Clean Elections

"Clean Elections" (variously called, "Clean Money," "Voter-Owned Elections," or "Fair Elections") is term used to describe a particular system of government financing of political campaigns used in a 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system were found unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in Randall v. Sorrell, and in Massachusetts the system was repealed after an advisory initiative in which voters voted nearly 2 to 1 against using government funds to pay for political campaigns. Clean Elections was passed by normal legislative means in Connecticut in December, 2005. Connecticut's statute was held unconstitutional in August, 2009, on grounds that it unfairly discriminated against third party and independent candidates.^[1] A stay was granted and the Connecticut law is pending appeal. Two municipalities in 2005, Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Portland, Oregon have also passed Clean Elections for municipal elections.

In 2008, a Clean Elections bill, the California Fair Elections Act (AB583) passed the California Assembly and Senate and was signed by Governor Schwarzenegger. To take effect it must be approved by voters initiative in June 2010. An earlier Clean Elections ballot initiative, Proposition 89 was defeated in California in 2006 by 74.3% against to 25.7% in favor.

A Clean Elections ballot initiative in Alaska failed by a 64% to 35% margin in August 2008,^[2].

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 candidates may refuse government funding and continue to rely on voluntary contributions without spending caps, supporters have argued that Clean Elections measures do not run afoul of the Supreme Court's decision in Buckley v. Valeo decision, which struck down mandatory spending limits as an unconstitutional restriction on free speech but also affirmed that elections can be publicly financed. However, the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in Davis v. Federal Election Commission has cast doubt on the constitutionality of Clean Elections laws that provide "rescue funds" to participating candidates outspent by privately funded candidates.

Comprehensive Clean Elections systems have been in effect in Arizona and Maine since 2000. A majority of candidates accept the grants rather than raise private contributions. In Maine, an overwhelming majority (3/4) of state legislators ran with government subsidies provided by a Clean Elections Program.^[3] In Arizona, the same is true of a majority of the state house^{[citation needed]}. In 2006 both the Republican and Democratic candidates for Governor of Arizona ran Clean Elections campaigns. There has not yet been a statewide election in Maine in which both the Republican and Democratic candidates were financed through the Clean Election System.

Differences from traditional reforms

Clean Elections is a form of campaign finance reform.

Unlike traditional campaign finance laws that focused primarily on restricting spending and placing caps on campaign donations, Clean Elections laws provide a public grant to candidates who agree to limit their spending and private fundraising. Candidates participating in a Clean Elections system are required to meet certain qualification criteria, which usually includes collecting a number of signatures and small contributions (generally determined by statute and set at $5 in both Maine and Arizona) before the candidate can receive public support. In most Clean Elections programs, these qualifying contributions must be given by constituents. To receive the government campaign grant, "Clean Candidates" must forgo all other fundraising and accept no other private or personal funds. Candidates who choose not to participate are subject to limits on their fundraising, typically in the form of limits on the amounts of contributions they make accept and the sources of those contributions (such as limits on corporate or union contributions), and detailed reporting requirements.

In order to comply with Buckely v. Valeo, Clean Elections laws candidates opt-in to the system. Publicly financed candidates who are outspent by a privately funded candidate normally receive additional funds (sometimes called "rescue funds") to match their privately funded opponent, up to a cap, with the intent of assuring that a candidate who runs with private funding will not outspend his publicly support opponent. It is this provision that is of questionable constitutionality in the wake of Davis v. Federal Election Commission, which struck down on First Amendment grounds a federal law attempting to equalize resources between candidates. Davis held that the state's interest in equalizing the resources available to candidates was insufficient to justify the application of different contribution limits to different candidates, in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Although Davis did not directly address Clean Elections systems, following Davis a federal court has held that that portion of the Arizona law providing rescue funds is unconstitutional. This decision is also under appeal. ^[4]

Effectiveness

A 2003 study by the federal government's nonpartisan General Accounting Office (GAO), requested by Congress as part of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law passed in 2002, found that the Clean Elections system had failed to produce measurable benefits in the two election cycles run under the system in both 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. 60% of Maine and 37% of Arizona voters were 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".^[5]

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." They found that the candidate pool and competitiveness increased significantly, while the incumbency rate dropped significantly.^[6] A 2007 update, however, found that in the 2006 campaign found competitiveness continued to increase slightly but reelection rates "returned to pre-reform levels". The number of at least nominally contested races also continued to increase, reaching 100% in Maine. Mayer, Werner and Williams 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.^[7] A study by the non-partisan, privately funded Clean Elections Institute^[8] 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.^[9] A 2008 study by the non-profit, non-partisan Center for Competitive Politics concluded that the process of gathering small contributions needed to qualify for public funding still relied heavily on interest groups.^[10]. Another 2008 study by the Center for Competitive Politics of Clean Elections programs in Maine and Arizona found that neither state had seen a decline in legislators with “traditional” [law and business] backgrounds in the eight years since the campaign laws were first implemented.^[11].

Other studies conducted by the nonpartisan Center for Competitive Politics, found that the programs in Maine, Arizona, and New Jersey had failed to accomplish other stated goals, including electing more women ([3]), reducing government spending (in fact in both states government spending grew more rapidly after the enactment of clean elections) ([4]), or meeting most other stated objectives, including increasing competition or voter participation. ([5])

A 2006 study by the non-partisan, libertarian-leaning 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." However, according to the Clean Elections Institute, the number of legislative candidates increased from 135 in 1998 ([6]), the last year before Clean Elections, to 188 in 2004, as reported in the Goldwater study—a 40% increase. In 2006 there were 204 legislative candidates ([7]), a 51% increase over the pre-Clean Elections numbers.^[12]

In 2008, a study released by the non-partisan, non-profit organization Public Campaign, examined the demographic profile of $5 qualifying contribution donors in Clean Elections gubernatorial campaigns in Arizona over the course of the 2002 and 2006 elections, comparing and contrasting them with contributions raised by candidates running with funding from private sources — more than 67,000 contributions in all. The data were analyzed by zip code alongside U.S. Census data to determine the racial, ethnic, geographic, and economic characteristics of donors. The study, titled All Over The Map, found that Arizona’s qualifying contribution donors are more diverse racially, ethnically, economically, and geographically than donors giving to candidates who choose to rely on private fundraising. In nearly every category, Clean Elections $5 donors were more representative of the state's population than were donors to privately funded campaigns. However, the study has been criticized because it compares donors to Clean Elections only to donors of $200 or more to federal campaigns - in other words, it compared $5 donors under clean elections to $200 donors in federal races, rather than comparing the common universe of all donors, or donors at the same levels of contributions. Federal candidates are not required to report names and addresses of contributors of less than $200 to federal candidates thus the information is not made public.

Supporters

SB 752, the Fair Elections Now Act, calling for Clean Elections in U.S. senate campaigns, is sponsored in the 111th Congress (2009-10) by Senators: Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Arlen Specter (D-PA)^[13]. A companion bill, H.R. 1826, has been introduced in the House, sponsored by John Larson (D-CT), Chellie Pingree (D-ME), and Walter Jones (R-NC). Unlike the Clean Elections laws in Maine and Arizona, H.R. 1826 does not include the "rescue funds" provision, perhaps due to concern about constitutionality in the wake of the Davis decision. Similar bills were introduced in each House the 110th Congress but did not move out of Committee. Others who have endorsed clean elections include:

• John Bonifaz, founder of the National Voting Rights Institute
• Bill Bradley (D-NJ), former U.S. Senator^{[citation needed]}
• John Edwards (D-NC), former U.S. Presidential Candidate and Senator ^[14]
• Adonal Foyle, NBA player, and founder of Democracy Matters
• Cecil Heftel (D-HI), former U.S. Representative
• Ned Lamont (D-CT), former U.S. Senate candidate^{[citation needed]}
• John McCain (R-AZ), U.S. Presidential Candidate and Senator ^[15][16] (McCain has also expressed opposition to a national version of the system and has not endorsed or co-sponsored the bills introduced in the U.S. Senate.^[17])
• Ralph Nader of Connecticut, U.S. Presidential Candidate^{[citation needed]}
• Janet Napolitano (D-AZ), former Governor, current Secretary of Homeland Security^{[citation needed]}
• Bill Richardson (D-NM), U.S. Presidential Candidate and Governor^{[citation needed]}
• Eliot Spitzer (D-NY), former Governor ^[18]
• John Eder Green Party leader who utilized Maine's public financing to win office to the Maine State Legislature

References

External links

Legislation

• Proposed US bill (introduced in House)
• Center for Competitive Politics Analysis of Fair Elections Now Act
• Arizona law (pdf)
• Maine law
• Common Cause - list of state efforts
• Proposed New York Bill

Studies

• Early Experience of Two States that Offer Full Public Funding of Political Campaigns, study by United States Government Accounting Office.
• Reclaiming Democracy in Arizona, study by the Arizona Clean Elections Institute
• Campaign Promises: A Six-Year Review of Arizona's Experiment with Taxpayer-financed Campaigns, study by the Goldwater Institute.

Related organizations

• Common Cause
• League of Women Voters
• Public Campaign
• Public Citizen
• Center for Competitive Politics
• Democracy Matters
• Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission
• Clean Elections Institute (Arizona)
• California Clean Money Campaign
• Fair Elections
• Fair Elections Rhode Island
• Just Six Dollars
• MAPLight.org
• The National Institute on Money in State Politics
• The New York Democracy Project
• Oregon Follow the Money (from Democracy Reform Oregon)
• Voter Owned Iowa Clean Elections (VOICE)
• Washington Public Campaigns (Washington State)

Press coverage

• The Dirty Truth About Clean Elections
• Senator Peter Mills discusses Clean Elections in Maine
• Votes for Sale? A one-hour special from NOW on PBS
• Large Database of Clean Money Fair Elections Reform News
• Lou Dobbs article on CNN.com
• Coverage from PBS's NOW with Bill Moyers
• AlterNet article
• YES! Magazine article by Public Campaign's Micah Sifry
• "Is Rhode Island Ready for Clean Elections?" - Providence Phoenix