Election Reform
Public Funding of Campaigns: What People Are Saying
NAACP, Maryland State Conference of Branches
Fred Mason, President of the MD/DC AFL-CIO, testifies for public funding of campaigns before the Stenberg Commission on public funding of campaigns in Maryland.
NAACP, Maryland State Conference of Branches:
"The current campaign finance system hurts the interests of our 15,000 members – and of all black Marylanders. This is amply documented in a 1998 study of federal elections entitled "The Color of Money" by Public Campaign, a non-partisan reform group based in Washington, D.C. The study reveals that white-majority zip code 20854 in affluent Potomac, Maryland contributed 90 times as much money to federal candidates, parties and PACs as did black-majority zip code 21216 in inner-city Baltimore. We can only surmise that this disparity also exists in contributions to state-level elections. Because African Americans donate less to campaigns, we have less access to lawmakers after the election. All too often, our agenda gets short shrift in Annapolis. To correct this inequity, we are working with Progressive Maryland to establish the kind of Clean Money alternative that will give all Marylanders, not just the wealthy special interests, the chance to be heard in the political arena…Second, many African Americans in Maryland – especially among our members – are active in their communities, enjoy broad community support and would like to run for public office. But their lack of access to big money campaign contributors deters them from even trying. Clean Money reform will rectify that problem."
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ):
"We have some wrinkles [in Arizona’s recently implemented Clean Money system], as with any new law of this nature, but we are pleased with it…public financing has been preferable to the old system."
United Methodist Church, Baltimore-Washington Conference:
"The kind of Clean Money legislation championed by Progressive Maryland will strengthen our democracy by getting special interest money out of the political process. In particular, our members are troubled that the big-money interests that dominate politics in Maryland exercise a harmful moral influence on legislation. Big casinos, many based in Las Vegas, funnel dollars to Maryland lawmakers in an attempt to legalize gambling machines. Tobacco companies donate huge sums to incumbents and hire the best connected lobbyists to fight efforts to cut smoking. The liquor industry spends freely to defend its privileges, thwarting efforts to raise taxes on alcohol and toughen drunk-driving laws. All too often, the faith communities have seen vital anti-poverty programs slashed because of the influence of powerful interests. In short, there are many reasons to support Clean Money reform, but none as important as the moral improvement it promises."
Maryland State & D.C. AFL-CIO:
"When one compares the campaign giving of some of our constituent unions to that of other organizations viewed singly, some unions rank among of the state’s biggest political donors. But when one compares organized labor’s fundraising ability to that of the business community as a whole, we are outspent many times over…As long as the current system exists, we must do the best we can within it. The stakes for working families are too high for the AFL-CIO to disarm unilaterally. Meanwhile, however, we are working with Progressive Maryland to establish the kind of Clean Money alternative that will give all Marylanders, not just the wealthy special interests, the chance to be heard in the political arena."
Sierra Club, Maryland Chapter:
"The main reason many politicians side with the polluters is their never-ending need for campaign cash. Public campaign financing will eliminate the influence of donors who want to weaken environmental laws, and it will shift power back to voters and volunteers."
The Washington Post:
"Marylanders know all too well how special-interest money talks to dependent lawmakers in Annapolis. A voluntary public financing plan might not mute this chatter, but an independent source of campaign funds could diminish its influence. That’s an idea worth keeping alive."
Arizona League of Conservation Voters (a Clean Elections state):
"AZLCV's strong grass roots political network helped to pass the Clean Elections Act in 1998 and in 2000 helped to defeat the development-friendly Prop. 100. AZLCV is currently fighting efforts in the state legislature to repeal or de-fund clean elections."
Common Cause Maryland:
"[Public funding of campaigns] will move us the closest to removing the pernicious effect of money on political campaigns and public discourse."
The Frederick News-Post:
"[Public funding of campaigns] could free up candidates from the grinding, never-ending quest for money. It would also make it less necessary for them to make questionable promises (actual or tacit) and form untoward associations in order to get campaign money. It might also give the public a chance to see new faces and hear new voices."
League of Women Voters of Maryland:
"The League of Women Voters of Maryland supports public funding of campaigns for the General Assembly. We believe public funding will reduce the corrupting influence of big money on elections, enable candidates to compete more equitably, and promote citizen participation in the political process."
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees:
"AFSCME supports public financing of political campaigns as the only effective and fair way to reform how campaigns are financed and conducted."
