Is this the best that ‘my’ Republican Party (and Republican voters) can do? From the Phoenix New Times (because the Arizona Republic apparently can’t do any better either):
After ducking out on participating in more than a dozen political debates or public forums, Diane Douglas, the Republican candidate for Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction, was forced out of hiding.
Because she’s running as a Clean Elections candidate, she was mandated to participate in a debate sponsored by the Arizona Clean Elections Commission. The debate was hosted by Arizona Horizon’s Ted Simons and televised Thursday on KAET Channel 8.
What does it mean to be a “Clean Elections candidate?” It means pledging to forgo PAC money or contributions from corporations (and apparently to show up for at least one debate against y0ur opponent). It also means that you get funding from $5 contributions you collect, and after you get a certain amount you get matching funding from the Arizona Clean Elections Commission.
Where does THEIR money come from. They say “not from tax dollars.” Instead, the sources are cited as,
- 10% surcharge on all civil penalties and criminal fines
- Civil penalties paid by candidates
- $5 qualifying contributions collected from participating candidates
Which to me pretty much sounds like (except for the qualifying contributions), money that COULD have gone into the General Fund but was diverted.
So, Diane Douglass won on a strategy of public funding while staying out of view of the public…And Republican voters fell for it. How is this any different from the strategy of her Republican predecessor (and opponent in the primary) John Huppenthal, who hid behind a fictitious identity in order to post offensive material on social media?
Can’t we do better?