FAIR ELECTIONS A WIN FOR DEMOCRACY

FAIR ELECTIONS A WIN FOR DEMOCRACY This memorandum summarizes available evidence that public financing systems such as the Fair Elections Now Act (H.R. 1826/H.R. 6116) help to decrease the risk of corruption and the perception of corruption, reduce the time demands imposed by private fundraising, and bolster political participation. 1. Public Financing of Campaigns Can Reduce Corruption a. Reducing Actual Corruption As currently structured, the financing system for congressional races carries a substantial risk of corruption. Members who receive significant donations from particular special interests may feel compelled to support their biggest donors interests, creating a quid pro quo where legislative decisions are implicitly exchanged for campaign funds. 1 Such a system is particularly problematic where lawmakers on key committees receive significant amounts of campaign funds from the very interests they are charged with regulating. For example, during the passage of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act in 2003, Rep. Walter Jones, (R- NC) decried the House vote as political Sodom and Gomorrah night. It was absolutely ugly. 2 As Members entered the House chamber, lobbyists representing prescription drug companies who had given millions in political contributions stood at the entrance to the chamber, pressuring legislators for their support. 3 In the aftermath of the extremely close vote, allegations of bribery swirled, as one of the deciding votes claimed he had been offered campaign funds in exchange for his support. 4 Congressman Jones, deeply affected by the experience, now co-sponsors the Fair Elections Now Act. It s 1 CENTER FOR GOVERNMENTAL STUDIES, INVESTING IN DEMOCRACY 7 (2003) [hereinafter CGS Study]. 2 A Look at H.R. 1826 and the Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Hearing on H.R. 1826 Before the Comm. on H. Admin., 111th Cong. 1 (2009) (statement of Rep. Walter Jones, Representative, North Carolina s 3rd Congressional District), available at http://cha.house.gov/userfiles/242_testimony.pdf [hereinafter Jones]. 3 Jones, supra note 2, at 1. 4 Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Inquiry Set on Bribery Claim in Medicare Vote, N.Y. TIMES, Mar. 18, 2004, at A30. 1

time to return the government to the people, he writes. Let the people, not the special interest groups, control Washington. 5 Public financing has the potential to reduce such risks of corruption. An official whose campaign financing stems from a wide array of small donors feels less pressure to serve the interests of one powerful donor. As Robert Meza, an Arizona state representative who participated in his state s public financing system, noted, I don t owe anyone after this race. I don t owe them any favors and I think that s instrumental. As noted earlier, large campaign contributions can have a corrupting effect on the legislative process. But under public financing systems, legislators can focus on their constituents interests in the merits of proposed legislation, without the need to consider the special interests of those who contributed to their campaigns. As Speaker Pingree notes, [Maine s] public financing system allows us to pass bold and bi-partisan legislation that is demanded by the public, even when industry forcefully objects. 6 When special interest donations carry less weight, legislation can be considered on its merits. As former Arizona governor Janet Napolitano explained with regard to that state s prescription drug bill: If I had not run [using public financing], I would surely have been paid visits by numerous campaign contributors representing pharmaceutical interests and the like, urging me either to shelve the idea or to create it in their image. All the while, they would be wielding the implied threat to yank their support and shop for an opponent in four years. [Instead,] I was able to create this program based on one and only one variable: the best interests of Arizona s senior citizens. 7 Connecticut s expansion of its recycling program offers a similar story. As state representative Chris Caruso, a key player in passing the legislation, tells it, For many years, environmentalists have tried to expand the bottle bill recycling program to include 5-cent deposits on plastic water bottles, but the powerful beverage industry and its paid lobbyists were able to stop every effort at reform because they gave thousands of dollars to legislators. 8 However, with the institution of Connecticut s public financing program, the state legislature could finally consider the bottle bill on its merits. Similarly, in 2007, Maine passed a comprehensive consumer protection bill, 5 Jones, supra note 2, at 1. 6 A Look at H.R. 1826 and the Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Hearing on H.R. 1826 Before the Comm. on H. Admin., 111th Cong. 74 (2009) (statement of Hannah Pingree, Speaker, Maine House of Representatives) [hereinafter Hannah Pingree]. 7 Rhode Islanders for Fair Elections, Why Fair Elections?, http://www.fairelectionsri.org/benefits.php (last visited June 17, 2010). 8 A Look at H.R. 1826 and the Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Hearing on H.R. 1826 Before the Comm. on H. Admin., 111th Cong. 205 (2009) (statement of Jeffrey Garfield, Executive Director and General Counsel, Connecticut State Elections Enforcement Commission) [hereinafter Garfield]. 2

giving the government the power to ban products containing harmful chemicals. 9 As Speaker Pingree explains, this result would have been less likely had Maine s legislators been beholden to industry fundraising. Public financing allows legislators to focus on the merits of legislation, rather than on its potential implications for campaign fundraising. Reducing Perceived Corruption As the Supreme Court noted in Buckley v. Valeo, Of almost equal concern as the danger of actual quid pro quo arrangements is the impact of the appearance of corruption stemming from public awareness of the opportunities for abuse inherent in a regime of large individual financial contributions. 10 Nearly as important as the presence of actual bribery, the Court suggested, is the public s belief that the current system of campaign finance breeds corruption. Indeed, the Court s fears of public distrust and cynicism are well founded. As Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA) succinctly put it, I hate the fact that the general public thinks that every time I raise a dollar, I am being bought. I hate it. It is bad not just for me, it is bad for the system, it is bad for people s perception of government. 11 Public opinion polls confirm that the current fundraising system fosters the appearance of corruption, leading the public to believe that political contributions buy political favors, and eroding trust in government. A Greenberg-McKinnon national survey in February found that 79% believed members of Congress are controlled by those who fund their campaigns as opposed to just 18% who thought voters were in charge. A compilation of 19 swing district Survey USA polls in March showed that voters across the board think that members of Congress listen to donors more than to them by a 87% to 12% margin, including a wider average gap of 90% to 8% gap among independents. A Rasmussen national survey in August 2010 found that 70% of voters believe that most members of Congress [are] willing to sell their vote for either cash or a campaign contribution. A shift to a system of public financing could help restore this lost faith in government. Already, participants in state public financing systems have seen a change in public opinion. Overall people are excited about [public financing] because they feel that 9 Hannah Pingree, supra note 7, at 74. 10 Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 27 (1976) (emphasis added). 11 A Look at H.R. 1826 and the Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Hearing on H.R. 1826 Before the Comm. on H. Admin., 111th Cong. 6 (2009) (statement of Rep. Michael Capuano, Member, Comm. on H. Admin.) [hereinafter Capuano]. 3

their particular legislator will not be tied to special interest dollars and that means a lot to them, said Leah Landrum Taylor, an Arizona state representative who participated in her state s public financing program. 12 Even candidates who chose not to participate in the state s program have noticed the shift. In a GAO survey, an anonymous nonparticipating Arizona candidate wrote, I believe the program has helped restore the public s faith in the integrity of candidates. Hopefully, many other states, and eventually Congress, will adopt public funding of elections. 13 Public financing can ease voters distrust and suspicion of their elected officials, fostering greater trust in the government. 2. Public Financing Allows Elected Officials to Focus on Their Duties, Rather Than on Fundraising. Under the existing system of private campaign contributions, fundraising monopolizes a candidate s time, with elected officials spending many of their hours dialing for dollars or attending closed-door fundraisers. Former Sen. Ernest F. Fritz Hollings (D-SC) estimated that almost one-third of a senator s time is spent on fundraising. 14 Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME) reported spending nearly 20 hours a day on the phone, trying to coax donations, not from her constituents, but from wealthy out-ofstate interests. 15 A system of public financing eliminates this time bind. Connecticut state senator Al Adinolfi reported that he used to spend months on the phone fundraising, but that the state public financing system has now relieved him of that need. 16 Public financing frees up more time for candidates and legislators to focus on their constituents. To quote Matthew Lesser, a state representative in Connecticut, After I qualified for public financing I was able to spend all of my time on the campaign, meeting voters directly and understanding more fully the range of their concerns. That made me a better candidate, one more responsive to the needs and priorities of my prospective constituents. 17 A 2003 University of Maryland study confirmed that candidates who participate in full publicly funded electoral systems spend significantly less time raising money than other candidates. U.S. House candidates in contested elections reported spending 12 CGS Study, supra note 1, at 4. 13 U.S. GEN. ACCOUNTING OFFICE, CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM: EARLY EXPERIENCE OF TWO STATES THAT OFFER FULL PUBLIC FUNDING FOR POLITICAL CANDIDATES 122 (2003). 14 Ernest Hollings, Stop the Money Chase, WASHINGTON POST, Feb. 19, 2006. 15 A Look at H.R. 1826 and the Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Hearing on H.R. 1826 Before the Comm. on H. Admin., 111th Cong. 46 (2009) (statement of Rep. Chellie Pingree, Representative, Maine s 1st Congressional District) [hereinafter Chellie Pingree]. 16 CONNECTICUT COMMON CAUSE, A NEW KIND OF POLITICS 5 (2008). 17 STATE ELECTIONS ENFORCEMENT COMMISSION, CONNECTICUT RECLAIMING DEMOCRACY: THE INAUGURAL RUN OF THE CITIZEN S ELECTION PROGRAM FOR THE 2008 ELECTION CYCLE 32 (2009). 4

an average of 34 percent of their time raising money. In states with public financing, publicly financed state legislative candidates reported spending only 8 percent of their time fundraising, as opposed to 24 percent of their time for privately financed state legislative candidates. 18 3. Public Financing Increases Political Participation A shift to public financing can drastically expand the scope of political participation. By moving the focus of elections away from never-ending, high-stakes fundraising, public financing fosters political participation by a broader range of the electorate. Most immediately, public financing generates a larger, more diverse pool of donors. Instead of focusing exclusively on wealthy donors, publicly financed candidates can look to a broader population of small donors. 19 Cicero Booker, a Connecticut state senate candidate from one of the state s poorer regions reported remarkable success fundraising in his home district. 20 Under a system that emphasized a large number of small donations, even the poorer members of Booker s community could contribute. Moreover, each knew his or her small donation, a mere drop in the bucket under traditional fundraising, would be meaningful. Many members of Booker s community chose his campaign for their first-ever campaign contribution. 21 Vincent Marino, a Connecticut state senatorial candidate, offered a similar experience, explaining that public financing helped create a buy-in from a lot of people early on in the process, from a grassroots perspective 22 Indeed, after the enactment of New York City s multiple matching fund public financing system, the number of political donors grew by 35% over a 12-year period. 23 In 2009, the average participating City Council candidate had almost triple the number of small donors than her non-participating counterpart. 24 Perhaps even more importantly, this increased voter engagement allows candidates to reach out to underserved communities, likely passed over under systems emphasizing large private contributions. Meeting her potential constituents, Speaker Pingree spoke to people who d never had a chance before to tell a politician what they think. 25 Running for Governor of Arizona, Janet Napolitano had a similar experience. 18 Peter Francia and Paul Hernnson, The Impact of Public Finance Laws on Fundraising in State Legislative Elections, AMERICAN POLITICS RESEARCH, Vol. 31, No. 52 September 2003, p. 531. 19 Garfield, supra note 9, at 208. 20 CONNECTICUT COMMON CAUSE, supra note 17, at 3. 21 Id. 22 CONNECTICUT COMMON CAUSE, supra note 17, at 5. 23 Angela Migally and Susan Liss, SMALL DONOR MATCHING FUNDS: THE NYC ELECTION EXPERIENCE 12 (2010). 24 Id. at 15. 25 Chellie Pingree, supra note 16, at 45. 5

[Public financing is] the difference between being able to go out and spend your time talking with voters, meeting with groups,.traveling to communities that have been underrepresented in the past, as opposed to being on the phone selling tickets to a $250 a plate fundraiser. 26 In a system with less emphasis on large contributions, the focus returns to the voter, and the candidate s ability to connect with his or her potential constituents. Just as it creates new contributors and new voters, public financing can also lead to a more diverse candidate pool. When extensive private fundraising is no longer a prerequisite for candidacy, running for office seems less daunting to non-traditional candidates. Thanks to Maine s system of public financing, Speaker Pingree has been able to recruit people, who never thought they d have the chance to represent the people who are their friends and neighbors young people, people from minority communities, people who thought they would never be able to afford the cost of running for public office. 27 Indeed, once they remove the nearly prohibitive costs of candidacy, states with public financing see a rise in non-traditional candidates. The number of women running for office in Connecticut is at an all time high, and many credit public financing with allowing them to run. 28 A lack of fundraising prowess no longer needs to nip a promising candidacy in the bud. Deborah Simpson, a Maine State Representative, noted, With the Clean Elections, it seemed less daunting a task to run. I could do what I can do, which is talk to people, as opposed to raising money, which in my life, I didn t have any experience in. 29 As Connecticut candidate Karen Houghtaling, a forty-one year old grandmother with two jobs, put it, I knew I could never be competitive in a system where someone was essentially encouraged to rely on big, private money contributions. 30 Supported by public financing, other female candidates are able to run for office, even while juggling night school or multiple jobs. 31 A similar trend exists among minority candidates. In the election immediately following Arizona s shift to public financing, three times as many Latino and Native American candidates ran for office, as compared to the previous election. 32 26 CGS Study, supra note 1, at 3. 27 Chellie Pingree, supra note 16, at 46. 28 Garfield, supra note 9, at 206. 29 CGS Study, supra note 1, at 11. 30 Garfield, supra note 9, at 205; STATE ELECTIONS ENFORCEMENT COMMISSION, CONNECTICUT RECLAIMING DEMOCRACY: THE INAUGURAL RUN OF THE CITIZEN S ELECTION PROGRAM FOR THE 2008 ELECTION CYCLE 29 (2009). 31 CGS Study, supra note 1, at 11. 32 Id. at 8. 6

*************************** For more information about public financing systems or the Fair Elections Now Act, please contact: Susan M. Liss Director, Democracy Program Monica Youn Senior Counsel, Democracy Program (646) 292-8314 (646) 292-8333 September 22, 2010 7