Arizona Democrats Seek to Transform Campaign Financing in Primaries
As the August primary approaches, Arizona Democrats are pushing forward with a revolutionary proposal to eliminate corporate and billionaire contributions from their primary elections. Dubbed the “People’s Primary,” this initiative aims to set a precedent nationwide, despite facing scrutiny and concerns over its practicality.
Scheduled for a vote at the party’s general meeting on January 24, the proposal has sparked debate within the party. While some Democrats argue that it could disadvantage candidates, others support the idea but acknowledge that crucial details need refinement. Jeanne Lunn, a party committee chair, voiced her skepticism, stating, “I would love to get this unfair advantage out. However, this is not the mechanism to do it.”
The pledge challenges candidates to distance themselves from ads funded by wealthy individuals and corporations, requiring them to reduce their campaign expenditures by half of the amount spent on such external ads. State laws, however, prevent candidates from coordinating with committees making independent expenditures, complicating the enforcement of this policy.
Despite these hurdles, supporters of the initiative, like Kai Newkirk, co-chair of the party’s Progressive Council, remain optimistic. “Voters are getting sick of this big-money corruption, and it’s getting worse,” Newkirk said. “As Democrats, we need to draw a clear contrast.”
Penalties for Noncompliance
Candidates agreeing to the “People’s Primary” pledge would have to reject any independent expenditure over $5,000. Noncompliance would mean donating half of the independent spending amount to a charity chosen by the state party. Those who refuse the pledge would lose access to vital party resources, including voter registration lists and financial backing.
Complexities in Implementation
Arizona Democrats endorsed the anti-big money concept last June, marking a first in the nation. However, the process of finalizing the specifics has been challenging. The proposal now suggests implementing it as a pilot program for the 2026 primary, focusing on districts with significant Democratic registrations and excluding statewide races.
Former Attorney General Terry Goddard supports the initiative, citing its alignment with the transparency goals of Proposition 211. This ballot measure, approved in 2022, mandates the disclosure of key contributors to independent expenditure committees, potentially reducing large-dollar donations.
Although some fundraisers express concerns about “unilateral disarmament,” Goddard believes the proposal could differentiate Democrats from Republicans. Raquel Teran, former state party chair, also backs the concept, noting its potential impact in heavily contested primaries.
The Debate on Candidate Control
Republican consultant Chris Baker criticized the proposal, highlighting its selective application to primaries and the unrealistic expectation that candidates control independent committees. “How do you go to a candidate who legally cannot coordinate with the big money and tell them you cannot coordinate with a campaign you have no control over?” Baker questioned.
Newkirk, however, argues that candidates can identify supporters and discourage unwanted aid. He is hopeful that recent polling showing strong backing for the pledge will persuade party leadership to advance the proposal. Should they hesitate, Newkirk has gathered enough signatures to call a special meeting for further discussion.
Prominent legal scholar Lawrence Lessig supports the policy, asserting that parties have the right to enforce values through such pledges. Drawing inspiration from the 2012 Massachusetts U.S. Senate race, where candidates agreed to reject outside money, Newkirk acknowledges potential challenges ahead but remains committed to the cause.
Despite the Democrats’ efforts, the entrenched presence of big money in politics remains a formidable challenge. “Big money’s not going away,” Baker remarked, underscoring the stakes involved.
—
Read More Arizona News
