Illustration by Josh Hagler

With the 2002 elections approaching, Arizonans will soon begin to feel the effects of a politically motivated measure the state passed less than four years ago.

The so-called "Clean Elections Act," an initiative passed by Arizona voters in November 1998, will play a heavy role in Arizona's gubernatorial and legislative elections this year.

Essentially, "Clean Elections" is designed to eliminate private funding from state elections. There's a check-off box on state income tax forms that allows one to donate five dollars to the Clean Elections Fund. The individual doesn't pay an additional five dollars in taxes but simply diverts that money to state campaigns. Money for the fund is additionally collected from fines, such as parking and speeding tickets.

In an effort to clarify a possible misunderstanding of the bill, political science freshman Sarah Gettinger wrote in a well-thought-out letter to the editor in the March 5 Wildcat, "the only way any taxpayer money is spent on the Clean Elections Fund is if taxpayers themselves choose to have their money go toward it on their tax return."

I don't have a problem with the concept. I do take issue with the term "clean elections" and the political games already being played in the name of election reform.

Voters passed the initiative on the sole basis of its name. After all, how could anyone be against "clean elections"? Why would anyone want our elections to be tainted - dirty, if you will?

It's all in the way the proposition is worded. It would have received even more votes had it been called the "Clean Elections for our Children Act," or something along the same touchy-feely lines.

Regardless, the name implies that anyone who doesn't go by the so-called Clean Election rules is running a dirty campaign. Remember the name Matt Salmon. Not only will he likely be Arizona's next governor, but his name will be - and already has been - smeared for running an "unclean" campaign.

Salmon, a Republican and former congressman from the Phoenix area, has made a risky decision by deciding not to run his gubernatorial campaign through the Clean Elections Act. The reason? He stands to make more money through traditional campaign methods.

Arizona is a Republican-leaning state, and Republicans are generally better at raising hard money in the first place. Advantage: Salmon. But the Clean Elections Act promises to "level the financial playing field of campaigns," according to the Web site of the Citizens Clean Elections Commission. This would take away Salmon's advantage.

If candidates want to go down the Clean Elections route, more power to them. But if candidates want to accept money from special interest groups - which is also money voluntarily donated by individuals wishing to contribute to the political process - they shouldn't be maligned for doing so. Candidates shouldn't be penalized for being able to raise more money than their opponents.

Besides, Democrats have historically raised more soft money than Republicans. It's not a coincidence that it's the hard money (i.e. money donated directly to a specific candidate) that has come under attack in Arizona.

And what about the 46 states that haven't passed a Clean Elections law? Is every political candidate in every other state running a dirty campaign? Of course not; it's only those who have the option available to them and don't take advantage of it who are corrupt, right? Come on.

Again, this is all purely political, which is why I'm not thrilled with the idea. Along with the Democrats, at least one Republican gubernatorial candidate, Secretary of State Betsey Bayless, has already given into the pressure and agreed to run via Clean Elections.

As for Matt Salmon? He's hurt either way. Had he chosen to run in accordance with the 1998 Clean Elections initiative, he would stand to raise less money and his campaign would be crippled. Since he has chosen to run a "dirty" campaign, he will continue to be maligned for his choice. Some UA students decided to publicly protest his decision when he officially declared his candidacy for governor behind Old Main last semester.

The criticism will continue throughout November, when Salmon will most likely face off against Democrat and current Attorney General Janet Napolitano in the general election.

But in a state as Republican-dominated as this one, even the Clean Elections tactic may not be enough to keep him from the Capitol.