Related articles:

Arizona faces lawsuit over campaign finance law

Other articles by Howard Fischer:

Failed legislative bill leaves public-financed campaigns in doubtBurns: Brewer bungling her job House approves boost in funding for those seeking office next year 3 recommended to Brewer to fill seat on high court AZ can enact own greenhouse gas regsRecession reins in sprawl Pet bills aplenty pouring forth from Legislature Brewer wants budget right away, but not those other, lesser bills Flat-tax plan could hit walletsRepeal of ban on sparklers nears final OK

Trades/Construction
RANCHO RESORT
MAINTANANCE POSITION Finance and Accounting
Charles E. Gillman Company
Accounting Specialist Administrative & Professional
Tucson Urban League
CEO/President Administrative & Professional
Jorgensen Brooks Group
Counselor Mechanical
Komatsu Equipment Co
Resident Field Mechanic Sales and Marketing
Everready Glass
Sales Reps

PHOENIX — A new lawsuit over campaign financing could affect the outcome of this year's elections, changing the rules even after voting for the primary has started.

A suit filed in federal court contends a key provision of the state's decade-old Clean Elections law violates the constitutional rights of candidates who opt not to use public financing.

Challengers are asking U.S. District Court Judge Roslyn Silver to immediately suspend that provision, even if it means publicly financed candidates will end up with far less money than they would otherwise be entitled to.

No date has been set for a hearing.

The 1998 law allows candidates for statewide and legislative office to get public funding. The measure was approved by voters despite opposition from several business groups that have historically contributed heavily to political campaigns with both individual donations and political action committees.

Attorney Clint Bolick of the Goldwater Institute said the law is unconstitutional because it seeks to equalize funding. If a privately financed candidate collects more than the law allocates for a candidate running with public dollars, the publicly funded candidate gets more taxpayer money.

And Bolick said the inequity goes further, because if an independent group campaigns for a privately funded candidate, even over the objections of that candidate, the publicly funded foe gets more money.

Yet an independent expenditure made on behalf of publicly financed candidates does not provide dollars for the privately funded foe, or even offset the matching funds given to the person running with public dollars.

Bolick, representing a group of candidates including some sitting lawmakers who are running with private donations, said that interferes with the constitutionally protected right of free speech. His lawsuit asks Silver to block the Clean Elections Commission from providing more matching funds for publicly financed candidates while she reviews the constitutionality of the law.

That would allow privately financed candidates to spend as much as they want between now and the Nov. 4 general election without fearing their actions would provide additional dollars for their publicly financed foes to respond.

"They shouldn't accept government funds for their campaigns to begin with," he said. And Bolick said they've already had a built-in advantage.

To receive public funds, candidates must raise a number of $5 contributions, depending on what office they're running for, to show they have a base of support and must limit their spending to a pre-set amount, unless a privately funded campaign spends more.

This is the second federal lawsuit challenging the matching- fund provision.

In 2005, U.S. District Court Judge Earl Carroll threw out constitutional complaints about the law, ruling the government can adopt rules designed to abolish even the appearance of corruption in the political process.

But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, while not overturning that decision, sent the case back to Carroll to reconsider. No date for a new trial has been set.

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit, all Republicans, include incumbent John McComish of Phoenix and Nancy McLain of Bullhead City, and challengers Kevin Gibbons of Mesa, Frank Antenori of Tucson, Doug Sposito of Sonoita and Tony Bouie of Anthem.

No date has been set for a hearing on Bolick's lawsuit.