Con Statement on Ballot Measure 3

Fact Check on Con Statement

The Truth about Ballot Measure 3 

CLAIM:  Alaskans should Vote NO on Measure 3. Taxpayer-funded political campaigns will not reduce corruption in Alaska. They will not reduce the influence of special interest groups. They will not make legislators more accountable to voters. They will not produce a single positive change in Alaskan politics or elections.

FACT:  These false statements are all unfounded claims by the opposition.  The comprehensive 2007 Clean Elections Report by the State of Maine lists the positive influences of Clean Elections: encouraging first-time candidates to run, increasing the number of women candidates, providing more choices to voters, controlling the grow in campaign spending, sharply reducing total private contributions, and allowing candidates to spend more time with voters, allowing more challengers to compete against incumbents.  These are all very positive changes. The Clean Elections system has proven to work well, showing over 80% voter support in states that have used the system the longest.

NOTE:  Alaskans do not pay state taxes, they receive state money.  The use of "taxpayers" is an attempt to mislead the voters.

CLAIM:  What they will do is vastly increase the cost of political campaigns and cost taxpayers millions of additional dollars per year.

FACT: Not true. Clean Elections will substantially reduce the cost of political campaigns in Alaska.  The current average cost for a House race of $55,000 and will be reduced to $40,000 under Clean Elections.

Clean Elections will save Alaskans millions, if not billions of dollars per year by eliminating political paybacks and special favors to large campaign contributors.  The 2006 PPT vote alone was worth over $1 billion in tax breaks to oil companies, which would have funded every Clean Election candidate for every office for the next 200 years.

CLAIM: High-powered special interest groups actually can increase their aid to candidates under systems of taxpayer-funded campaigns, because they can provide significant assistance in gathering small donations required to qualify for taxpayer funds. Honest, well-intentioned, individual citizens are no match for such a well-oiled, well- organized special interest effort.

FACT: This is false. The candidate or his/her designated deputy treasurer may only collect clean Election contributions from voters in their district. In Arizona legislative elections, the few hundred necessary contributions are most often collected one at a time by the candidate himself.

This system actually forces candidates to talk to their prospective constituents and convince them, not special interests, to donate to his campaign.

Clean Elections has provided the opportunity for more diverse candidates to run including: waitresses, firefighters, teachers, social workers, and others.

According to a 2006 survey on the Maine Clean Elections Act, 87 percent of first-time candidates said that having public funding available was "very" or "somewhat" important in their decision to run.

Organizing people (not big money) is the essence of democracy.

Claim: This measure is nothing more than an incumbent protection act.

FACT:  Clean Elections does not protect incumbents, but instead empowers challengers. The Maine Study found that races are more competitive with Clean Elections.

Prior to Clean Elections in Arizona, legislative incumbents outspent challengers by an average of almost 3-1. Now, challengers and incumbents have the same amount of money to spend. If Clean Elections was such a good deal for incumbents they would all use it, instead in 2008 only 44% of legislative incumbents used Clean Elections versus more than 75% of challengers.

There are always advantages of incumbency (name recognition, party support, campaign organization, etc.); Clean Elections does eliminate the money inequity.

Claim: Taxpayer-funded political campaigns will reduce political speech and make it harder for challengers to defeat incumbents. Candidates rely on campaign spending to promote their ideas, experience, and priorities. Challengers who don't have the benefit of a public forum to speak from typically need to spend more money to effectively communicate their message. But because taxpayer-funded candidates must agree to limit their spending, incumbents who are already known have an unfair advantage few challengers can overcome.

FACT: Not true. Clean Elections is a voluntary system and does not restrict a challenger's right or ability to raise private contributions and to outspend their opponent. The amount of money available to Clean Elections candidates is sufficient to run a viable campaign and get the necessary exposure. 

Claim: The fact is experts have consistently found that campaign contributions do not affect legislative votes. The recent VECO scandal clearly demonstrates this - the oil services company was forced to directly bribe legislators to get the vote they desired because campaign contributions failed to have any impact.

FACT: This claim is utter nonsense.  Of course, large campaign contributions can affect a legislator's votes.

Alaska's reigning experts on corruption, convicted VECO felons Bill Allen Sr. and Rick Smith confided that the only leverage they held over legislators in the 2006 20/20 PPT tax vote was through campaign donations and holding fundraisers.  The fact that VECO additionally bribed some legislators does not negate their undue influence as a result of their generous campaign contributions.

Claim:  In Arizona the experience has been that legislators who relied on voluntary contributions for political campaigns voted no differently than legislators who took taxpayer dollars. In fact, legislators who must rely upon voluntary contributions are far more likely to vote as their constituents want in order to avoid retribution at the polls.

FACT: No statistical independent study has been done to prove or disprove this. Any legislator who has used Clean Elections will tell you that they feel free to vote on an issue based on its merits and do not have to worry about the possible consequences to their campaign fundraising.

Claim: Nor will giving taxpayer dollars to politicians reduce the influence of special interest groups. Lobbyists and representatives from powerful unions, big business, and well-financed trade associations will continue to buttonhole legislators as they have before. But if Measure 3 is enacted, individual citizens prevented from supporting the candidates of their choice have less direct influence than ever.

FACT: Lobbyists and special interest will always be at the capitol to "buttonhole" legislators, however Clean Election legislators don't have to give them assess or listen to them.

Clean Elections does not prevent individual citizens from supporting the candidates of their choice. They can volunteer for them, vote for them, and give them their support and their sweat. They just can't buy them with a big fat check.

CLAIM:  On top of all this, providing taxpayer funds to politicians actually limits the types of candidates who get elected to the legislature. Recent research found that the number of legislators from business and law, the traditional backgrounds for legislators, did not change once taxpayers were forced to pick up the bill for political campaigns in Arizona and Maine. The number of new candidates from other professions did not increase at all. The number of women actually declined in both states.

FACT:  According to the Maine Study, Clean Elections increases diversity. Clean Elections has allowed the election of many candidates who would not otherwise have been able to run including teachers, artists, small business owners, etc.

Their argument about the decreasing number of women is a flat out lie. There were 43 women legislative candidates in 1998 (before Clean Elections) and 63 in 2006. Women now make up more than one-third of our legislature and women candidates use (and win with) Clean elections at a much higher rate than men.

Claim: Finally, think of the worst wacko you would never want in public office. Your tax dollars will help this wacko try to get elected.

FACT: The assertion is bizarre. For a candidate to qualify for Clean Elections money, they must convince several hundred of their fellow voters to give them a $5 qualifying contribution to prove their broad base of support.  Then, that candidate must receive 10% of the vote in their district in order to proceed to the general elections with Clean Elections funding.

All Clean Election money must be spent for legitimate campaign purposes and be strictly accounted for. This allows them to get out a message to the voters. If the voters like the message, the candidate will be elected. The system works. In 2002, Arizona had 3 Libertarian legislative candidates (all in the same district) who qualified for Clean Elections and spent most of their money visiting nightclubs. They were caught, jailed, fined, and had to return the money.

Claim: Letting government divvy out tax dollars to the candidates it selects will deepen the problem, not provide a solution. Vote NO on Measure 3 - protect your right to choose. Incumbent politicians don't need protection - citizens and taxpayers do. Vote NO.

FACT:  The government does not "select" candidates, voters do.  The voluntary optional system is open to all Alaskans.  Clean Elections results in a more vibrant campaign that deals with important issues and creates the opportunity for more qualified candidates who can challenge incumbents. Clean Elections is the most important positive change we can make to our democracy this election!

Dick Randolph, Chair Committee to Stop Corruption

Kenneth Jacobus

Dick Randolph served in the Alaska legislature and ran for Governor as a Libertarian candidate in 1982. Lawyer Ken Jacobus has stated that he believes that full disclosure of contributions will solve Alaska's corruption problems, yet the Committee to Stop Corruption has not identified the sources of their money.

The Committee to Stop Corruption has not registered to oppose Ballot Measure 3, but it has spent large sums of money to put an initiative on the 2010 ballot that would eliminate Clean Elections.

Alaskans for Clean Elections has identified all of its sources of money from dollar one, even though it was not required by law.