The Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Act applies only to state candidates.  See http://www.ccec.state.az.us/ccecscr/cceca/act/16901.asp.  However, that does not make a difference.  The point is that Flake has organized a group to put an initiative on the Arizona ballot.  Whatever the subject matter of the initiative -- and it could be to regulate Indian gaming, air pollution, water rights, or anything else -- it is a state campaign not a federal one.

The BCRA does not prohibit Flake from speaking on the initiative.  I think it was the Brennan Center that made that point in its comment on the Flake request.  What it does do is prohibit Flake from raising or spending funds directly or indirectly in excess of the federal limit.  In other words, Flake can spend his campaign's money on the initiative if he wants to.  What he can't do is set up another committee that raises "non-federal" money and spends it to promote a ballot initiative.

At 11:26 AM 4/26/03 -0700, Larry Levine wrote:

Does the Clean Election Fund provide funds for candidates for federal
offices or just for state offices? If it is the latter, then the use of
federal funds would probably NOT be permitted under BCRA. If it funds both
state and federal races, can federal funds be spent to repeal the state
funding portions? On another level, can someone tell me why a person should
be deprived of his or her first amendment rights to speak on public issues
simply because that person holds or seeks a federal office? Let's see if I
have this right: some people are moving with some success to restoring the
right to vote to convicted felons while others are seeking to silence
federal office holders and candidates in debate of issues that will appear
on the same ballot on which felons can vote. I know it's an non-sequitur,
but ironic anyway.
Larry Levine


----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Still" <ed@votelaw.com>
To: <election-law@majordomo.lls.edu>
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 6:49 PM
Subject: Federal candidates and state initiative campaigns


>
> The request (of Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.)) to the FEC for an Advisory
> Opinion has drawn several comments. Flake set up a group called Stop
> Taxpayer Money for Politicians Committee which wants to circulate
petitions
> for an initiative to repeal the Clean Elections fund in Arizona. The
> problem is that Flake is a federal official and he is wondering if working
> on this state campaign at the same time as he is running for re-election
> (or perhaps against Sen. John McCain) will violate the BCRA.
>
> The Brennan Center argues that because the BCRA "unambiguously prohibits
> initiative campaign committees that were established by candidates for
> federal office from raising money from sources or in amounts that are not
> permitted by federal law," the Stop Committee must raise funds only in
> accord with the BCRA.
>
> The Center for Responsive Politics agrees with the general point of the
> Brennan Center letter, but goes further in arguing that the Stop Committee
> will engage in federal election activity and electioneering communications
> during a federal election, and engage in prohibited coordination with a
> federal campaign (Flake's). It concludes that the Stop Committee "would
> resolve most, if not all, its compliance issues by soliciting, receiving
> and spending only federal funds. The Center also suggests that portions of
> the request ask for advice about hypotheticals, and the FEC should reject
> those.
>
> Common Cause and Democracy 21 urge the FEC to reject the whole request
> because it asks for general advice about how to comply with the law if the
> Committee takes a variety of forms. In addition to the points made above
by
> the other commentators, these two organizations argue that Flake and the
> Committee have already violated the BCRA by soliciting non-federal funds;
> and that it makes no difference what form the Committee takes (527 group
or
> 501(c)(3)).
>
> The Campaign Legal Center covers the same terrain in a longer letter that
> points out the importance of ballot initiatives and urges the FEC not to
> allow "a blurring of the line between political campaign and initiative
> processes."
>
> The Flake request is AOR 2003-12.  It and the comments are at
> http://www.fec.gov/aoreq.html.
>
>
> Ed Still
> http://www.votelaw.com
> http://votelaw.blogspot.com
>
>