Napolitano keeping her options open Atty. general job apparently won't go to Napolitano Holiday meal costs rise again

Retail
TOTAL WINE & MORE
WINE TEAM MEMBERS, CASHIER & STOCK MEMEBERS Health Care
SOUTHERN ARIZONA ENDODONTICS I
NSURANCE PROCESSOR Health Care
Carondelet Foothills Surgery
Pre-Op Nurse General
GROUNDS CONTROL
LANDCAPE FOREMAN & LABORERS Health Care
Freedom Manor
Caregivers Technical
Yavapai College
Analyst Banner Programmer General
Prestige Maintenance USA
Area Manager

PHOENIX — An attorney for several current and would-be legislators asked a federal judge Thursday to void a key provision of Arizona's public-financing law.

Nick Dranias of the Goldwater Institute told U.S. District Judge Roslyn Silver that it is unconstitutional for the state to provide matching dollars to publicly financed candidates when their privately funded foes spend more.

He said the net effect is to persuade those who rely on private contributions not to spend money because it will only help their foes.

In fact, Dranias said, publicly funded candidates get more money even when an independent group buys advertising supporting a privately financed contender — even if that occurs without the latter's permission.

For example, he said that is occurring right now to Doug Sposito, a Republican hoping to get elected to the state House from Tucson.

Sposito said a lobbying group, without his support, is urging residents of the district to vote for him and Sharon Collins. She is running with public money.

The result, he said, is that David Gowan, also running with public funds, is getting $4,600 in cash, the cost of that advertising. And now Sposito, who said he does not agree with the goals of the lobbying group — it is tied to the payday loan industry — is in the position that if he spends money to counter its "endorsement," it only gives more money to Gowan and maybe to Collins.

Dranias said that kind of system violates the First Amendment because it effectively limits what privately financed candidates are willing to spend for fear of enriching their foes.

But Dranias wants more than for Silver to weigh the legal arguments. He specifically is asking Silver to immediately block the Citizens Clean Elections Commission from providing any more matching funds.

State Solicitor General Mary O'Grady said she disagrees with Dranias' interpretation of the law.

But O'Grady said even if Dranias has a case — a point she is not conceding — it would be wrong for the judge to alter the campaign finance rules immediately.

"It's a question of fairness," she said. "We're right in the middle of an election cycle."

O'Grady told Silver that 114 of 176 candidates for state and legislative office this year are taking public funds. In exchange, they agreed not to take private dollars and to limit their overall spending to what the state provides.

She said halting the matching funds would create "real problems" for those candidates who were promised they would get matching funds when their privately financed foes spent more.

The public funding system, approved by voters in 1998, provides a set amount of money for candidates who agree to the rules. For example, most legislative candidates in contested primaries get $19,362.

But it also provides "equalization" if privately funded foes spend more, up to three times that amount.

So far, according to state records, Gowan has received $47,442; Collins has $41,575.