Overview
Since our founding in 1972, Colorado Common Cause has advocated for reforms that will reduce the influence of money on the political process and encourage more robust and representative participation in our state’s governance. In 2002, our coalition, including the League of Women Voters and other allies, successfully passed Amendment 27, which serves as the foundation of Colorado’s current campaign finance laws with more than 66% of the vote.
With Amendment 27 in place, the landscape surrounding political campaigns has changed significantly. Low contribution limits and small donor committees have broadened the base of donors in candidate campaigns, but have not changed the need for candidates to engage in constant fundraising. In addition, the rise of 527 political committees poses a serious threat to our current system as these entities now dwarf the money raised by candidate campaigns in Colorado’s most competitive races.
While we have made progress, we believe long term campaign finance reform requires a robust fair elections system. Unfortunately, while we need reform, we cannot support Initiative #53.
Consideration of Initiative #53
The Colorado Common Cause Governing Board (CCC) considered three key factors in adopting our position on Initiative #53: 1) is it the right policy; 2) what is the political landscape (is it the right time?); 3) what are the implications for future reform if the measure fails?
Policy
Public financing programs encourage more candidates to run for office, increase the power of small donors, and reduce the influence of special interests The federal Fair Elections Now Act (S.752, H.R.1826) is a bipartisan bill that is a model for public financing policies that has evolved to both meet the goals of public financing and fit within the confines of current case law. Importantly, it creates a system that allows participating candidates to run competitive races. As drafted, Initiative #53 has two major policy flaws: it will not provide sufficient funds for candidate’s campaigns and has no mechanism to provide the funding to keep campaigns competitive.
First, the system determines the amount of the grant based on the average election cost for the last two campaign cycles. In practice, the result will be that most candidates will not receive sufficient funds for their races. Here’s why: the term limits for the Colorado House of Representatives are four two-year terms (8 years). In many districts, where the seat is safely controlled by one party or the other, the only time a competitive election is held is the year when the seat is open because the incumbent is term-limited. During that “open” year, these districts tend to have competitive primary elections. Unfortunately, the way Initiative #53 is drafted, the amount of the grant for candidates who choose to participate in Colorado Citizen Funded Campaigns would be based on the average of the two prior election cycles, including the non-competitive incumbent re-election campaigns.
The other major problem with the proposal is that it does not provide a mechanism for candidates to run competitive races and respond to a well-funded opponent or expenditures made by outside groups. The program established by Initiative #53 provides an initial grant, but no process for a candidate to continue raising small contributions to be matched (as is the system in the federal Fair Elections Now Act). For a public financing program to be successful, candidates who participate must have the funds necessary to run their race, especially if outspent by an opponent or targeted by independent expenditures.
Political Landscape
Colorado’s fiscal crisis: Colorado’s budget is in dire straits, as the constraints placed by TABOR and other constitutional funding mandates have been exacerbated by the recession/ economic downturn. The recession created a $2 billion budget shortfall with another $1.3 billion gap projected. Simply put, the state does not have enough revenue to adequately fund its core programs.
In addition, the November 2010 ballot will have three ballot measures (known as the Bad Three) that have the potential to defund government to the point of collapse. Proposition 101, Amendment 60 and Amendment 61 will collectively attack an already weakened fiscal future in Colorado.
Need for coalition: Efforts to pass public financing in other states have demonstrated the need for a strong coalition, including organizations such as labor, communities of color, environmental groups, and a broad range of other community groups. A strong coalition is not in place for the Initiative #53 campaign.
Well-funded campaign: Educating the public about the benefits of fair elections requires significant resources. In Oregon and Missouri, initiatives were defeated when business interests poured in significant financial resources in opposition. The 2006 initiative in California failed due in part to lack of funding to get the message out. We could see several million dollars spent to defeat a measure in Colorado as well. A successful initiative will require significant resources for education and outreach.
Implications for Future Reform
Unfortunately, we disagree with Clean Campaigns Colorado’s assessment that advancing a measure, even if it fails, advances the discussion regarding public financing. A losing ballot measure, particularly one that draws well-funded opposition, allows opponents of reform to shape the message and debate around the issue. If the ballot measure is defeated by voters, it also makes advancing the measure in the future more difficult. For example, the defeat of Election Day Registration on the ballot in 2002 had a negative impact on the efforts to advance EDR during the 2010 legislative session.
Conclusion
Colorado Common Cause respects the hard work of the volunteers who have come together over the last several years to develop the Clean Campaigns Colorado proposal, Initiative #53. For the reasons listed above, we have serious concerns about the policy as drafted and the wisdom of running a ballot measure in this political landscape. Colorado Common Cause cannot support Initiative #53.
We are committed to advancing public financing but have chosen to prioritize passing the federal bill, addressing the problems created by the disastrous Citizens United decision, defeating the Bad Three on the ballot this fall and working for fiscal reform. Building the support necessary to win fair elections is a long-term goal, and we believe that organizing in support of the federal Fair Elections Now Act provides a better opportunity to build that support.
For more information, please contact our program director Elena Nunez (enunez@commoncause.org or 303-292-2163)
The text of Initiative 53 is posted on the website of Legislative Council.
To learn more about the Fair Elections Now Act, visit FairElectionsNow.org