Gov. Christine Gregoire proposed today a pilot program for public financing of judicial campaigns.

She wants to use $4.4 million so "judges can be free from money influence — real or perceived," according to material released by her office this morning. What the governor calls the "Judicial Independence Act," or JIA, is not yet in final form. But a memo from her policy office outlines how it would work:

To qualify for the JIA, candidates must raise a specific amount in qualifying contributions. Qualifying contributions must be between $10 and $50, and must come from individuals (not PACs, unions, or corporations). Contributors must designate the contribution as a qualifying contribution, and must submit name and address along with the contribution. Only campaign volunteers can collect qualifying contributions.

• Court of Appeals: Must raise at least $2,000 (and no more than $5,000) from at least 100 contributors.

• Supreme Court: Must raise at least $10,000 (and no more than $25,000) from at least 500 contributors.

There would also be public money available for exploratory campaigns.

Candidates would have to agree to a clean campaign code to get the money, though. That would include a prohibition on "disparaging or disrespectful communications." Candidates could respond to attacks from opponents.

The program would provide a minimum amount of public financing and then additional matching funds if an opponent who is not participating raises more than the minimum. The matching funds could also increase for a candidate if independent expenditures are used to favor another candidate.

The proposal is based on public financing programs similar to what is in place in Arizona, Maine and North Carolina, which has a specific public financing plan for judicial candidates.

Here's the explanation from the Arizona commissions FAQ page:

Question: How exactly does the Clean Elections Act work?

Answer: Candidates who choose to participate in Clean Elections (commonly called, participating candidates) collect a set number of $5 qualifying contributions (donations) that can qualify them for Clean Elections funding: Two-thirds of Clean Elections funding comes from surcharges on civil and criminal fees; the remainder comes from a voluntary $5 state income tax check-off, a dollar-for-dollar income tax credit for up to $500, civil penalties imposed on candidates for violation of the Commission rules & policies and the $5 qualifying contributions. To qualify for funding, participating candidates must adhere to strict spending and contribution limits and gather $5 qualifying contributions from registered voters in their districts.

During this year's campaign, Gregoire complained about what she said was special interest money pouring into campaigns for Supreme Court challengers. To counter that, she decided to raise money for incumbent justices. She solicited donations from political heavyweights and gave at least $25,000 from a PAC she controls.

In Arizona, there is a separate citizens group that monitors the Clean Election program. The group tracks which candidates participate in public financing and says that nine of 11 statewide offices, including governor, are held by Clean Election participants. There are also citizen groups in Maine and North Carolina.

In November, California voters defeated a ballot measure that would have created a similar system. In a story before the election, the San Francisco Chronicle looked at Arizona's experience and reported:

Six years into its brave new world of publicly financed campaigns, Arizona's "clean money" elections system already is creaking with signs of age.

UPDATE: For a story for tomorrow's paper I've gotten some reaction to Gregoire's plan.

Tom McCabe, executive vice president of the Building Industry Association of Washington, said BIAW will oppose it.

"Her plan is an incumbent protection plan. That's what irritates the BIAW about it and certainly should irritate the voters about it. If you can't tell the voters why you should replace somebody, then they'll never be replaced."

Alex Hays, who ran the Constitutional Law PAC, said he generally supports campaign finance reform, but he bristled at the idea that candidates would have to agree to a code of behavior in order to receive public funds.

"It is the intent of the Constitution to protect political speech. Unfortunately the governor's proposal has at the heart of it a hostility to free speech."

Charlie Wiggins, who heads the state chapter of the American Judicature Society and worried publicly about the influx of conservative money in the court races, said he thinks public financing is a great idea that needs to happen.

But he said more thinking has to be done on the details. He has studied North Carolina's program and says that state requires a higher threshold of fundraising to qualify for public funds, and then gives more money to run a campaign.

Under Gregoire's plan a Supreme Court candidate could qualify for public funds by raising only $10,000. In North Carolina it is $35,000, which serves to filter out candidates without popular support. Wiggins said:

"I think everybody has to think very carefully where the qualifying limits are set. If you set them too low, it seems to me, it's too easy for people to qualify and then you're giving away a lot of money to people who may not have very deep support."

Wiggins is also unsure if the public funds would be enough to run a competitive campaign, particularly for a Court of Appeals race which is capped at about $64,000.

"Frankly, you do need some money for these campaigns. I just worry that this is too low."

The court elections have already prompted the Public Disclosure Commission to propose limits on independent expenditures.

I asked McCabe if there was any restrictions on the BIAW's political activity that he would support.

"I think the only method that would be acceptable is if groups were unable to do independent expenditures then newspapers should be unable to endorse candidates. It's the same thing. Freedom of speech means more than just newspapers. It applies to trade groups, it applies to labor unions, it applies to individuals."

Also, let's not forget that Danny Westneat called for public financing back in September.

This year it's the builders trying to buy a seat. Next time it'll be the unions. Or the pro-lifers, or the gays, or the asphalt lobby.

Isn't it time we just bought the court ourselves?

And he wrote about a citizen effort to get public financing in Washington.