Cleaning Up Clean Elections?

As has been rumored and expected for some time, U.S. District Court Judge Roslyn Silver appears ready to nullify the Clean Elections matching funds provision. I have conflicting thoughts over this action.

First of all, I like the idea of Clean Elections because it requires candidates to meet with and listen to the voters, to ask for support in person rather than spend time raising money from large donors to finance an impersonal mail and media campaign. I am participating as a Clean Elections candidate because I want to meet people, not consume hours daily "dialing for dollars." Shifting the realm of influence held by large donors, including PACs and lobbyists, and replacing it with a truly grassroots effort and interchange is a good thing for our state. The matching funds provision helps level the playing field between the "clean" candidate and one who is running on a traditional financing effort.

On the other hand, it is clear that the state could better use the money than finance campaigns. If a candidate raises $2 million in campaign funds and is running against a "clean" candidate, should the state match the $2 million? During this economic crisis, I believe the money dedicated to Clean Elections -- which comes from fees added to court and other fines, as well as voluntary contributions -- could be put to better use reducing some of the proposed cuts to education, health care, and children's services.

I made the decision to run "clean" even though I was aware that the matching funds might be eliminated. I am prepared to match the funds my opponents raise with my time and efforts meeting voters and the help of a lot of work by volunteers.