More on Clean Money, Clean Elections

Questions and Answers on Full Public Financing

Q. What is “full public financing?”
A. A full public financing system, also known as Clean Elections, is a system under which candidates who agree to limit spending and collect only a limited number of small individual contributions, qualify for a set amount of public funds for their campaigns. The system is a voluntary option to the current privately funded campaign finance system.  Candidates first must qualify by collecting a set amount of small contributions from voters in their district.  Once qualified, the candidate agrees not to raise or spend any private money.  They also agree to strict spending limits.  In return, they are given a fixed and equal amount of public funds to run first their primary campaign, and then their general election campaign.  If a publicly funded candidate is being heavily outspent by a well-funded opponent or an outside organization, there are additional funds available to the publicly funded candidate to make sure they stay competitive.  

Q. Where is this system in place in the United States?
A. Two states have had Clean Elections full public financing in place for several elections. In Maine, four-out-of-five state legislators were elected without any private funds. Two-thirds of these are Democrats and one-third are Republicans.  In Arizona, Governor Napolitano and eight other statewide elected officials were elected without taking campaign funds from private interests. In Arizona, 60% of the Democratic delegation and 28% of the Republican delegation were elected without private campaign funds. The Maine and Arizona systems were created by voter initiative in the late ‘90’s. North Carolina has a system of full public financing in place for elections of judges since 2004. Three of the four seats up for election on the seven-member Supreme Court and both of the seats filled on the 15-member Court of Appeals are now held by judges who ran with public funding.

Q. What happened in Connecticut in 2005?
A.  In December of 2005, Connecticut became the first state legislature to enact a system of full public financing for statewide and legislative offices. Republican Governor Jodi Rell and the Democratic controlled State Legislature enacted the reforms after Governor John Rowland was jailed in a campaign finance scandal. Connecticut’s comprehensive reforms included many other reforms, including a prohibition on so called “pay-to-play” campaign contributions from those who hold state contracts.

Q. What will full public financing cost in New York?
A. Based on an analysis of the cost in Maine and Arizona, the cost in New York will be $20 million a year, or about $1 per New Yorker. This analysis applied the per voter and per capita costs in both Maine and Arizona and found that both states had almost identical costs. Most observers believe that a full public financing system would actually save money by eliminating the ability of campaign donors to influence state special interest spending.
 
Q. Is full public financing the only campaign finance reform we need in New York?
A. No. New York’s notoriously weak campaign finance laws need a complete overhaul, including measures to:

1. Ban contributions from entities that do business with New York (“pay to play”);

2. Lower contribution limits, which are currently as high as $50,000 for a candidate for Governor and over $85,000 to a political party;

3. Close contribution loopholes, which allow corporations and individuals to exceed even New York’s high limits;

4. Require disclosure of the employer and occupation of campaign donors;

5. Require reporting of campaign contributions during the normal legislative session;

6. Close New York’s soft money loophole;

7. Effectively ban the personal use of campaign funds;

8. Overhaul enforcement of the campaign finance laws, which are now overseen by the Board of Elections which has neither the will nor ability to enforce even New York’s weak laws.