Election Reform's Unintended Winners

In today's Washington Post, Ruth Marcus discovers that public financing of campaigns led (surprise) to more radical political outcomes, by helping fund conservative Republicans challenging more mainstream candidates.

Ruth Marcus discovers that public financing of campaigns leads (surprise) to more radical political outcomes:

In 1998, she writes, Arizona adopted

one of the most far-reaching public financing laws in the nation.

Candidates for the legislature can receive public funding if they collect 220 contributions of at least $5 each. This entitles them to more than $14,000 for the primary campaign and more than $21,000 for the general election. If a competing candidate chooses not to comply with spending and contribution limits, the publicly funded candidate gets matching funds to stay even. ...

Previously, for better or worse, candidates of both parties were 'vetted' by business groups that then proceeded to help them raise money, a process that served to filter out extremes on both sides.

The new law "ended up benefiting conservative Republicans who quickly figured out that the Clean Elections money could be used to take on Chamber of Commerce-type Republicans."

Especially as gerrymandering carved Arizona into safe seats where any Republican (or any Democrat) could win the general if they won the primary in a crowded field.

But do you think this demonstration of unintended consequences will kill liberal enthusiasm for public financing? Of course the answer is: nah.