Clean Elections

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Clean Elections (sometimes 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. However, substantial portions of the Vermont system were found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Randall v. Sorrell, and in Massachusetts the system was repealed after an advisory initiative in which voters voted nearly 2 to 1 against this use of government funds. 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. However, a Clean Elections ballot initiative, Proposition 89 was defeated in California in 2006 by 74.3% to 25.7%.

Under a Clean Elections system, candidates wishing 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 campaigns, and agree not to raise money from private sources. 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.[citation needed]

Contents

[edit] Differences from traditional reforms

Clean Elections is a form of Campaign Finance Reform. Clean Elections differs from more traditional reform proposals, however, in a number of important ways:

Traditional Campaign Finance laws are restrictive, placing campaign donation caps on the donors. Clean Elections laws include these types of restrictions but supplement them by providing qualified candidates with a fixed amount of government funding with which to run their campaigns. To receive tax money, "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 regulations traditionally attempt to limit the amount an individual contributor can donate to a politician. Clean Elections allows for traditional, privately funded candidates, subject to sometimes severe restrictions on fundraising, but in addition provides tax funding for candidates who decline private funding. Tax-funded candidates who are outspent normally receive additional funds to match their privately funded opponent, up to a cap, with the intent of assuring that a candidate who refuses public money cannot gain a substantial financial advantage. Some critics have argued that this amounts to rigging the system so that participation is not truly voluntary, but so far such claims in court have been unsuccessful.

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 laws focus only on limits.

[edit] Effectiveness

A 2003 study by the nonpartisan General Accounting Office (GAO) requested by Congress could not find any significant changes in the two clean elections then conducted in Maine and Arizona. The average number of candidates per district, percentage of contested races, incumbency rates, incumbency victory margins, perceptions of interest group influence among candidates and citizens, and voter participation did not change notably. Campaign spending decreased in Maine but increased in Arizona and independent expenditures increased in both states. However, 60% of Maine and 37% of Arizona was unaware of the public financing program. The study concluded that "with ... only one election from which to observe most statewide races, it is too early to draw causal linkages".[1]

A 2006 study of the 2004 and 2002 campaigns by political scientists Mayer, Werner, and Williams of the University of Wisconsin--Madison argued that the GAO "understate[d] the reforms' impact, in part by making some unusual methodological choices and jettisoning valuable data." (For example, the GAO examined only primaries when measuring contestedness and did not include primary losses when measuring incumbency. Including primary losses reduces the reelection rate from 90% to 70%.) They found that the candidate pool and competitiveness increased significantly, while the incumbency rate dropped significantly.[2] A 2007 update found that in the 2006 campaign found that competitiveness continued to increase slightly but reelection rates "returned to pre-reform levels". Contestedness also continued to increase, reaching 100% in Maine. They also found that women were much more likely than men to accept public funding but this had no effect on the gender composition of the legislature.[3]

A study by the liberal Clean Elections Institute found that the number and geographic, economic, and ethnic diversity of campaign contributors increased significantly, with contributors almost quadrupling, contributions from people with incomes below $40,000 increasing by 40% and contributions from Latinos increasing significantly.[4]

A 2006 study by the conservative Goldwater Institute found that "incumbency rates have remained near 100% [while] the number of candidates fell substantially ... from 247 to 195. Moreover, the law has not increased minor or third-party participation in politics, and Arizona campaigns remain every bit as hard-edged".[5]

[edit] Supporters

SB 1285, the Fair Elections Now Act, calling for Clean Elections in senate campaigns is sponsored by Senators:[6]

Others who have endorsed clean elections include:

[edit] References

  1. ^ Early Experience of Two States that Offer Full Public Funding of Political Campaigns, study by United States Government Accounting Office.
  2. ^ Do Public Funding Programs Enhance Electoral Competition? | Public Campaign Library
  3. ^ Public Election Funding, Competition, and Candidate Gender
  4. ^ Reclaiming Democracy in Arizona, study by the Arizona Clean Elections Institute
  5. ^ Campaign Promises: A Six-Year Review of Arizona's Experiment with Taxpayer-financed Campaigns, study by the Goldwater Institute.
  6. ^ S. 1285: Fair Elections Now Act (GovTrack.us)
  7. ^ John Edwards for President-One Democracy Initiative: Returning Washington To Regular People
  8. ^ Sen. Mccain Embraces Clean Elections In Arizona Big Boost To Public Financing Seen | Public Campaign
  9. ^ Dialing for Clean Dollars
  10. ^ YouTube - Candidate Challenge: John McCain
  11. ^ "Full public financing must be the ultimate goal of our reform effort.", State of the State 2007

[edit] External links

[edit] Legislation

[edit] Studies

[edit] Related organizations

[edit] Press coverage