Cleaning Up a Candidate’s Act

Preparing for his presidential run some months ago, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) remarked that government is “bitter and partisan, so gummed up by money and influence that we can’t tackle the big problems that demand solutions.” From the tiniest of town council races to highly publicized federal contests, candidates across the country have become dependent on money to win office. Exorbitant campaign costs have forced many candidates to fundraise voraciously, thus neglecting legislative duties while falling under the influence of wealthy campaign donors. While Obama’s assessment is right, the current system isn’t the only option. Clean Elections, a system of full public financing of campaigns, eliminates money-dependency of private sources and thrusts politics back into the light of issues and constituent concerns—and many states and cities are catching on.

Former senator Alan Simpson (R-WY) stated that politicians “find it eternally necessary to raise big bucks for their next election nearly every single day.” Of course they do—presidential candidates for the 2008 election could spend roughly $350 million each. The average U.S. Senate seat costs over $3 million, a seat in the House $1.5 million. Candidates for state legislatures and assemblies must also shell out significant sums of cash. Once the victors take office, they must start fundraising for the next election immediately.

Campaign donations from wealthy corporations, lobbies, and special interest groups lead to legislation that is crafted to suit these donors’ needs. In 2004, MZM, Inc., a D.C.-based defense contractor, illegally bundled $32,000 from employees as part of a $50,000 campaign contribution to the infamous Rep. Katherine Harris (R-FL). The following year, Harris submitted to defense appropriations chairman C.W. Bill Young (R-FL) a request of $10 million for a navy project backed by MZM, Inc.

The limitations placed on campaign contributions by the current rules of the Federal Election Commission are porous and arguably ineffectual. Other recent scandals include the 1996 alleged efforts of China to influence American policy by providing campaign financing; incarcerated lobbyist Jack Abramoff and Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH); Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-CA); and Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA), among many others. Moreover, private military contractors like Halliburton, Titan, CACI, and Blackwater contributed to campaigns and received multimillion-dollar contracts for services in the controversial Iraq war.

Business as usual, however, can change.

Clean Elections is a compelling alternative to the current campaign finance system. It is a voluntary system of full public financing that offers all citizens the opportunity to run a viable campaign, while freeing the electoral process from dependency on private funding. Although relatively new, many localities have seen the advantages of the Clean Elections system, and it is thriving in statewide elections in Maine and Arizona, and in some form in New Mexico, Vermont, North Carolina, the cities of Albuquerque and Portland, OR. Connecticut will offer Clean Elections starting in 2008. Remarkably, according to Fair Elections: A Practical Guide to Full Public Funding of Congressional Elections, in 2006 78 percent of Maine’s candidates used the Clean Elections system; in Arizona, 58 percent of general election candidates participated, including Gov. Janet Napolitano (D).

To participate, all one must do is prove he or she is a viable candidate by collecting a small number of Qualifying Contributions, usually $5 per donor. After the satisfactory amount (as deemed by the state or locality) has been collected, private donations end. The candidate then begins to receive public financing from a Clean Elections commission (such as Arizona’s Citizens Clean Elections Commission) for the primary election and, if he or she is nominated, for the general election as well. For example, Maine Clean Elections candidates in a gubernational contest receive primary election funding equal to 50 percent of the general election allocation. State representative and state senate candidates receive primary funding equal to 30 percent to 40 percent of the general election allocation. If a participating candidate is facing a privately or self-funded opponent with an exorbitant war chest, the commission will dole out “fair fight” funds to strengthen the Clean Elections effort.

Some detractors of publicly funded elections have attacked the system as another burden on tax payers; however, the system provides funding from a number of sources and is not merely redirected tax revenue. In Arizona, residents can contribute with either a $5 check-off box on state income tax return forms or a tax-deductible donation, among other options. Further, Arizona’s system for the 2004 election cycle cost only $2.28 per voting age citizen.

Moreover, Clean Elections is a voluntary system; thus it honors the First Amendment rights articulated by Buckley v. Valeo (a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court decision that stated an individual’s campaign contribution is a form of freedom of speech). There is no obligation to run for office as a Clean Elections candidate in a state that has adopted the system. Clean Elections, however, has been eagerly received wherever it’s been adopted.

State Rep. Deborah Simpson (D-ME), a Clean Elections participant, said, “We get to have a dialogue with the voters, to get out there and try to convince them to vote for us, hopefully based on the ideals and values that we have, that we share.” Is this not closer to the democratic process than $250-a-plate fundraisers?

Clean Elections returns government to the people in a time of democracy gone awry. President Teddy Roosevelt, one of the earliest champions of campaign finance reform, said “The only limit to our realization of tomorrow will be our doubts about reality.” While many national organizations including Democracy Matters, Common Cause, Public Citizen, and local groups such as NY Citizens for Clean Elections, Rhode Islanders for Fair Elections, California Clean Money Campaign, have rallied around the Clean Elections movement, even more citizen action will be necessary for this system to become a reality across the country.

Andrew Calderaro is a sophomore at SUNY-Nassau Community College and Campus Coordinator of Nassau’s Democracy Matters chapter. To find out more about Democracy Matters, visit www.Democracymatters.org.

Related Stories

• For Some Graduates, Health Insurance Is the Best Gift
• FAQ: Arizona Immigration Laws
• The Future of the Internet Depends on Good Public Policy
• Five Ways to Avoid a Terrible Internship
• 5 Myths About Student Loan Reform