|
Early Experiences of Two States That Offer Full Public Funding
for Political Candidates
|
Highlights of GAO-03-453,
a report to Congressional Committees -
May 2003
In 2000 and 2002, Maine and Arizona held the nation’s
first elections under
voluntary programs that offered full state funding for political candidates
who ran for legislative and certain statewide offices. The goals of these
programs, passed as ballot initiatives by citizens in these states, included
increasing electoral competition and curbing increases in the cost of
campaigns.
Congress has considered legislation for public financing
of congressional elections nearly every session since 1956, although no law
has been enacted. In the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (P.L. 107-155
(2002)), Congress mandated that GAO study the results of the unique public
financing programs in Maine and Arizona.
For the 2000 and 2002 elections in Maine and Arizona,
this report provides:
 |
•
Statistics on the number of candidates who chose to campaign with public
funds and the number who were elected. |
|
• Observations, based on limited data, regarding the extent to which the goals
of the public funding programs were met. |
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-453
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information.
|
In both
Maine
and Arizona,
the number of legislative
candidates who chose to use
public financing for their campaigns increased greatly
from 2000 to 2002. 59 percent of Maine’s and 36
percent of Arizona’s current legislators successfully ran as publicly
financed candidates in the 2002 election. Also, in Arizona’s 2002 election,
publicly financed candidates won seven of the nine
available seats in races for statewide offices, including Governor.
 |
In comparing the
2000 and 2002 elections to those in 1996 and 1998, GAO’s findings regarding
changes in electoral competition were inconclusive.
Various measures—contested races (more than one candidate per race),
incumbent reelection rates, and incumbent victory margins—reflect mixed
results. Also, these results may have been affected by term limits,
redistricting, and other factors.
Average legislative candidate spending decreased in
Maine but increased in Arizona in 2000 and 2002, compared to previous years.
Further, particularly in 2002, both states experienced
increases in independent expenditures—a type of campaign spending whereby
political action committees or other groups expressly support or oppose a
candidate. The extent of spending for public policy messages without
explicit election advocacy is not known.
In sum, with only two elections from which to observe legislative races and
only one election from which to observe most statewide races,
it is too early to draw causal linkages to
changes, if any, that resulted from the public financing programs in the two
states. |
 For the latest in Public
Financing in the States go to
http://www.commoncause.org/states/CFR-financing.htm
Fourteen states provide direct public financing to candidates. An additional ten
states provide minimal public financing to candidates and/or political parties,
generally funded through taxpayer contributions to political parties through
their tax returns
(add-ons*).
Who is eligible for public financing?
|
Gubernatorial candidates: |
Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, Vermont |
|
Statewide office candidates: |
Florida, Rhode Island |
|
Statewide & legislative candidates: |
Arizona, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin |
|
Political party designated by taxpayer: |
Alabama, Arizona, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, New Mexico, North Carolina,
Rhode Island, Utah, Virginia |
|
Political party (according to distribution formula): |
California, Indiana, Ohio |
What is the source of the public funds?
|
Tax check-off: |
Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, Utah, Wisconsin
|
|
Tax add-on : |
Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Maine, Maryland, Nebraska, North
Carolina, Vermont, Virginia |
|
Appropriations: |
Florida, Hawaii, Kentucky, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, Rhode Island
|
|
Other Sources: |
Arizona, Florida, Hawaii, Indiana, Vermont |
Brief Summaries of State Public Financing Laws
Fourteen states provide public financing directly to candidates, but the laws
differ as to how funding is provided and to which candidates. Following are
brief summaries of the public funding systems in those states and links to the
enforcement agency and the text of the statute.
-
 Arizona
In November 1998, Arizona voters passed the Arizona Clean Elections Act, which
provides full public funding for statewide and legislative candidates who meet
a threshold requirement to raise a certain number of $5 contributions from
voters. The public funds come from a variety of sources, including a tax
checkoff, voluntary contributions and a surcharge on civil and criminal
penalties.
Florida
Under Florida law, candidates for governor and other statewide offices who
raise a threshold amount of money and agree to spending limits are eligible
for public matching funds. Contributions of $250 or less from individuals are
matched 1-to-1 with public funds. Also, if a candidate exceeds the voluntary
spending limit, their opponent is eligible to receive additional public funds
equal to the amount by which the limit has been exceeded.
Hawaii
Hawaii's public financing system provides funding to all candidates who agree
to a voluntary spending limit. Candidates are provided with public funds
equaling 20 percent or 30 percent of the spending limit, depending on the
office. The source of the funding is general appropriations and an income tax
checkoff.
Kentucky
Under Kentucky law, gubernatorial candidates who agree to spending limits are
eligible for public matching funds once they have raised amount in private
contributions of $500 or less. After reaching the qualifying threshold,
candidates receive $2 in public funds for every $1 in private funds.
Maine
In November 1996, voters in Maine approved a ballot initiative, the Maine
Clean Election Act, establishing a system of public financing and voluntary
spending limits for all state offices. Candidates who raise a threshold number
of small contributions from registered voters in their district and agree not
to raise any more private money qualify for a fixed amount of public financing
for their campaign.
Maryland
Maryland's public financing system provides matching funds (1:1 match) for
candidates for governor and lieutenant governor in the primary and general
elections. The source of the funds are contributions from taxpayers (add-on)
and revenue from fines related to the public financing law.
Massachusetts
In November 1998, Massachusetts voters passed an initiative providing a fixed
amount of public funding to candidates who: (1) raised threshold number of $5
to $100 contributions from voters in their district, (2) refused contributions
in excess of $100 and (3) abided by an aggregate limit on private
contributions. The ratio of public-to-private money for participating
candidate would be about 80-to-20. The bill also would prohibit national
parties from transferring soft money into the states and would require
candidates to file campaign finance reports electronically.
Michigan
Enacted in the 1970s, Michigan's public financing system provides
gubernatorial candidates who agree to a spending limit with a flat grant for
the general election and a 2:1 match for small contributions (under $100) in
the primary.
Minnesota
Minnesota's public financing system was enacted in the 1970s and significantly
reformed in 1993. It was the first state to provide public financing for both
legislative and gubernatorial candidates and is generally considered one of
the most successful campaign finance systems in the country. Candidates who
agree to a spending limit receive public funding equal to 50% of the limit.
Public funds come from a tax checkoff that allows taxpayers to direct those
funds to a qualified political party and from an annual appropriation. In
addition, a unique program allows anyone contributing up to $50 to a party
receives a refund from the state.
Nebraska
Nebraska passed a unique public financing law in 1992. The system provides
public funds to legislative candidates who agree to a voluntary spending limit
and whose opponent exceeds the spending limit. If sufficient funds are
available, statewide candidates may also receive public funds. The source of
the funds are primarily an appropriation and contributions by taxpayers from
tax refunds.
New Jersey
New Jersey's public financing law was enacted in the 1970s. It provides 2:1
matching funds for both the primary and general elections to candidates who
agree to spending limits. The system is funded by an income tax checkoff.
Rhode Island
Under Rhode Island law, candidates for statewide office who raise a threshold
amount of money and agree to spending limits are eligible for public matching
funds. Candidates are eligible for 2-to-1 public matching grants for
contributions of $500 or less and a 1-to-1 match for contributions in excess
of $500.
Vermont
In 1997, the Vermont legislature passed a public financing bill that provides
a fixed amount of public financing to candidates for governor and lieutenant
governor who raise a threshold number of small contributions and agree not to
raise any more private money. In a challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court's 1976
Buckley v. Valeo, the bill also imposes mandatory spending limits on all state
and local candidates. The primary source of funding is voluntary contributions
of taxpayer refunds; other sources are an appropriation and the revenue from
some fees and penalties.
Wisconsin
Wisconsin enacted its partial public financing system in the 1970s. It
provides matching funds to statewide and legislative candidates. The system is
funded by a tax checkoff. In recent years, the system has been damaged by a
decline in the amount of funds generated by the checkoff and growing spending
on independent expenditures and sham "issue ads."
updated
July 1999
A "tax add-on" gives taxpayers the option of reducing their tax refund
or increasing their tax payment in order to fund a public financing program.
State tax add-ons have not generated significant amounts of money.
A "tax check-off" allows taxpayers to earmark a small portion of their
taxes (usually $1 to $5) for distribution to candidates or political parties.
A check-off does not increase the individual taxpayers' tax liability.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
