Clean Elections

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Clean Elections (also called Clean Money or Voter-Owned Elections) is a system of government financing of political campaigns used in a small number of states and local political jurisdictions in the United States. Some form of Clean Elections legislation has been adopted, mostly through ballot initiatives, in Maine, Arizona, North Carolina, New Mexico, Vermont, and Massachusetts (though in the latter two it has been weakened or repealed). Clean Elections was passed by normal legislative means in Connecticut in December, 2005. Two municipalities in 2005, Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Portland, Oregon have also passed Clean Elections for municipal elections. A clean elections ballot initiative, Proposition 89 was defeated in California in 2006 by almost a 3-1 margin.

Under a Clean Elections system, candidates hoping to receive public financing must collect a certain number of small "qualifying contributions" (often as little as $5) from registered voters. In return, they are paid a flat sum by the government to run their campaign, and agree not to raise money from private sources. Clean Elections candidates who are outspent by privately-funded opponents may receive additional public matching funds.

Because the system is voluntary, it appears not to run afoul of the United States Supreme Court's Buckley v. Valeo decision, which struck down mandatory spending limits as an unconstitutional restriction on free speech.

Comprehensive Clean Elections systems have been in effect in Arizona and Maine for several years. Not surprisingly, most candidates take the subsidies rather than compete under the resulting handicap of raising voluntary contributions. In Maine, an overwhelming majority (3/4) of state legislators take the government money. In Arizona, the same is true of a majority of the state house, as well as the current Governor (Janet Napolitano).

At the Federal level, Senator Russ Feingold is a supporter. In the 2008 Presidential Campaign, John Edwards has also expressed support.

Contents

[edit] Differences between Clean Elections and Traditional Campaign Finance Reform

Clean Elections can be considered a type of Campaign Finance Reform. Clean Elections differs from more traditional reform proposals, however, in a number of important ways:

  • Traditional Campaign Finance Reform laws are restrictive, placing campaign donation caps on the donors. Clean Elections laws include these restrictions but supplement them by providing qualified candidates a fixed amount of government funding with which to run their campaigns. To receive public funds, "Clean Candidates" must forgo all fundraising and accept no private or personal funds. Candidates who choose not to participate typically operate under significant restrictions on fundraising.
  • Campaign Finance Reform laws limit the amount an individual contributor can donate to a politician. If caps are set too high, they may have a minimal perceptual effect on campaigns. Clean Elections or Clean Money allows for traditional fundraising candidates, subject to sometmes severe restrictions on fundraising, but in addition provides funding for "clean" candidates. Clean Money candidates who are outspent normally receive matching funds up to a cap to remain competitive, thus in effect assuring that a candidate who refuses public money cannot gain a substantial financial advantage.
  • Candidates participating in a Clean Elections system are required to meet a certain qualification criterion, such as collecting a predetermined amount of signatures along with a small contribution (generally around $5) before the candidate can receive public support. Generally these qualifying contributions must be given by constituents. Traditional Campaign Finance Reform proposals focus only on limits. If caps are low enough, they can help spread out the donor pool, but do not address the issue of disproportionate warchests or expenditures made independently of the candidates.

[edit] Effectiveness of Clean Elections

Studies by various ideological advocacy groups have found that Clean Elections are effective or ineffective largely in accordance with the position the sponsoring organization has taken on the question. The most important independent study of clean elections is one undertaken by the nonpartisan General Accounting Office pursuant to a provision in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (also known as "McCain-Feingold"). The study, of Clean Elections programs in Arizona and Maine, concluded that more experience was required before any final judgments could be made on the effectiveness of the system. However,it found no short term benefits from clean elections in either of the two states. ([1])


[edit] Supporters of Clean Elections

[edit] External links

[edit] Legislation

[edit] Studies

[edit] Related organizations

[edit] Press coverage

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/l/e/Clean_Elections_c547.html"