Illustration by Codey Angell

The Arizona race for governor:

On the Democratic side, Attorney General Janet Napolitano had her party's nomination locked up long before she declared herself a gubernatorial candidate. On the Republican end, former congressman Matt Salmon is the frontrunner, but a path to November isn't quite as clear for him thanks to a tough challenge from Secretary of State Betsey Bayless.

Over the summer I had a chance to sit down and chat with all three top contenders. My questions centered around two key issues: UA's budget shortfall, and Arizona's new and controversial Clean Elections law.

UA budget: How do we escape this mess?

When discussing Arizona's universities, all three candidates agreed on one thing: more federal assistance is a must.

"As a congressman, I was able to get research dollars for both ASU and UA," Salmon told me. "We need to have a governor that is able to understand the federal system and access it, and get more for Arizona than we're getting, to get our fair share. I'm the only candidate running that has both state and federal experience.

"I've been a congressman. I know the appropriators. I know the president personally. I know the people that run the process, and I can do a far better job of getting federal dollars into our universities."

Salmon went on to say that he is "very big on finding ways for the universities to be able to receive more financial benefits from technology transfer.

And that not only applies to bio-tech but to high-tech," he said. "Arizona State has a wonderful optics research program, and there are a lot of spin-off companies that have really come into being in Tucson because of it.

"What I'm saying is that the whole Silicon Valley really came into being because of the universities like Stanford that were able to do the research and development and then get some of the financial benefits back into the universities when these companies started making big money," Salmon told me. "And that's what I'd like to do here in Arizona."

Bayless echoed Salmon's sentiments on federal funding. "One thing that I feel very strongly about is that Arizona needs to get more of the federal research dollars than what we're getting," Bayless said. "We don't get the kind of return on our tax money from the federal government that we deserve."

"I'd rather keep our money here in Arizona. But that isn't the way it is, and as long as that money is going to Washington, I say we just get it back," she told me.

Stating that UA is "a premiere research university," Bayless contended that "university research money is a very, very critical part" of federal funding.

"I have been a part of that, and I will continue to be a part of that," she argued. "I'm just a very strong believer that the universities are going to be what's going to guide our economy into the future."

Bayless also believes that we "do not need a substantial tuition increase," but does not think it is necessary to peg annual tuition rates to economic growth, either.

In my interview with Napolitano, the attorney general told me, "I'm a big supporter of the universities because I believe they are a huge asset to our state and cannot be overvalued."

"What I will work on with President Likins, President Coor and the community college presidents is to diversify the funding base ÷ more federal grants, and increasing private endowment funds," she said.

"The state universities that have done the best are the ones that have a diverse funding base with a large private volunteer foundation," Napolitano suggested. "That's what we need to have in Arizona, and the governor needs to work with the university presidents to lead that charge."

Napolitano also suggested that a large tuition increase may be necessary to improve the quality of education at our state universities. "We have one of the lowest tuitions of any state university system in the country," she pointed out. "While I know students hate the notion of tuition increases, the plain fact of the matter is that this is a capital investment in your future. And I believe we have to have tuition properly gauged so that we can have enough professors so you can actually get through college in four years."

She did have two provisions, however: One, that the Arizona Board of Regents eases the financial burden of students who "truly could not afford to go" to college, and two, that any tuition increase would not go into the state's general fund, but "back into the universities."

Exactly how clean are Clean Elections?

The issue of Clean Elections is, perhaps ironically, the dirtiest issue in this year's state races. In the campaign for governor, the topic has turned into a very political one, especially since Salmon is the only gubernatorial candidate to run his campaign not through Clean Elections, but through traditional, private funding.

I told Bayless and Napolitano that I took issue with the term "Clean Elections," because it implies that anyone who does not run their campaign through public funding is running a dirty campaign: Candidates contending for state office in each of the 46 states that don't have a Clean Elections law are running dirty; George W. Bush and Al Gore ran dirty; I even suggested to Napolitano that this meant she ran a dirty campaign for attorney general four years ago.

To my surprise, both Bayless and Napolitano saw it my way.

"I agree with you completely," Bayless told me. "You certainly don't want to imply that traditional funding is dirty."

"I objected to the title that was put on the initiative when it came in," she said. "In fact, I went to the legislature and said, ÎWe should not let these people name their initiatives.'"

Bayless also agreed that the initiative might not have been passed if it were named differently.

Napolitano's remarks were similar. "I agree with you in the sense that I know I raised money the old fashioned way in 1998, and I don't think I went into office feeling I was beholden to anybody or anything," she said.

I was also able to have Napolitano concede that Clean Elections does little to even out the tremendous advantage of previous notoriety. "It does some, but you know, name recognition is very hard," she admitted. "Part of the reason I'm ahead in the primary is because I've run before and I've won before, and people know who I am. They don't know who my opponents are."

So why did Salmon choose the more critical path? "I don't know, Shane, if you know how much harder it is to raise private money than public money," he said in our interview, "but there really isn't any advantage to me from a tactical point of view to run my election with private dollars versus tax dollars." He pointed out that for every dollar he raises, he has to spend roughly a quarter of it on invitations, dinners and so on, while his opponents will receive a check for the full amount of the money he raised, without any of the expenses taken out.

"So there's no advantage for me, from a tactical point of view, to run my campaign privately. It is solely out of my philosophy," he said.

But Salmon, who during the course of the interview called Clean Elections a "rotten law" and "a facade," wasn't done slamming the 1998 initiative. "For governor, (Clean Election candidates) can raise forty-some-thousand dollars in seed money from private sources in $110 increments," he said. "What's the difference in taking a $700 check, really, or a $110 check if it's coming from a special interest? If you could be bought off for $700, could you not be bought off for $110, is my question."

"That's the way this Clean Election thing is set up, and there's nothing clean about it," Salmon concluded.

When I addressed this issue with the attorney general, she accepted the former congressman's point.

"Look, if you're the type of person that's gonna be beholden (to special interests), you're gonna be beholden whether you're running the old way or the new way," she argued. "Ultimately, it's your own backbone that's at issue."

Secretary Bayless, however, charged right back at Salmon. "He considered running Clean Elections too, and he stayed eligible for some time," she told me. "If you go back and look at his contributions, all he took to begin with were $110 contributions."

Bayless concluded that Salmon ultimately went the traditional route "because he thought he could raise more."

Reflecting upon my interviews with each candidate, I was genuinely impressed with all three. Salmon came across as a cerebral, straight-forward man with succinct economic guidelines. Bayless impressed me as a sensitive, education-oriented person cut from a different cloth than most politicians. And Napolitano took me off guard as a big believer in law and order who will always let you know what she thinks ÷ whether you're gonna like it or not.

I've made up my mind, and I hope I've been able to help you make up yours. Please vote tomorrow ÷ and in November.