(Caution: 1998 Prop. 105 applies)
A. The people of Arizona declare our intent to create a clean elections system that will improve the integrity of Arizona state government by diminishing the influence of special-interest money, will encourage citizen participation in the political process, and will promote freedom of speech under the U.S. and Arizona Constitutions. Campaigns will become more issue-oriented and less negative because there will be no need to challenge the sources of campaign money.
B. The people of Arizona find that our current election-financing system:
1. Allows Arizona elected officials to accept large campaign contributions from private interests over which they have governmental jurisdiction;
2. Gives incumbents an unhealthy advantage over challengers;
3. Hinders communication to voters by many qualified candidates;
4. Effectively suppresses the voices and influence of the vast majority of Arizona citizens in favor of a small number of wealthy special interests;
5. Undermines public confidence in the integrity of public officials;
6. Costs average taxpayers millions of dollars in the form of subsidies and special privileges for campaign contributors;
7. Drives up the cost of running for state office, discouraging otherwise qualified candidates who lack personal wealth or access to special-interest funding; and
8. Requires that elected officials spend too much of their time raising funds rather than representing the public.
Notes of Decisions
Citizens Clean Elections Commission v. Myers (2000)
ariz · cites it 8×
“¶ 1 These are consolidated petitions for special action brought by the Citizens Clean Elections Commission and the Arizonans for Clean Elections against VotePac and others seeking expedited review of an order of the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County holding that the…”
Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission v. Brain (2014)
ariz · cites it 4×
“¶ 3 In 1998, voters passed an initiative to create the Citizens Clean Elections Act, A.R.S. §§ 16-940 to -961 (“CCEA” or “Act”), which established an alternative campaign financing system for primary and general elections and created the Citizens Clean Elections Commission to…”
Randall v. Sorrell (2006)
scotus
“as Amici Curiae 16-17 (citing Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-940 (B)(7); Colo. Rev.”
May v. McNally (2002)
ariz · cites it 4×
“CONCLUSION ¶28 In summary, we hold that the surcharge funding provision of the Citizens Clean Elections Act, A.R.S. § 16-940(0, is constitutional. We therefore vacate the opinion of the court of appeals and reinstate the judgment in favor of the Real Parties in Interest.”
Clean Elections Institute, Inc. v. Brewer (2004)
ariz · cites it 2×
“) §§ 16-940 to 16-961 (Supp.2003). In June 2004, a group known as No Taxpayer Money for Politicians filed initiative petition signature sheets seeking to qualify Proposition 106 for the 2004 general election ballot.”
McComish v. Bennett (2010)
ca9 · cites it 2×
“Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 16-940 (historical and statutory note).”
Lavis v. Bayless (2001)
azd · cites it 7×
“A.R.S. § 16-940. The Act provides: *1222 The People of Arizona declare our intent to create a clean elections system that will improve the integrity of Arizona State government by diminishing the influence of special interest money, will encourage citizen participation in the…”
Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission v. Brain (2013)
arizctapp
“”) §§ 16-940 to - 961). As relevant here, the Clean Elections Act created an alternative campaign financing system whereby candidates for statewide and legislative office who agreed to limit them fundraising and spending would receive public campaign financing.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-940(A) — 4 cases
Lavis v. Bayless (2001)
azd
“A.R.S. § 16-940. The Act provides: *1222 The People of Arizona declare our intent to create a clean elections system that will improve the integrity of Arizona State government by diminishing the influence of special interest money, will encourage citizen participation in the…”
May v. McNally (2002)
ariz
“CONCLUSION ¶28 In summary, we hold that the surcharge funding provision of the Citizens Clean Elections Act, A.R.S. § 16-940(0, is constitutional. We therefore vacate the opinion of the court of appeals and reinstate the judgment in favor of the Real Parties in Interest.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-940(B) — 4 cases
Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission v. Brain (2014)
ariz
“¶ 3 In 1998, voters passed an initiative to create the Citizens Clean Elections Act, A.R.S. §§ 16-940 to -961 (“CCEA” or “Act”), which established an alternative campaign financing system for primary and general elections and created the Citizens Clean Elections Commission to…”
Lavis v. Bayless (2001)
azd
“A.R.S. § 16-940. The Act provides: *1222 The People of Arizona declare our intent to create a clean elections system that will improve the integrity of Arizona State government by diminishing the influence of special interest money, will encourage citizen participation in the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.