AUGUSTA – A couple of years after retiring as head of Maine’s campaign finance watchdog agency, Marilyn Canavan decided to run for the state House of Representatives. But she had a problem.

Canavan, a Democrat, got queasy over the idea of knocking on doors and making phone calls to plead for campaign donations. And if public campaign funds had not been available, “I would not have run,” she said.

On Election Day, Canavan beat her Republican and independent rivals – both of whom relied on traditional campaign contributions.

In the latest election, Maine and Arizona became the first states in which dozens of candidates like Canavan were able to tap public funds for their legislative campaigns.

Unofficial counts in Maine show candidates who used the state’s Clean Election fund defeated privately financed rivals in more than two dozen legislative races.

When the new Legislature is sworn in next month, “almost 50 percent of the people sitting in the Senate chamber will have gotten there by the Clean Election Act,” said William Hain, executive director of Maine’s Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices.

“In the House, one-fourth will have been publicly funded,” said Hain, whose agency administers the law.

A third of the candidates for Maine’s 186 House and Senate seats qualified for public financing this year, the first in which the voluntary public financing system played out. Fifty-six “clean” candidates in contested races were elected.

In Arizona, where 41 publicly financed candidates ran for the 90 legislative seats, 14 were successful on Election Day, according to Public Campaign, a nonpartisan group that wants lessspecial-interest money in elections.

“A lot more people ran who might not otherwise have run,” said Nick Nyhart, executive director of Public Campaign. “There were more contested races – voters had more choices.”

A case in point involved an Arizona race in which former House Speaker Jeff Groscost appeared destined for a state Senate seat despite a controversy over an alternative-fuel vehicle subsidy program he championed, said Dennis Burke, executive director of Common Cause in Arizona.

But Democrat Jay Blanchard decided to become a publicly funded candidate in order to give Groscost a race. And he won.

“Blanchard would not have been a candidate if it had not been for Clean Elections,” said Sharlene Bozack, executive director of the Clean Elections Institute in Arizona.

In Maine, candidates cited a variety of reasons for going “clean,” said Hain. One candidate told him that even though he didn’t like the law, he felt compelled to use it because it was approved strongly in his district by voters in 1996.

Both Maine’s and Arizona’s public financing systems were created by citizen initiatives.

Maine’s survived a legal challenge spearheaded by lead plaintiff, Sen. Beverly Daggett, who eventually changed her mind and decided to go with public funding. The Augusta Democrat was re-elected, over another “clean” candidate, on Nov. 7.

Arizona’s system is beset not only by court suits but also by concerns among lawmakers over how it’s being enforced. Bozack said there might have been more than 41 “clean” legislative candidates if a pending legal case had not delayed the law’s implementation into June.

“I think in 2002 we will double that,” Bozack predicted.

She also said in contested races to date nonparticipating candidates seemed to spend less money, apparently to keep public matches for their rivals from kicking in.

Despite the system’s growing pains, “everybody thinks this first go-around has been a great success,” said Common Cause’s Burke. “It’s going to make a huge difference.”

In Maine, predictions that the law would create a bureaucratic jumble were proved wrong, said Hain.

There were some challenges, such as keeping track of last-minute private spending aimed at influencing voters. Hain said his office was handing out matching money to “clean” candidates as late as Election Day itself.

Total funding to qualified “clean” candidates came to about $1 million, he said.

The Maine Civil Liberties Union says the Clean Election process still needs to be scrutinized to make sure that new finance filing requirements do not restrict participating or nonparticipating candidates from communicating their message to voters.

MCLU Executive Director Sally Sutton also wants to know whether the new layer of campaign reporting requirements discourages potential candidates from running.

“Have we put too many hoops in place for candidates to jump through?” asked Sutton.

Some observers also suggest that the Clean Election laws may have only a limited potential to reduce special-interest spending in campaigns. Sutton noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has said “independent” expenditures, which are intended to influence an election, cannot be restricted.

The Maine Citizens for Clean Elections’ George Christie said more number-crunching is needed to track where and how much special-interest money was spent. The group will also be watching newly elected lawmakers to gauge the impact of special-interest money in the State House.

For one freshman representative, the impact is clear.

“It’s a good feeling knowing I don’t owe anything to anybody except my constituents,” said Maine Rep.-elect Canavan.

Maine’s Clean Election Act gives candidates who qualify for public funding 75 percent of the average amount spent on comparable races in 1998 and 1996. Candidates may get up to twice as much to keep pace with privately funded opponents.

The law requires candidates seeking to qualify to collect $5 contributions from a fixed number of supporters.

Arizona’s system is similar to Maine’s. Those who get the requisite number of $5 donations can get $10,000 in public funds for the primary and $15,000 for the general election. If privately financed opponents outspend them, the state matches the extra spending, but only up to three times the original allotment.

In both states, participating candidates forgo private campaign financing.

Massachusetts voters in 1998 approved a referendum to provide public financing for politicians who agree to spending caps, but the system has not yet been implemented.