 |
You can read the quick summary below, or get a more detailed explanation (including a cool PDF presentation) here.
From 1974 through 1996, all forms of public financing of elections came in the form of "matching funds" for certain qualifying donations. (In New York City, the matching funds are limited to the first $250 of any donation from a constituent, and are matched at a 4:1 ratio; New York State has no public campaign finance system.) In exchange for obtaining these matching funds, candidates must adhere to spending limits in their campaign. The purposes of public campaign financing are to: a) limit the cost of elections; b) put constraints on the favors owed large donors and fundraisers; and c) lower the barrier to entry for potential candidates without access to large amounts of money. Unfortunately, none of these purposes has been fulfilled. Campaigns are more expensive than ever, large donors and fundraisers have more access to elected officials than ever, and potential candidates must still spend more time and effort fundraising than ever. The "Clean Money, Clean Elections" (CMCE) plan offers a new alternative. This alternative was first enacted in Maine in 1996. Arizona became the second state to enact a CMCE system in 2000. Portland, Oregon, also has a CMCE system. In late 2005, Connecticut joined in, with a CMCE plan that will take effect with the 2008 election cycle. Under CMCE, fundraising is all but eliminated. Candidates who opt in to the plan (it is optional, so as to avoid free speech issues) may raise a small amount of "seed money", which will be used to qualify for public funding of their campaigns. Qualifying consists of getting enough constituents to do two things, sign a petition and write a $5 check in support of the candidate. Once enough signatures and $5 checks have been gathered and submitted, the candidate qualifies for a preset amount of money, the amount depending on the office for which the candidate is running. That money is directly deposited into the candidate's bank account, and that is all the money that the candidate is allowed to spend, with one exception. The exception occurs when a candidate's opponent spends more than the "limit", either by opting out of the CMCE system, or by overspending. Under the plan, all candidates must report all expenditures daily, and the money is considered spent when the candidate commits to spending it. For instance, if a candidate places a printing order or a newspaper ad, the money is deemed spent on that day, even if the actual check isn't written until much later. Once a candidate who has opted out exceeds the limit, all other candidates who have opted into the CMCE system receive direct deposits into their accounts, up to a stop limit of twice the original amount. In other words, if the original limit is $100,000, candidates may receive up to an additional $200,000. Any money deposited via CMCE may be spent. Any CMCE candidate who exceeds the spending limit will not only have his or her opponents get matching funds, but will also be personally fined. What are the results in Maine and Arizona? First, more and more candidates opt in to the CMCE system with each election cycle. Second, more candidates, especially women and minorities (people who generally have less access to the kind of money usually necessary to mount a political campaign) enter the process. Third, more people become contributors (those $5 checks), and the average donation drops significantly. Finally, elected officials who come in through CMCE can then ignore lobbyists who get more by fundraising than through the validity of the bills and initiatives they support. CMCE leads to more candidates, more diversity among candidates, less overall campaign spending, almost no fundraising, and no need to "repay" large donors and fundraisers after the election with special favors. |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|