2002_0415_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

. ..ss-..... - . . —r°•. � ter:-. ` F->:-> .,/ :FF... ii rs / r. . ..... ... r. ..... x:. • • • :_.=...�i"...., "f "::lD �:.. %f:E}`:L`F?$$`....`...(ii�:..�\,i1�4-:.,-:.:.:::...................:'-:..............:::...................::....................... ......:............ Elections funding. Even more candidates would have . '.. ".::::i::i::is':::_:.;:.::::>.:;':'::::::;:+: :: ........... ........................... ,,,......::: +,.....;r.,:............,: g :: r participated in Arizona but the new law's im lementa- A A p tion was delayed b a court over a technical chal- . .... 14 Ak� ..........ft. ,. I n g e (which ultimately failed). ::: .. In both states more ca�t�� at an time ll� �: ,, x: :;: . y ;: .: �o ^, ..:. . recent history ere able to run without obligation Y g 1 -- , special-interest funders. And as it turned out that sig- . nificantly changed the nature of elected leadership in : bot h states. _:::.. ............... ........................... .......... ON The Results A re In! .... T: :iL.::N':::':i: :::.::..:..::.:.:'::':.. ............... . ��.....In Maine, one-third of the state's legislators took ...Of- office on December 6, 2000 without ties to special- interest money. Seventeen out of the 35 members (49 percent) of the Senate and 45 out of the 15 1 members on the ballot in 2000.) Overall, 16 candidates in (30 percent) of the House won using the Clean Arizona were elected without ties to special interests Elections system. In races that pitted Clean Elections or big money. Twelve are serving in the Arizona House ........:::::-.-vx x �.::;.:::::.::.::::.:..k::::x,.:v:::Y::f:::..w....�rr::::._:._H.............r:.............. of Representatives and two are serving in the Senate. ..: ::_ : Private funds in legislative races were down nine per- cent. "Aiw Y Y An way the numbers are cut, the Clean Elections............................ . ......6 ......... ................... ..:.........:::.... model roved enormously successful in its first run. A sizable group o f representatives in bot h states owe kkc my fro"a their allegiance exclusively to the voters in their is- MY tricts. Voters had more choices. The requirements for receiving public funding worked well — fringe candi- dates weren't able to take advantage of the system, but legitimate contenders wer e able Wit h the so � -, and- C system's success, even more candidates are expected 5 is I t` AWI tem. An a # to "run clean" in 2002. �� S r im D, m- Those Maine and Arizona candidates WiU be joined w ��, � � �:-w k }«} � by candidates in Massachusetts who will be taking candidates against privately funded opponents, Clean advantage of a similar law passed there in 1998 that is Elections candidates won 53 percent of the time. going into effect for the 2002 elections. The list of Overall, private campaign spending in Maine was cut Clean Elections states is rounded out by Vermont, in half. Participating candidates ave the system rave g reviews. In a survey conducted by the Maine Citizen .... Leadership Fu n d 50 percent o f ca nd i dates sa i d they Y wer e very sat is fi ed w it h the program and 4 9 percent _ AM I said they were "reasonably satisfied with it. Moreover the survey found t h at 5 4 percent would de f- initely use the Clean Elections system again, 33 p er- k: cent said they were very likely, 10 percent said they .. . ......... no were somewhat likely nd one percent of those only p AW Um surveyed said they were somewhat unlikely to run under the system. loft 0-M b.191 v In Arizona, two of the three members of the &M- $8M EdMOnds(D-Cum rWd� ty., a first- Corporation Commission were elected without contri- ffma canes a f in FmX4 br ft per' yaws. ft Labor butions from the companies they regulate an impor- tant change from past practice. (The third seat wasn't COMMA and is a meter of'ft Mating AWSOU�s g p A comma.