Election Reform
Public Funding of Campaigns: Frequently Asked Questions
Public funding of campaigns provides qualifying candidates who agree to limit their spending and reject contributions from private sources with a set amount of public funds to run for office. It is a model reform for both federal and state races and versions of it have already passed in four Maine, Arizona, Vermont, and Connecticut. While elements of the plan vary according to local circumstances, in general, participating candidates receive public funding of campaigns for the primary and general elections and they qualify by raising a large number of small qualifying contributions from voters in their districts.
Public funding of campaigns is not an attempt to patch up the current system, but instead is designed as an alternative to it. By ending politicians' reliance on special interest money and offering in its place a limited but competitive amount of money from a public fund, public funding of campaigns provides an alternative way for candidates to finance their campaigns. Under the current system, wealthy private donors and corporations pay for the elections, so, after the election, their concerns always get heard. But if the public pays for the elections, it frees politicians to be more attentive to the concerns of their regular constituents. For elected officials, this reform allows them more time with constituents during campaign season by removing the endless, year-round pressure to fundraise.
Is public funding of campaigns constitutional?
Yes. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, public financing of election campaigns is constitutional as long as the system is voluntary. Various federal courts have ruled against challenges to the constitutionality of public funding of campaign laws in Maine and Arizona. That’s because candidates do not have to choose public funding of campaigns. They can reject public funds and continue to finance their campaigns the "old-fashioned" way, by raising private money.
Doesn't public funding of campaigns violate the First Amendment by suppressing political speech?
To the contrary, it’s a voluntary system designed to give a voice to those candidates who do not have personal fortunes or access to (or the desire to solicit) special-interest contributions. And after the election, this reform increases the number of voices that get heard in the Capitol. That's because publicly funded candidates who win owe no favors to BGE, Comcast, and other big donors. They can thus tune out the megaphone of the special interests and listen to the voices of regular voters in their respective districts.
Does Progressive Maryland’s public funding of campaigns bill apply to elections for state or federal office?
Progressive Maryland strongly supports public funding of campaigns at all levels of government plus the judiciary. But considering that reform at the federal level seems blocked for the foreseeable future, we believe that impetus must come from the states. Consequently, we advocate public funding of campaign reform for state-level office in Maryland. In doing so, we join efforts in dozens of other states in what is now a full-fledged national movement. Public Campaign , a non-profit in Washington, DC, provides leadership and acts as a clearinghouse of information for the public funding of campaigns movement as a whole. Learn more about it at.
What makes you think candidates will opt-in to a public funding of campaigns system?
There are strong incentives for candidates to choose a public funding of campaigns system. No candidate enjoys having to spend so much time raising money, year in and year out. What candidate or elected official enjoys the public perception, if not the reality, that they are compromised by their acceptance of large contributions from special interests? In Maine and Arizona, well more than half of candidates opted in to the system during the election of 2006. Considering how well the system worked and its popularity, all indications point toward greater participation in the future.
Will candidates receive enough money to run a competitive campaign?
Yes. Candidates who choose public funding get the equivalent of what is being spent, on average, today. In the 2006 election in Maine and Arizona, about half of all publicly funded candidates won.
Won't public funding of campaigns candidates still get outspent by wealthy, self-financed candidates who do not need to fundraise and can spend as much as they want?
No. Under public funding of campaigns, participating candidates get a dollar-for- dollar match, up to a set limit, if a non-participating opponent spends more than the basic public financing grant. This won't mean an unlimited amount of money in case a privately financed opponent is someone like Steve Forbes. But, judging by the numerous failed candidacies of self-financing millionaires, there is usually a point of diminishing return beyond which more money does not help a campaign.
Doesn't public funding of campaigns force candidates to participate and penalize them if they do not?
No. Candidates have a choice: they can run under a public funding of campaigns system or the current system. If they choose private funding, they are not bound by any of the public funding of campaigns provisions and can fundraise however they wish, although they must abide by the current laws on contribution limits and reporting. What public funding of campaigns does is provide an alternative to the special-interest money system that serves neither the candidates nor the voting public. Candidates have another way to run for office and voters have a clearer choice at the voting booth as well as the assurance that their interests come first.
Won't public funding of campaigns force private money to go around the system?
In Maine and Arizona, the rate of increase in independent expenditures (i.e., advertisements or other communications that expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate and are not made in coordination with any candidate) or issue ads (i.e., ads, produced by groups formally unaffiliated with any candidate in a race, that ostensibly promote legislative issues but in fact attempt to promote or defeat a candidate) has been no higher than in the rest of the country. Obviously, incumbents in Maine and Arizona feel that the system protects them against independent expenditures because more and more incumbents opt into the system each election.
How much will public funding of campaigns cost? And how will it be paid for?
The system proposed by Progressive Maryland and allies costs about $7.5 million per year. It would be financed not by tax-dollars but instead by revenue from unclaimed property that reverts to the state, such as abandoned automobiles and ownerless bank accounts.
Who would administer public funding of campaigns?
The money is disbursed to participating candidates from a newly created Public Election Fund administered by a new Election Financing Commission comprised of members appointed to staggered terms by the Governor. This body has the power to levy fines.
Does the public really support "taxpayer funding" of campaigns?
A late 2005 poll shows that 73% of Marylanders support this reform. After four elections of use, support for Clean Elections remains strong in Maine and Arizona.
Won't the public see public funding of campaigns as just another government spending program, or worse, a "welfare program" for politicians?
Clearly, the public distrusts politicians, and taxpayers are wary of new public expenditures. However, public funding of campaigns can save taxpayers money. The wealthy individuals and powerful corporations who supply most of the money for campaigns are the recipients of billions of dollars of unnecessary tax breaks, subsidies, and regulatory exemptions. By eliminating candidates' dependence on these big-money donors, public funding of campaigns will make it more likely that politicians will be able to say no to these kinds of costly give-aways.
Won't public funding of campaigns enable "fringe candidates" to run for office with public money?
While the public has a right to support whomever it wants, the qualifying requirements are stiff enough to deter fringe candidates with little or no public support from getting public funds. Some form of public financing already exists in 22 states and a number of municipalities. Where these systems are in place, the fears about public money spurring fringe candidacies have proven to be unfounded.
Won't public funding of campaigns open the ballot to so many people that there may not be enough money in the public fund?
No. The qualifying hurdles in Maine and Arizona are steep enough to keep fringe candidates from qualifying for the system. And the hurdles are even steeper in the Maryland legislation.
What about the person who says, "I cannot give time to help a candidate. Why shouldn't I be allowed to give money?"
The system is voluntary, so there will always be plenty of candidates who are privately funded and eager to take campaign contributions. As for publicly funded candidates, they can receive financial help in the form of a small qualifying contribution and seed money to help them qualify for the system. Of course, citizens will always be able to make a financial contribution to a political party.
It is important to note here that contributing money to political campaigns is not one of the principal ways most people currently participate in the political process. Research by the Progressive Maryland Education Fund shows that only 2.7% of Marylanders wrote a campaign check of any kind to a state-level candidate during the 2006 election.
What's wrong with a system of matching funds for primary elections, like the presidential system?
The publicly funded system for presidential races is a matching system. It merely gives candidates even more incentive to raise as much special interest money as possible to qualify for the match. This system is fatally flawed.
Won't public funding of campaigns undermine the strength of and need for political parties?
Under public funding of campaigns, political parties can and should remain active in recruiting candidates to run; organizing primary competition; nominating a standard-bearer; identifying, researching and developing the party's positions on issues; and carrying out non-candidate-specific voter registration and get-out-the vote drives as well as other "party building activities." Moreover, public funding of campaigns allows a political party to donate a limited amount of money to its nominee, even if he or she is a publicly funded candidate. But under public funding of campaigns, the parties may not serve as giant funnels delivering special-interest money to candidates who accept public financing. Of course, the parties may funnel as much special-interest money as they wish to candidates outside the public funding of campaigns system.
Where does public funding of campaigns fit in with all of the other approaches to campaign finance reform under discussion?
Like the current system, many of the "reforms" proposed are "more loophole than law," in President Johnson's famous words. Partial solutions that do not attack the root problem of special-interest money and influence simply allow lawmakers to claim they've taken action and then ignore the issue.
Will Congress ever pass a proposal like this?
Leadership on public funding of campaigns will not come from Washington. But history has shown us that many significant democratic reforms did not happen overnight, but came about as a result of years of movement-building in the states, which have historically functioned as the "laboratories of democracy." The abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, child labor laws, the 40-hour work week all came about through strong, steady grassroots activity.
The new wave of campaign finance reform is happening outside D.C. through grassroots efforts in the states, endorsements by citizens groups and newspaper editorial support. Maine, Arizona, Vermont, and Connecticut have already made public funding of campaigns the law. Activists are fighting for public funding of campaigns in dozens of other states, and Progressive Maryland is proud to join their ranks.
