Center for Policy Alternatives
CPA - Header Photo

Clean Elections

American voters think the political system is broken because special interest money corrupts the process and gives unfair advantages to the wealthy and well-connected.
Seventy percent of Americans agree that the “political system is so controlled by special interests and partisanship that it cannot respond to the country’s real needs.”1 Over 80 percent of Americans think that “big companies” and “political action committees that give money to political candidates” have too much power and influence in politics, and 72 percent believe that “public opinion” has too little influence.2
The amount of money pouring into political campaigns has grown exponentially.
Federal soft money contributions jumped almost 500 percent in ten years, from $86.1 million in 1992 to nearly $500 million in 2002.3 Now that soft money has been banned, hard money contributions have increased. For example, individual contributions to major party presidential candidates increased from $184 million for the 2000 primaries to $316 million in 2004.4
Campaign finance reform is particularly critical at the state level.
In the 41 states with part-time legislators, reform is essential to keep the costs of running for office affordable for the average citizen. Without the burden of fundraising, candidates who run Clean Money campaigns have more time to reach out to voters. And once in office, publicly-financed candidates have more freedom to concentrate on policy priorities instead of fundraising for the next election.
The Clean Money Campaign Reform Act has proven to be an effective tool to bring public financing to state elections.
Based on the highly successful Maine Clean Election Act, the model Clean Money Campaign Reform Act provides public financing to state candidates. Specifically, the legislation
  • Allows candidates to become eligible for public funding if they raise a nominal amount of money through $5 donations from a specific number of voters in their state or district.
  • Gives a pre-set amount of money from the public campaign fund to qualified candidates who agree not to raise or spend private funds in their campaigns. The amounts vary for contested and uncontested races. For contested elections, the amount is equal to 75 percent of the average amount spent during the last two elections for the office being sought.
  • Provides bonus funds to Clean Money candidates of up to double their initial grant if opponents with private contributions spend beyond a certain limit, or if so-called independent issue advertisers target a Clean Money candidate.
Public financing has bipartisan support.
In 2004, 24 Republicans and 18 Democrats in Arizona won legislative races running Clean Money campaigns. The same year, 85 Democrats and 56 Republicans in Maine who ran as Clean Money candidates won their legislative races.5
Public financing is particularly important for women and minorities.
Public financing has been particularly effective in helping women and minorities run for office. In Arizona’s 2004 general election, women accounted for four out of ten publicly-financed candidates. Over two-thirds of minorities who ran in primaries were Clean Money candidates.6
More and more candidates are running—and winning—with public financing.
In 2004, 77 percent of Maine’s representatives and 83 percent of its senators ran and won with public financing. Ten of Arizona’s statewide officeholders, including the governor, won as Clean Money candidates. In North Carolina, 12 of the 16 candidates for judicial offices used public financing and Clean Money candidates won four out of five races for judicial seats in 2004.7
Public financing is gaining momentum in the states.
Seven states (AZ, CT, ME, NJ, NM, NC, VT) have some type of Clean Elections law. Maine became the first state to enact public financing through a ballot initiative in 1996. Following Maine’s lead, voters in Arizona, Massachusetts and Vermont enacted clean elections laws by referendum (although the Massachusetts law was repealed by the legislature in 2003). North Carolina implemented a public financing system for judicial elections; New Mexico set up a similar system for elections to the state Public Regulation Commission. New Jersey tested a clean elections pilot project in two legislative districts during the November 2005 election. And in December 2005, the Connecticut legislature enacted the nation’s broadest clean elections law, covering all legislative and statewide elections.
Endnotes
  1. Newsweek poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates, October 9-10, 2003.
  2. Harris Interactive poll, February 9-16, 2004.
  3. Federal Election Commission, “Party Fundraising Reaches $1.1 Billion in 2002 Election Cycle,” December 18, 2002.
  4. Campaign Finance Institute, “CFI Analysis of the Presidential Candidates’ Financial Reports Filed March 20,” March 24, 2004.
  5. Public Campaign, “Record Number of ‘Clean’ Candidates Elected in Maine and Arizona, System also Takes Hold in North Carolina,” November 5, 2004.
  6. Clean Elections Institute, “2004 Election Results,” 2005.
  7. “Record Number of ‘Clean’ Candidates Elected in Maine and Arizona.”
Updates