For Immediate Release:
October 10, 2006

Contact:
Susan Martin: 415-955-6120
smartin@pacificresearch.org

SAN FRANCISCO –Proposition 89, the Clean Money and Fair Elections Act on the November 7 ballot, is a form of welfare for politicians, according to a pamphlet released today by the Pacific Research Institute (PRI), a free-market think tank based in California.

“Unwieldy, unnecessary, and likely unconstitutional, Proposition 89 awards the same money for less work, reduces incentives, expands government, and creates political segregation,” said K. Lloyd Billingsley, editorial director at PRI and author of “Proposition 89: No Clean Sweep,” a new voter-education pamphlet, and part of the Decision 2006 policy series, published by PRI.

Prop. 89 calls for “public” funding of candidates, who must gather a number of $5 contributions known as “qualifying contributions” and hand them over to the state along with signatures. The measure is vague on whether petition signers must be registered voters, eligible voters, or any legal residents.

Mr. Billingsley contends that taxpayer funding of political candidates will create a class system in which candidates who take government money will gain the moral high ground and earn the “public” and “clean” designations. This separate-but-unequal system will cast a shadow on the “dirty” candidate who chooses to be funded by private means.

When those candidates spend more than the amount of public funds Proposition 89 makes available, the “public” candidate gets more on a dollar-for-dollar basis. “The measure is generous with one side and punitive with the other—hardly a level playing field,” said Mr. Billingsley.

Attack ads and political junk mail will still thrive under Proposition 89, said the author, but will now be funded by taxpayers, who in some cases will be subsidizing things they find offensive and disagreeable.

“When ‘public’ candidates squander campaign funds on frolicsome pursuits, they will be spending other people’s money. Privately funded candidates who squander cash punish only themselves and their backers.” said Mr. Billingsley.

Last June, the Unites States Supreme Court struck down Vermont’s imposed limits on elections contributions and expenditures as restricting free-speech rights. The limits imposed by Proposition 89 are not as draconian, but still a likely candidate for court challenge. In California, election contributions are already limited by Proposition 34.

Proposition 89 supporters contend that similar measures in Maine and Arizona have increased competitiveness. However, a study of six years under Arizona’s law reveals little evidence that the statute has helped minor or third-party candidates. In fact, since Arizona’s Clean Elections Act was passed in 1998, the Green Party no longer fields candidates and is no longer officially recognized.

Similarly in 1996, Maine passed the Maine Clean Election Act with the expectation that it would enhance electoral competition. Ten years after, the results imply the opposite.

“Other states have tried public financing and found it wanting,” said Mr. Billingsley. “Voters disturbed at the prospect that their dollars will bankroll junk mail and fund views at odds with their own, should leave Prop. 89 untried.”

###

About PRI
For 27 years, the Pacific Research Institute (PRI) has championed freedom, opportunity, and individual responsibility through free-market policy solutions. PRI is a non-profit, non-partisan organization. For more information please visit our web site at http://www.pacificresearch.org/