The Alaska primary on August 26 included four initiatives. Measure Three would have established a system of public funding of campaigns for state office. It was defeated, 35.6% to 64.4%. The Measure would have treated all candidates equally. In other words, the qualifying standards were the same for every candidate, regardless of the candidate’s partisan affiliation.
This was a humilating defeat for those of us who support clean elections that would be less influenced by lobbyist money. There was a lot of local support here in Juneau but of course that didn’t carry over to the rest of our conservative state.
Frankly, I don’t think the state has any business stealing taxpayers’ money to fund political campaigns under any conditions.
Shut up! No. 3 is an optional program and you would have been able to choose to opt into or out of the program. There would have been no theft of tax payer dollars had 3 passed. Uninformed perspectives such as yours is why 3 failed to pass.
I agree with Laine that there must be an opt out
provision. Even more crucial is that all candidates, irrespective of partisan affiliation, be treated equally. This can be a great benefit to third-party and independent candidates. Maine and Arizona both are said to have good, non-discriminatory public funding policies. Like Laine, I regret this didn’t pass in Alaska. But the fact that this was presented as a ballot proposition should satisfy the objections of those who might characterize such a policy (if it had passed) as money stolen from taxpayers.