The Clean Elections Act Does Not Live Up to Its' Name

The Clean Elections Act Does Not Live Up to Its' Name
Clean Elections is an act that was passed by the people of Arizona in the year 2000. The act helps out candidates who want to run for a campaign in Arizona but don?t have the necessary funds to compete against candidates who are wealthy. The Clean Elections Act uses public funds both donated and what comes from the tax payers. The money is accessible to anyone needing campaign funding but they must raise 5000 signatures to be able to use the public?s money. In this paper I am going to give you good examples on how there are several loop holes in the accounting process in the Clean Elections Act. Clean Elections does not mean clean campaigning, even though most people would agree that the Clean Elections Act is a good idea, but as years go by there are many problems associated with this new act. For example, candidates in the year 2000 used public funds to degrade their opposing competitors. The money is strictly set up for people to use for campaigning and not for uses as what occurred in 2000. The Act was made for people to campaign easy, no body thought these kinds of processes would follow but no one put the time and effort into really seeing what would happen with free public money.
The Clean Elections Act is not holding up to its name. Candidates of the Clean Elections law are abusing the right of the free public money. Candidates in Arizona have failed to report some of the campaign accounting numbers and expenditures. Since the year 2000, there have been eleven candidates using the Clean Elections law and there have been five written complaints about candidates who are not reporting where the public money is going. This is a pretty big deal considering that the funds are for public usage not just for random spending. The fact is that the Clean Elections Act was intended for an easement of average candidates but instead has become an accounting nightmare.
The Clean Elections Act actually has a few loop holes to the system such as when the candidate becomes elected they do not really have a budget except that of the public campaigning money. Therefore there is not anyone holding them back on spending issues so to speak. With the Clean Elections Act it was also thought of that the turnout for elections would be greater considering that it was publicly financed but the turnout was not much higher than the years previously dating the Act. Taxpayers deserve the right to find out where their money is going as well as why it should be spent for that cause. The Act is intended for making things easier but there are many holes in the system that needs to be examined.

Clean money doesn?t mean you get clean campaigns, in the 2000 election the elections went so bad that the candidates were almost forced to take an oath that they would not slander or attack other campaigns or candidates. The first election with The Clean Elections Act went so bad that other measures also had to go into effect such as: using public money in ways that it would not deface other candidates. The candidates were able to run clean of the whole situation while their allies spent the public money on attack ads. Independent candidates don?t run anyway is because the majority of voters don?t believe in their ideals anyway. Arizona has pumped millions of dollars into the Clean Elections Act to make clean elections work but in fact they have failed in doing so. The fact of the matter is that the system we have isn?t perfect but that?s all we have right now.

The Clean Elections Act Does Not Live Up to Its' Name 7.5 of 10 on the basis of 1135 Review.