An independent campaign in Tucson is shaking up the way city elections have typically progressed.
The Revitalize Tucson committee opposes the four Democrats up for re-election: City Council members Shirley Scott, Paul Cunningham, Regina Romero and Mayor Jonathan Rothschild.
Campaign finance reports show the committee has received 99.9 percent of its funding from another organization, a corporation called the Foundation for Responsible Accountable Government. Both groups are run by Republicans Frank Antenori, a former state lawmaker, and Christine Bauserman, a political consultant.
Revitalize Tucson has raised $50,250 as of the last campaign finance report. Of that, all but $50 was from FRAG. The committee has spent about $47,000 on billboards, yard signs and automated calls to convince voters to oppose the incumbent Democrats running for Tucson City Council.
The Pima County Democratic Party launched a counterpoint effort, and an effort failed in Pima County Superior Court to get the Foundation for Responsible Accountable Government to follow Arizona corporation laws. A judge ruled such registration was not necessary in order for the group to spend money in the Tucson election.
University of Arizona Communication Professor Kate Kenski explained how the system for this kind of spending works. She studies political communication and wrote a book about how fundraising and spending affected the 2008 presidential election.
The 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision determined groups unaffiliated with campaigns are not subject to contribution limits, so they can raise unlimited money.
Federal law allows independent groups to support or oppose candidates or issues, as long as they do not coordinate with an official candidate campaign.
"Essentially corporations can be made that are directing their messages toward candidates and as long as there is not coordination going on, one can't regulate a corporation in quite the same way," Kenski said.
That’s the way the Foundation for Responsible Accountable Government is working. It’s registered as a corporation in another state.
The campaign finance rule is to protect free speech, Kenski said.
"If you restrict the finances of corporations and unions with rules, you'd be restricting speech, because money is necessary to facilitate speech," she said.
The phenomenon of unrestricted spending by independent groups is new in local elections, Kenski said.
"What's happened now, through some rulings, is that state groups are realizing that...state and local governments can't put forth restrictions on independent expenditure groups either," just like the federal government is prohibited, Kenski said.
What all of this means for future elections is not yet clear, she said.
"Local elections have not been studied in the same way that national elections have, but we know that money makes a difference at all levels when people are trying to get out their message,” she said.
The economic upturn may have expanded some peoples’ ability to spend money on elections, she said. The outcome could be that there is more free speech, more ideas explored in public discourse, but candidates may start to lose control of the message, she said.
"Any time groups realize they can push the envelope on spending they will,” she said.
By submitting your comments, you hereby give AZPM the right to post your comments and potentially use them in any other form of media operated by this institution.