| |
|
A Short History of Public Funding of Elections in the U.S.
July 26, 2007 -- Efforts to reform how campaigns are financed date back at
least to the Progressive Movement of the early 20th century. Among the
first reform proposals was to use public money to finance campaigns.
“The need for collecting large campaign funds would vanish if Congress provided an appropriation for the proper and legitimate expenses of each of the great national parties,” President Theodore Roosevelt said in a 1907 address to Congress in which he also recommended banning corporations’ political contributions to presidential campaigns.[1]
Proposals for public funding of federal elections bubbled up throughout the 20th century. Although bills to provide public funding for congressional campaigns did not succeed, Congress did implement a system of partial public funding through matching funds for presidential campaigns. The system was first used in the 1976 presidential election.
Some states and cities have also adopted public funding of their elections.
Generally, there are two types of publicly funded elections: partial matching fund programs and full public financing.
In partial public financing systems, the government provides money to qualified candidates to pay for a portion, but not all, of their campaign expenses. Public funds in partial funding programs are usually awarded on a matching basis; a certain amount of public money is provided for each dollar the candidate raises in private contributions. Partial funding can also be provided through block grants in which the government provides a lump sum payment to candidates who meet specific criteria, such as raising a minimum amount of private contributions to demonstrate viability.
In full public financing systems, the government provides money to candidates to pay for nearly all of their campaign expenses in exchange for candidates’ agreeing not to accept any private campaign contributions beyond the seed money used to start their campaigns. Candidates typically qualify for funding by meeting specific qualification criteria, such as raising a certain number of modest contributions, for example, 1,500 qualifying checks of $5 each. This qualifying mechanism is intended to demonstrate that a large number of citizens support the candidate, while at the same time minimizing the amount of money a candidate can raise.
At the federal level, presidential candidates from parties with demonstrated support in the previous election are eligible for partial public financing in the primary election and full public financing in the general election. Congressional elections remain entirely privately funded.
Currently, the federal government, 14 states and about a dozen local jurisdictions provide some form of public financing of campaigns. The states with the most extensive public financing systems are Arizona, Connecticut and Maine, which have implemented full public funding systems for their legislative and gubernatorial races.
States and Cities Offering Full Public Funding
State/Locality
|
Electoral Contest(s) for which Public Funding is Available
|
How Was System Approved?
|
Year Approved
|
Year of Implementation
|
|
Arizona[2]
|
Statewide and legislative races
|
Ballot initiative
|
1998
|
2000
|
|
Connecticut[3]
|
Statewide and legislative races
|
Legislation
|
2005
|
2008
|
|
Maine[4]
|
Statewide and legislative races
|
Ballot initiative
|
1996
|
2000
|
|
New Jersey[5]
|
Legislative (pilot project)
|
Legislation
|
2004
|
2005
|
|
New Mexico[6]
|
Public Regulation Commission
|
Legislation
|
2003
|
2005
|
|
North Carolina[7]
|
Judicial elections
|
Legislation
|
2002
|
2004
|
|
Vermont[8]
|
Governor and
lt. governor
|
Legislation
|
1998
|
2000
|
|
Albuquerque, N.M.[9]
|
Citywide races
|
Ballot initiative
|
2005
|
2007
|
|
Portland, Ore.[10]
|
Citywide races
|
Legislation
|
2005
|
2006
|
[1]“CRS Report to Congress: Public Financing of Congressional Elections, Background and Analysis,” Congressional Research Service, Jan. 22, 2007.
[2] State of Arizona Official Canvass, 1998 General Election Results, Proposition 200 “Citizens Clean Election Act,” Nov. 23, 1998; “Acts, Rules, and Policies Manual,” Citizens Clean Elections Commission, April 27, 2006, p. 26; and “Impact of Clean Elections on Arizona’s 2000 Election,” Clean Elections Institute, Inc., p. 4.
[3] “Connecticut’s Clean Election Law, Public Act 05-5,” Common Cause Web site, www.commoncause.org, (visited on Feb. 16, 2007); and “The Good-Government State,” Hartford Courant, Dec. 2, 2005.
[4] Maine Department of the Secretary of State, Elections Division, Referendum Election Results for 1996 General Election, Question #3, Nov. 5, 1996; and Maine Ethics Commission Rules, Chapter 3, Section 1; and Maine Department of the Secretary of State, Elections Division, Referendum Election Results for 1996 General Election, Question #3, Nov. 5, 1996.
[5] “New Jersey Fair and Clean Elections Pilot Project,” New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission.
[6] “Voter Action Act, Participating Candidates Guidelines 2006,” New Mexico Public Regulation Commission; and New Mexico Law Title 1, Chapter 10, Part 26, Section 5.
[7] “The Judicial Campaign Reform Act,” NC Judges Web site, www.ncjudges.org (visited on Feb. 16, 2007).
[8] “Vermont Public Finance Grants,” Vermont Secretary of State Web site, vermont-elections.org (visited Feb. 16, 2007).
[9] Susan Gran, “Voter ID, public financing get thumbs up,” Albuquerque Tribune, Oct. 5, 2005; and “Final Regulations of the Albuquerque City Clerk for the Open and Ethical Elections Code,” Albuquerque City Clerk Web site, www.cabq.gov/clerk(visited Feb. 16, 2007).
[10] Anna Griffin, “Portland OKs Campaign Cash,” Oregonian, May 19, 2005.
|
|
|