Public Financing for Local ElectionsEven at a local level, it takes money to run a campaign. To win a seat on City Council or to become Mayor, one needs significant financial backing. The need for money contributes to a variety of problems: otherwise qualified citizens don’t run for office, candidates must spend an inordinate amount of time and energy fundraising, and there’s a public perception that candidates are tied to the special interests who donate to their campaigns
The price tag to compete often exceeds $25,000. For many citizens, especially those with few connections to wealth, the idea of the money chase is too daunting. In particular, younger people and minorities are disadvantaged.
Once a citizen does decide to seek office, he or she must dedicate significant time to fundraising. The focus on money distracts from a healthy debate on issues. Hours that could be spent talking to community groups and going door to door are instead spent networking with potential donors.
Donations to campaigns come from personal wealth, friends, networks and, too often, special interests. In particular, the development industry plays a large role. There’s a perception that local officials are beholden to their donors. This leads to apathy, cynicism, and low voter turn-out.
Clearly, there’s a problem with our system. We want to stress that it’s the system, not the people involved in local government. We commend those who make the commitment to public service. A large majority of City Councilors and Mayors are truly interested in improving their communities and, while they may accept special interest money, are not beholden to it. In fact, many elected officials are excited for campaign finance alternatives.
Fixing the system- Local Public Financing as an option
Common Cause is leading an effort to promote the option of public financing for local elections. (If you’re not familiar with the concept of public financing, scroll down for more info.) We’re focusing on 7 cities throughout the state- Raleigh, Cary, Greensboro, Wilmington, Charlotte, Greenville, and Asheville.
We're working with local activists and concerned citizens in each city to educate the public, talk with City Councilors and Mayors, and meet with local legislative delegations. Specific strategies depend on local conditions. In Greensboro, citizens have banded to form Greensboro Citizens for Clean Elections (click for their website). They're working to raise public awareness of public financing and to urge the City Council to pass a resolution in favor of giving Greensboro the option of implementing a local public financing program.
Excerpts from Greensboro Citizens for Clean Elections 4/2/08 press conference
In all of our seven focus cities, we've analyzed campaign finance reports for City Council and Mayoral candidates dating as far back as 1997. We're looking at trends in fundraising totals and competitiveness. In February we'll release a detailed report with our findings. Here are a few stats:
This year the General Assembly granted Chapel Hill the authority to experiment with public financing in their 2009 and 2011 municipal elections. We’re looking to build on this momentum.
What is public financing and how does it work?
The benefits of public financing for local elections
The success of public financing in North Carolina
North Carolina citizen attitudes about big money in politics (July poll commissioned by the NC Center for Voter Education)
Help us change the system!
DO YOU LIVE IN ONE OF THESE CITIES?We’re looking for individuals and groups who are interested in our project. Call or email Josh Glasser for more information. (919) 836-0027, jglasser@commoncause.org.
For more information on the Greensboro effort, visit www.greensborocleanelections.org
A handful of cities across the US have implemented local public financing programs. Here’s a brief look… Portland, OR: Portland's Voter-Owned Elections (VOE) legislation was enacted by the City Council in May 2005, after an 18-month process including three public hearings packed with reform supporters. VOE participating candidates run for office in a way that requires broad citizen involvement and support; effectively eliminating big money of special interests. The 2006 municipal election was the first election with Voter-Owned Elections.
Portland sets a high threshold to qualify for public funding. In 2006 thirteen candidates indicated their interest in qualifying but only three actually did. One of those, Emilie Boyles, was decertified as a candidate and has been charged with elections violations of the qualifying procedures. At the public financing system's inception, the City Council established a Citizens Campaign Commission to monitor and suggest improvements to the system.
While both incumbents won in 2006, they spent money on par with their VOE candidate competition. Sten (who qualified and ran with public funds) and Saltzman, ran significantly different types of races and were more accountable to typical Portlanders because of VOE. They had many more contributors and donors to their elections than in their previous elections.
How do they qualify? In order to qualify for public funds, city council candidates must collect $5 contributions and signatures from 1,000
How are they funded? Eligible city council candidates receive $150,000 for primary races and $200,000 for general election. Eligible mayoral candidates receive $200,000 and $250,000. The funds are allocated from city council appropriation, civil penalty fund revenues, and voluntary private contributions. VOE also provides participating candidates with additional funding (up to an additional $150,000) if a non VOE participating candidate spends over the total spending limit of the VOE candidate. Also they can receive additional funds if they are targeted by independent expenditures that benefit opposing candidates who have already reached overall spending limits.
What are the limits on the Candidates? Participating candidates may not accept campaign contributions, except for qualifying contributions and seed money. They must reject private money contributions and limit campaign spending and comply with administrative guidelines set by the city council.
Candidates cannot use their money to help other campaigns, and they can spend money only on legitimate campaign events and equipment.
Reform with VOE Since the 2006 election The Citizens Campaign Commission made significant recommendations that were adopted by the City Council to improve the VOE system. From issues and loop holes that arose out of the 2006 election, new measures now prohibit candidates with outstanding financial judgments against them from receiving public funds, require that qualifying contributions come only from registered Portland voters, and clarified and tightened the identification and reporting requirements for those who make the $5 qualifying contributions and who sign contribution forms.
Albuquerque, NM: In October of 2005 voters in
The city of Albuquerque is no stranger to campaign finance reform. They had mandatory limits on campaign spending for mayoral and council races for over twenty years, until those limits were struck down by the courts in 2001. Out of control spending in the elections following the ruling demonstrated the need for something to be done. A coalition of fifteen organizations, including Common Cause New Mexico, helped in advocating for the passage of the Open and Ethical Elections Code when it went to referendum in 2005.
Albuquerque’s Oct. 2, 2007 city council races will be the first since the Open and Ethical Elections Code Referendum was enacted. Several candidates are enthusiastically choosing the new full public financing option. Five of the nine candidates running for City Council across 4 districts (one district is non-competitive) have qualified and have agreed to run with within the bounds of the Open and Ethical Election Code. Candidates running under the new system are: Debbie O'Malley (District 2), Paulette de'Pascal (District 4), and Rey Garduno, Joan Griffin, and Kevin Wilson (all District 6)
How do candidates qualify? To qualify to receive funding from the public financing fund candidates must gather $5 contributions from 1% of the registered voters in their respective districts within the qualifying periods of their pursuant office. (Mayor Feb 16- March 31, City Council May 1-31). That works out to only about 300 contributions total, depending on the district to qualify for funding.
How are they funded? Candidates who qualify and who choose to participate in the public financing receive for their campaign from the city and public financing fund $1 for every registered voter in their respective districts, or about $30,000. (The $5.00 contributions collected by the candidates are deposited in the public financing fund that is supplemented by contributions from the city’s operating fund). What are the limits on the Candidates? By accepting the funds, candidates are not allowed to accept or spend individual or business campaign contributions. Public financed candidates though may accept in-kind contributions totaling a value not to exceed 10% of the amount the candidate received from the Open and Ethical Election Fund.
UPDATE: Two publicly financed candidates, Debbie O'Malley and Rey Garduno, won election to City Council on Oct. 2.
Testimony from Rey Garduno, a successful publicly financed candidate:
I worked very hard through Common Cause and other like-minded organizations to make Clean and Ethical Elections a reality; the possibility of my being publicly financed was a major contributor in the decision to seek office.
In my experience, the inaugural Albuquerque City Council publicly financed elections were a success on various levels. It allowed me as a candidate to speak to the issues and not waste an inordinate amount of time raising money to bankroll my campaign. Under the traditional method of funding campaigns not only is time spent on raising money but it has the effect of allowing the money givers to have an undue influence on the candidates they privately support – any other explanation is not supportable.
In leveling the field public financing allows candidates who would not otherwise be able to compete seek office and represent segments of the community that would feel disempowered and unable to advocate for their issues. No one can be unduly influenced with a $5 contribution, which is a way of showing that an individual candidate has the support of a portion of the electorate she/he will be representing.
Reporting deadlines in the final stages of a campaign would be a major item to correct in making Public Financing more successful. During the last month more frequent (possibly weekly) reports of incurred expenditures, with violations being strongly assessed, would show money spent and deter a candidate from non-compliance.
Would I decide to seek office again it would only be through Public Financing. Further, this experience emboldens me to advocate for Public Financing of
Others: While Portland and Albuquerque are the first with full public financing of municipal elections, other cities around the country have partial public financing systems in place. Cities with partial public financing include Sacramento, CA; Tucson, AZ; New York, NY; Bolder. CO; and
RESOURCES/LINKS
NORTH CAROLINA LINKS North Carolina Voters for Clean Elections 2007 Legislative Scorecard on Campaign Reform- shows how NC General Assembly members voted on campaign reform legislation in 2007
Voter Owned Election Research from Democracy North Carolina- includes summaries of important bills and a look at successes in Maine and Arizona
Search campaign finance reports for City Council and Mayoral candidates in your city- links to all 100 NC County Board of Elections
Pilot Public Financing Program for 3 Council of State offices- from the NC General Assembly: read bill text and view votes
Chapel Hill Public Financing- from the NC General Assembly: read bill text and view votes
OUTSIDE NC/GENERAL LINKS Center for Governmental Studies- a comprehensive report/map of all full and local public financing programs nationwide
What others are saying- Public Campaign's collection of video and written statements from public financed candidates and supporters
Where do the 2008 Presidential candidates stand on public financing?- Common Cause Iowa collected statements and audio from a majority of candidates
Editorial from Rep. Jim Annis (R) ME- Praise for ME's statewide Clean Election program from a Republican
Albuquerque's success with public financing- Report issued by CCNM looking at Albuquerque's first election with public financing
A survey of Maine Clean Election candidates- a 2003 comprehensive survey of legislative candidates who used public financing in the 2002 election, includes quotes from candidates
CT Citizens' Election Program- an in-depth candidate guide to how the statewide CT system works
Voter Owned Elections in Portland, OR- a quantitative analysis of the program and how it's improved elections, prepared by Democracy Reform Oregon
Women Speak out in Support- complied by Northeast Action, personal stories from 6 female public financed candidates
Maine Clean Election Stats- prepared by Common Cause Maine, a quantitative look at Maine's 3 election cycles with public financing
Arizona Clean Election Stats- prepared by Arizona Clean Elections Institute, a quantitative look at Arizona's election cycles with public financing
Petitioning at a Raleigh City Council Form- we're asking citizens and candidates to sign a statement of support for their City Council to pass a resolution in favor of public financing as an alternative to the current system.
|
