Ca$h at la$t: Martin campaign back on track

After having to deal with a pesky antagonist who mounted a challenge to his $5 Clean Elections contributions, State Treasurer Dean Martin has made it to the cash stash after it was determined that his qualifying contributions did not contain enough duplicates to necessitate a full review of all 5,453 signatures he submitted.

Martin will now receive up to $707,443 in public money for his gubernatorial primary campaign.

Despite the challenge, a 5 percent review by the Secretary of State’s Office, as provided by law, concluded that Martin is qualified to receive funding from the Clean Elections commission.

A June 8 U.S. Supreme Court decision that blocked Arizona from distributing matching funds to Clean Elections candidates cost Martin and Gov. Jan Brewer $1.4 million extra taxpayer-funded support. The court ruled against penalizing privately funded office seekers by providing matching funds to their opponents.

13 Responses to Ca$h at la$t: Martin campaign back on track

  1. Wesley W. Harris says:

    Boy, I am surprised to see such a favorable comment on this blog. The fellow that blocked this is a Brewer supporter…apparently you are not. I find that interesting…but positive (in this case)

  2. Sgt. Preston says:

    You and I must be reading different posts, Wesley W. Harris. I see nothing either favorable or unfavorable here. It is a straight fact-filled report. What are you cawing about?

  3. Orion says:

    What I wish had been included here is Martin’s inconsistancy. He was a party to the lawsuit challenging the matching funds provisions all the while standing in line for a handout of public money. Clean elections are nothing more than a feed sack for politicans with others picking up the tab.

  4. Jane says:

    Go Dean Martin!

  5. Another LD11 PC says:

    Let’s call a spade a spade. Bob Haran “conservative” (not) PC from LD6 challenged Martin’s $5 contributions. Bob is working for the pro-shamnesty Brewer campaign.

    • John Q says:

      Bob Haran is a slug that is still taking your taxpayer dollars claiming PTSD from forty years ago. I know that many feel that he is truly a psycho, but not many believe the military caused it.

  6. Blackbeard says:

    Is this supposed to make me happy? I support another candidate, but my money is going to fund his campaign. Nothing against him personally, but this is what is so powerfully wrong with this system. Candidates should raise their own funds. If they can’t generate the necessary support, get out of the race. What other endeavors in life provide you with the funds to carry out your dreams given by people who don’t all agree with your plans. Even parents set a limit on their generosity.

    • Janelle says:

      Another false premise.

      Unless you are a habitual violator of laws it is not your money as NONE of this money comes from state taxes.

  7. Read Bull says:

    To all the politicians calling Clean Electios System funding “tax-payer dollars.” Wrong.

    Clean Elections is funded by a voluntary check off box on state tax return for $5. Don’t check the box and you don’t have to give $5 to it.

    The 10% surcharge on fines is a pretty good value. When a candidate is running on clean elections you have a larger impact on their campaign by agreeing (or not agreeing) to give them one of their required $5 contributions. It’s a good trade-off in my book.

    When has $5 ever impacted a campaign more? More voters get involved in the other necessary evil of campaigns, the need to raise money. What percent of voters actually reach in their pocket or cut a check to candidates now? Maybe one-half of one percent? You ask thousands of people for a $5 contribution and now you have thousands of people giving more thought to candidates than they ever have before.

    By the way, Martin sued against the matching funds feature of clean elections. He won his case and never gave it a moments regret.

  8. JB says:

    Not quite, Read Bull. There is more to the public funded scheme than a check off box. There are funds confiscated from any one of us through surcharges on items as minor as a traffic infraction, and they don’t have to be moving violations. If you like the system, that’s fine. Check off to your heart’s content. I think it stinks and don’t want one red cent of my money going to pay for politicians, especially those I disagree with. This system compels Republicans to fund Democrats and vise versa. It stinks to high heavens. Thank God the US Supreme Court was wise enough to realize the matching funds provision was an outlandish money grab. Why don’t you try applying that in your everyday life? If your neighbor drives a new Jaguar and you drive a 10 year old Ford, should the government give you the difference to “level the playing field?”
    If you answer Yes, you’ll love the not so clean elections money grab, known as welfare for politicians. And, Martin should have a moment’s regret and then some. You sound like a campaign insider. If you are, let him know there are plenty of us who think he has enough name ID after years in the political arena to be able to generate his own funding.

  9. obamanation says:

    $20,000,000 was what this election was going to cost, I’d much rather have it swept into the general fund to pay off the deficit than line some warchest of ANY politician. Note that they are “forced” to spend it all since it doesn’t carryover for a new election. It promotes WASTE. Although I think Dean Martin is one of the better candidates and I see how tactically he could never raise $2.4 million quickly like Buz “Buy Me a Govahnahship” Mills so he went Clean to match him, it seems hypocritical to take money that one was bad mouthing in the first place.

    • Janelle says:

      All of us act similarly to this all the time. I am opposed to the tax and budget system we have in this state, but I follow the current composition.

      No one should be criticized for using a legal process simply because they may disagree with the base premise of the process.

  10. Janelle says:

    Wesley W. Harris,

    It seems like you are either uninformed or surprised about the political history in Arizona. Why don’t you try to get informed about some of this stuff before you try to be the leader. It really helps if you have some sense of which road is a dead end and which is the road that gets you to your preferred destination