The stars may be aligning to finally dismantle Arizona’s inaptly named Clean Elections system. After a decade of stifling political speech, a recent Court decision may provide the necessary firepower to give Clean Elections — or at least the equalizing funds provision — the boot.

Passed in 1998 by a slim margin, Arizona’s experiment with taxpayer-financed elections was a bad idea right out of the gate. Candidates are categorized as either clean elections participants or traditionally funded candidates. Clean elections participants have an expenditure cap and they may only use government funds for their campaigns. Traditional candidates may raise money from private sources, but if they raise more than clean elections candidates’ cap, they trigger additional matching funds to their opponents.

It’s the matching funds portion that may be on the chopping block. A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision struck down a similar federal campaign finance law. This decision flamed the fire under an existing Arizona Clean Elections lawsuit filed by the Institute for Justice, and paved the way for a new suit brought by the Goldwater Institute. The judge in the Goldwater suit recently ruled Arizona’s matching funds system violates constitutional free speech rights. She did not, however, suspend triggered funds for the upcoming General Election.

Taxpayer-financed elections limit candidates’ ability to communicate with voters and limits and distorts the speech of donors whose contributions could spur funds to opposition candidates.

There’s another important factor to consider given Arizona’s tremendous budget deficit and continuously declining tax revenues. In the 2006 election cycle, Arizona Clean Elections paid out more than $9.4 million to participating candidates. This year Arizona legislators will be scrambling to make cuts to our state budget. Would you rather those cuts come from education, health care, and public safety — or taxpayer money that pays for politicians’ campaigns? The choice is obvious.