Before we get into completely new ideas for campaign finance reform I thought it would be a good idea to start with
some programs going on right now in a few states. The term used to describe these state programs are most often referred to as “clean election” laws and some version of this was enacted in Arizona, Maine, North Carolina, New Mexico, Wisconsin, and Massachusetts. Although there were differences in the actual procedures in these states they all had the same goal and similar approaches of how to obtain that goal.
Goal – All the “clean election” laws were designed to “level the playing field” by assisting potential candidates to create more competition in the political race, offer more citizens a chance to play a bigger role in the election process, and, most importantly, offer more overall debate on the issues. Each of the above mentioned states tried varying approaches to attaining that goal and all ended up with mixed results. To prevent you from becoming so overwhelmed with boredom that you vow to never participate in elections again I will simply pick one of the states’ programs to use an an example. I selected Arizona’s Citizens Clean Election Act because it has been in use for a relatively long period of time and has been recently discussed by the Supreme Court.
Citizens Clean Election Act – 1998
Goal – The bill was created to accomplish all the above-mentioned goals and create more trust in the political system in Arizona.
Funding – How is it paid for?
One of the biggest arguments is that it simply gives tax payer money to political candidates, which many see as a bad thing. The Citizens Clean Election Commission website (www.azcleanelections.gov) states that NO taxpayer money contributes to a political candidate because the program does not use any tax money from the state’s General Fund. While it is true that money from the General Fund is not used, it is also not completely honest to claim that NO tax payer money is used. About half the money collected by the program is in the form of donations that have a dollar-for-dollar tax break attached to it, which has a maximum of $640 per person. So if I give $640 I get a tax break in the amount of $640 which IS receiving some tax money because that money would have been taxed and sent to the General Fund. So I will say that the websites claim is “mostly” true.
A little over half the revenue comes from a 10% surcharge on civil penalties and criminal fines while a little less than half comes from charitable donations. Part of the donations are $5 check-off boxes located on a person’s state income tax form while the other type of donation which receives a tax credit for every dollar donated up to $640 or 20% of total state tax return, whichever is greater. Up through 2010, the program’s revenue had reached $150 million and helped over 1100 candidates. Another perk for the state is that the program has donated $64 million to the state’s General Fund.
What rules does a candidate have to follow?
According to the Participating Candidate Guide 2012 Election Cycle, there is a qualifying period when a potential candidate has to collect $5 donations (can only be exactly $5 per person) from 220 individuals. Once the candidate gets enough donations he can then enter into the program. A candidate is limited in the amount of personal money he/she can inject into their own campaign: $670 for legislative position and $1330 for state-wide position. There is a period of time up until August 23rd when a candidate can receive “early contributions” with a maximum of $150 per person. In-kind contributions can be accepted but must not exceed the $150 value and these are assessed at fair market value by the Commission. The candidate CANNOT accept any donations from corporations, interest groups, and such. There are various stages to reporting revenue and expenditures and the Commission is very meticulous about maintaining the funding rules. Candidates must also participate in specified debates throughout the election cycle and attend campaign workshops.
How much does a candidate get?
Upon approval to use Clean Elections funding, a candidate can receive a primary election allowance of $14,355 for a legislative seat and $91,645 for a state-wide seat. This money can only be used for the primary and any money not spent must be given back to the Commission, none can be carried over into the general election. For the general election candidates will receive a maximum of $21,533 for legislative seat and $137,811 for state-wide seats. All money must be spent on things directly related to the campaign and candidates are given a list of these things. Any money not spent during the election must be returned to the Commission within 30 days fo the election.
Is it working?
As is usual, there are arguments on both sides of the aisle but I will give some basic statistics according to www.publiccampaign.org. In Arizona, 45% of candidates choose to use the Clean Elections funding and, in Maine, 79% of the legislative seats are held by those who ran with Clean Elections funding. In Connecticut, 70% of all candidates used this funding and 77% of all General Assembly seats are filled by officials who used the funding. So it does appear that many candidates like using this type of funding rather than utilizing the open financing of old, even though there is more potential to raise greater funds. Recently the Supreme Court struck down the “matching funds” part of the law thus not allowing the state to base the public candidate funding on what the private candidate has raised. Although I do not support the Court’s decision, I can see where the “matching funds” idea has problems. With this system, there can be many more candidates in the field, but is that always a good thing? There can be candidates who meet the minimum requirements, but have virtually no substantual qualifications for the job. These candidates get a share of the public money thus lowering the amount available to other, more viable, candidates. This is the ultimate problem I have with publicly funded campaigns! There would have to be more standards for becoming a candidate who is elegible for public funding.
Now that we know more than you ever wanted to about Arizona’s Clean Elections system, we can look more closely into using it as a model for South Carolina, or the entire country. In my next installment I will talk about some ideas that have been put forward by experts in the field, but have not yet been tried.
