Clean elections
Encyclopedia
"Clean Elections" is a term used to describe a particular system of government financing of political campaign
s, in which the government provides a grant to candidates who agree to limit their and private fundraising efforts and limit their campaign-spending.
. Some form of Clean Elections legislation has been adopted by ballot initiative in Maine
, Arizona
, North Carolina
, New Mexico
, Vermont
, Wisconsin
, and Massachusetts
. It was also adopted by legislative action in Connecticut
and at the municipal level in Albuquerque, New Mexico
, and Portland, OR. However, the systems in Massachusetts and Portland were later repealed, while Vermont's was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court on First Amendment grounds.
These laws have increasingly run into constitutional problems in the Courts. Substantial portions of the Vermont system were found unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court
in Randall v. Sorrell
. Connecticut's statute was held unconstitutional in August, 2009, on grounds that it unfairly discriminated against third party and independent candidates. In July 2010 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld portions of the District court's order but allowed the core program to continue.
On June 27, 2011, ruling in the consolidated cases Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett and McComish v. Bennett, the Supreme Court deemed unconstitutional the matching-funds provision of the Arizona law. The decision throws similar provisions in Maine, Wisconsin, and elsewhere into doubt. As a result, the Wisconsin legislature eliminated funding for its judicial elections in 2011.
Additionally, voters have defeated clean elections in several recent referendums. In Massachusetts the system was repealed after a 2002 advisory initiative in which voters voted nearly 2 to 1 against using government funds to pay for political campaigns. Portland, Oregon's program was narrowly repealed by voters in a 2010 referendum. In 2008, a Clean Elections bill, the California Fair Elections Act (AB583) passed the California Assembly and Senate and was signed by Governor Schwarzenegger. To take effect, however, the law had to be approved by voters in an initiative in June 2010. On June 8, 2010, California voters defeated the measure by 57% to 43%. An earlier Clean Elections ballot initiative, Proposition 89 was also defeated in California in 2006, by 74% against to 26% in favor. A Clean Elections ballot initiative in Alaska failed by a 64% to 35% margin in August 2008,.
In April 2010, the Colorado
Initiative Title Setting Review Board approved the text of a Proposed Initiative #53 on Campaign Finance, and signature gathering began,
but the measure failed to qualify for the 2010 ballot.
Additionally, a pilot program adopted by the New Jersey state legislature in 2004 and applying in select legislative districts was abandoned by the legislature after the 2007 state elections.
Under a Clean Elections system, candidates wishing to receive government financing collect a certain number of small "qualifying contributions" (often as little as $5) from registered voters. If they collect enough of these qualifying contributions, they are then paid a flat sum by the government to run their campaigns, and agree not to raise any other money from private sources. Candidates who are outspent by privately funded opponents may receive additional public matching funds, but this provision was held to be unconstitutional in the aforementioned Supreme Court decision in Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett.
Because candidates may refuse government funding and continue to rely on voluntary contributions without spending caps, supporters have argued that Clean Elections measures do not run afoul of the Supreme Court's decision in Buckley v. Valeo
decision, which struck down mandatory spending limits as an unconstitutional restriction on free speech but also affirmed that elections can be publicly financed. However, the Supreme Court's decision in Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett has eliminated a key part of Clean Elections laws aimed at encouraging participation.
Comprehensive Clean Elections systems have been in effect in Arizona
and Maine
since 2000. A majority of candidates accept the grants rather than raise private contributions. In Maine
, three quarters of state legislators ran with government subsidies provided by a Clean Elections Program. In Arizona
, a majority of the state house and both the Republican and Democratic candidates for Governor
ran Clean Elections campaigns in 2006. There has not yet been a statewide election in Maine in which both the Republican and Democratic candidates were financed through the Clean Election System.
.
Unlike traditional campaign finance laws that focus primarily on placing caps on campaign donations, Clean Elections laws provide a government grant to candidates who agree to limit their spending and private fundraising. Candidates participating in a Clean Elections system are required to meet certain qualification criteria, which usually includes collecting a number of signatures and small contributions (generally determined by statute and set at $5 in both Maine and Arizona) before the candidate can receive public support. In most Clean Elections programs, these qualifying contributions must be given by constituents. To receive the government campaign grant, "Clean Candidates" must agree to forgo all other fundraising and accept no other private or personal funds. Candidates who choose not to participate are subject to limits on their fundraising, typically in the form of limits on the size of contributions they may accept and the sources of those contributions (such as limits on corporate or union contributions), and detailed reporting requirements.
In order to comply with Buckley v. Valeo
, participation by candidates is optional. Government financed candidates who are outspent by a privately funded candidate normally receive additional funds (sometimes called "rescue funds") to match their privately funded opponent, up to a cap, with the intent of assuring that a candidate who runs with private funding will not outspend his government funded opponent. This is the provision struck down by the Supreme Court in Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett.
A 2006 study of the 2004 and 2002 campaigns by political scientists Mayer, Werner, and Williams of the University of Wisconsin—Madison argued that the GAO "understate[d] the reforms' impact, in part by making some unusual methodological choices and jettisoning valuable data." They found that the candidate pool and competitiveness increased significantly, while the incumbency rate dropped significantly. A 2007 update, however, found that in the 2006 campaign competitiveness continued to increase slightly but reelection rates "returned to pre-reform levels". The number of at least nominally contested races also continued to increase, reaching 100% in Maine. Mayer, Werner and Williams also found that women were much more likely than men to accept public funding but this had no effect on the gender composition of the legislature.
A study by the non-partisan, privately funded Clean Elections Institute found that the number and geographic, economic, and ethnic diversity of campaign contributors increased significantly, with contributors almost quadrupling, contributions from people with incomes below $40,000 increasing by 40% and contributions from Latinos increasing significantly. A 2008 study by the non-profit, non-partisan Center for Competitive Politics concluded that the process of gathering small contributions needed to qualify for public funding still relied heavily on interest groups. Another 2008 study by the Center for Competitive Politics of Clean Elections programs in Maine and Arizona found that neither state had seen a decline in legislators with “traditional” [law and business] backgrounds in the eight years since the campaign laws were first implemented.
Other studies conducted by the nonpartisan Center for Competitive Politics, found that the programs in Maine, Arizona, and New Jersey had failed to accomplish other stated goals, including electing more women (http://www.campaignfreedom.org/docLib/20080826_Issue_Analysis_3.pdf), reducing government spending (in fact in both states government spending grew more rapidly after the enactment of clean elections) (http://www.campaignfreedom.org/research/resID.104/research_detail.asp), or meeting most other stated objectives, including increasing competition or voter participation. (http://www.campaignfreedom.org/research/resID.87/research_detail.asp)
A 2006 study by the non-partisan, libertarian-leaning Goldwater Institute
found that "incumbency rates have remained near 100% [while] the number of candidates fell substantially ... from 247 to 195. Moreover, the law has not increased minor or third-party participation in politics, and Arizona campaigns remain every bit as hard-edged." However, according to the Clean Elections Institute, the number of legislative candidates increased from 135 in 1998 (http://www.azclean.org/articles/press1.html), the last year before Clean Elections, to 188 in 2004, as reported in the Goldwater study—a 40% increase. In 2006 there were 204 legislative candidates (http://azclean.org/documents/2006WebPrimaryCandidateListing_049.PDF), a 51% increase over the pre-Clean Elections numbers.
In 2008, a study released by the non-partisan, non-profit organization Public Campaign, examined the demographic profile of $5 qualifying contribution donors in Clean Elections gubernatorial campaigns in Arizona over the course of the 2002 and 2006 elections, comparing and contrasting them with contributions raised by candidates running with funding from private sources — more than 67,000 contributions in all. The data were analyzed by zip code alongside U.S. Census data to determine the racial, ethnic, geographic, and economic characteristics of donors. The study, titled All Over The Map, found that Arizona’s qualifying contribution donors are more diverse racially, ethnically, economically, and geographically than donors giving to candidates who choose to rely on private fundraising. In nearly every category, Clean Elections $5 donors were more representative of the state's population than were donors to privately funded campaigns. However, the study has been criticized because it compares donors to Clean Elections only to donors of $200 or more to federal campaigns - in other words, it compared $5 donors under clean elections to $200 donors in federal races, rather than comparing the common universe of all donors, or donors at the same levels of contributions. Federal candidates are not required to report names and addresses of contributors of less than $200 to federal candidates thus the information is not made public.
(D-PA). A companion bill, H.R. 1826, was introduced in the House, sponsored by John Larson (D-CT), Chellie Pingree (D-ME), and Walter Jones (R-NC). Unlike the Clean Elections laws in Maine and Arizona, H.R. 1826 dids not include the "rescue funds" provision, perhaps due to concern about constitutionality in the wake of the Davis decision. Neither bill moved out of Committee.
Others who have endorsed clean elections include:
Political campaign
A political campaign is an organized effort which seeks to influence the decision making process within a specific group. In democracies, political campaigns often refer to electoral campaigns, wherein representatives are chosen or referendums are decided...
s, in which the government provides a grant to candidates who agree to limit their and private fundraising efforts and limit their campaign-spending.
In the United States
Clean Election initiatives are used in a small number of states and local political jurisdictions in the United StatesUnited States
The United States of America is a federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states and a federal district...
. Some form of Clean Elections legislation has been adopted by ballot initiative in Maine
Maine
Maine is a state in the New England region of the northeastern United States, bordered by the Atlantic Ocean to the east and south, New Hampshire to the west, and the Canadian provinces of Quebec to the northwest and New Brunswick to the northeast. Maine is both the northernmost and easternmost...
, Arizona
Arizona
Arizona ; is a state located in the southwestern region of the United States. It is also part of the western United States and the mountain west. The capital and largest city is Phoenix...
, North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina is a state located in the southeastern United States. The state borders South Carolina and Georgia to the south, Tennessee to the west and Virginia to the north. North Carolina contains 100 counties. Its capital is Raleigh, and its largest city is Charlotte...
, New Mexico
New Mexico
New Mexico is a state located in the southwest and western regions of the United States. New Mexico is also usually considered one of the Mountain States. With a population density of 16 per square mile, New Mexico is the sixth-most sparsely inhabited U.S...
, Vermont
Vermont
Vermont is a state in the New England region of the northeastern United States of America. The state ranks 43rd in land area, , and 45th in total area. Its population according to the 2010 census, 630,337, is the second smallest in the country, larger only than Wyoming. It is the only New England...
, Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin is a U.S. state located in the north-central United States and is part of the Midwest. It is bordered by Minnesota to the west, Iowa to the southwest, Illinois to the south, Lake Michigan to the east, Michigan to the northeast, and Lake Superior to the north. Wisconsin's capital is...
, and Massachusetts
Massachusetts
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is a state in the New England region of the northeastern United States of America. It is bordered by Rhode Island and Connecticut to the south, New York to the west, and Vermont and New Hampshire to the north; at its east lies the Atlantic Ocean. As of the 2010...
. It was also adopted by legislative action in Connecticut
Connecticut
Connecticut is a state in the New England region of the northeastern United States. It is bordered by Rhode Island to the east, Massachusetts to the north, and the state of New York to the west and the south .Connecticut is named for the Connecticut River, the major U.S. river that approximately...
and at the municipal level in Albuquerque, New Mexico
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Albuquerque is the largest city in the state of New Mexico, United States. It is the county seat of Bernalillo County and is situated in the central part of the state, straddling the Rio Grande. The city population was 545,852 as of the 2010 Census and ranks as the 32nd-largest city in the U.S. As...
, and Portland, OR. However, the systems in Massachusetts and Portland were later repealed, while Vermont's was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court on First Amendment grounds.
These laws have increasingly run into constitutional problems in the Courts. Substantial portions of the Vermont system were found unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...
in Randall v. Sorrell
Randall v. Sorrell
Randall v. Sorrell, 548 U.S. 230 , is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving a Vermont law which placed a cap on financial donations made to politicians. The court ruled that Vermont's law, the strictest in the nation, unconstitutionally hindered the citizens' First...
. Connecticut's statute was held unconstitutional in August, 2009, on grounds that it unfairly discriminated against third party and independent candidates. In July 2010 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld portions of the District court's order but allowed the core program to continue.
On June 27, 2011, ruling in the consolidated cases Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett and McComish v. Bennett, the Supreme Court deemed unconstitutional the matching-funds provision of the Arizona law. The decision throws similar provisions in Maine, Wisconsin, and elsewhere into doubt. As a result, the Wisconsin legislature eliminated funding for its judicial elections in 2011.
Additionally, voters have defeated clean elections in several recent referendums. In Massachusetts the system was repealed after a 2002 advisory initiative in which voters voted nearly 2 to 1 against using government funds to pay for political campaigns. Portland, Oregon's program was narrowly repealed by voters in a 2010 referendum. In 2008, a Clean Elections bill, the California Fair Elections Act (AB583) passed the California Assembly and Senate and was signed by Governor Schwarzenegger. To take effect, however, the law had to be approved by voters in an initiative in June 2010. On June 8, 2010, California voters defeated the measure by 57% to 43%. An earlier Clean Elections ballot initiative, Proposition 89 was also defeated in California in 2006, by 74% against to 26% in favor. A Clean Elections ballot initiative in Alaska failed by a 64% to 35% margin in August 2008,.
In April 2010, the Colorado
Colorado
Colorado is a U.S. state that encompasses much of the Rocky Mountains as well as the northeastern portion of the Colorado Plateau and the western edge of the Great Plains...
Initiative Title Setting Review Board approved the text of a Proposed Initiative #53 on Campaign Finance, and signature gathering began,
but the measure failed to qualify for the 2010 ballot.
Additionally, a pilot program adopted by the New Jersey state legislature in 2004 and applying in select legislative districts was abandoned by the legislature after the 2007 state elections.
Under a Clean Elections system, candidates wishing to receive government financing collect a certain number of small "qualifying contributions" (often as little as $5) from registered voters. If they collect enough of these qualifying contributions, they are then paid a flat sum by the government to run their campaigns, and agree not to raise any other money from private sources. Candidates who are outspent by privately funded opponents may receive additional public matching funds, but this provision was held to be unconstitutional in the aforementioned Supreme Court decision in Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett.
Because candidates may refuse government funding and continue to rely on voluntary contributions without spending caps, supporters have argued that Clean Elections measures do not run afoul of the Supreme Court's decision in Buckley v. Valeo
Buckley v. Valeo
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a federal law which set limits on campaign contributions, but ruled that spending money to influence elections is a form of constitutionally protected free speech, and struck down portions of the law...
decision, which struck down mandatory spending limits as an unconstitutional restriction on free speech but also affirmed that elections can be publicly financed. However, the Supreme Court's decision in Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett has eliminated a key part of Clean Elections laws aimed at encouraging participation.
Comprehensive Clean Elections systems have been in effect in Arizona
Arizona
Arizona ; is a state located in the southwestern region of the United States. It is also part of the western United States and the mountain west. The capital and largest city is Phoenix...
and Maine
Maine
Maine is a state in the New England region of the northeastern United States, bordered by the Atlantic Ocean to the east and south, New Hampshire to the west, and the Canadian provinces of Quebec to the northwest and New Brunswick to the northeast. Maine is both the northernmost and easternmost...
since 2000. A majority of candidates accept the grants rather than raise private contributions. In Maine
Maine
Maine is a state in the New England region of the northeastern United States, bordered by the Atlantic Ocean to the east and south, New Hampshire to the west, and the Canadian provinces of Quebec to the northwest and New Brunswick to the northeast. Maine is both the northernmost and easternmost...
, three quarters of state legislators ran with government subsidies provided by a Clean Elections Program. In Arizona
Arizona
Arizona ; is a state located in the southwestern region of the United States. It is also part of the western United States and the mountain west. The capital and largest city is Phoenix...
, a majority of the state house and both the Republican and Democratic candidates for Governor
Governor
A governor is a governing official, usually the executive of a non-sovereign level of government, ranking under the head of state...
ran Clean Elections campaigns in 2006. There has not yet been a statewide election in Maine in which both the Republican and Democratic candidates were financed through the Clean Election System.
Differences from traditional reforms
Clean Elections is a form of campaign finance reformCampaign finance reform
Campaign finance reform is the common term for the political effort in the United States to change the involvement of money in politics, primarily in political campaigns....
.
Unlike traditional campaign finance laws that focus primarily on placing caps on campaign donations, Clean Elections laws provide a government grant to candidates who agree to limit their spending and private fundraising. Candidates participating in a Clean Elections system are required to meet certain qualification criteria, which usually includes collecting a number of signatures and small contributions (generally determined by statute and set at $5 in both Maine and Arizona) before the candidate can receive public support. In most Clean Elections programs, these qualifying contributions must be given by constituents. To receive the government campaign grant, "Clean Candidates" must agree to forgo all other fundraising and accept no other private or personal funds. Candidates who choose not to participate are subject to limits on their fundraising, typically in the form of limits on the size of contributions they may accept and the sources of those contributions (such as limits on corporate or union contributions), and detailed reporting requirements.
In order to comply with Buckley v. Valeo
Buckley v. Valeo
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a federal law which set limits on campaign contributions, but ruled that spending money to influence elections is a form of constitutionally protected free speech, and struck down portions of the law...
, participation by candidates is optional. Government financed candidates who are outspent by a privately funded candidate normally receive additional funds (sometimes called "rescue funds") to match their privately funded opponent, up to a cap, with the intent of assuring that a candidate who runs with private funding will not outspend his government funded opponent. This is the provision struck down by the Supreme Court in Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett.
Effectiveness
A 2003 study by the federal government's nonpartisan General Accounting Office (GAO), requested by Congress as part of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law passed in 2002, found that the Clean Elections system had failed to produce measurable benefits in the two election cycles run under the system in both Maine and Arizona. The average number of candidates per district, percentage of contested races, incumbency rates, incumbency victory margins, perceptions of interest group influence among candidates and citizens, and voter participation did not change notably. Campaign spending decreased in Maine but increased in Arizona and independent expenditures increased in both states. 60% of Maine and 37% of Arizona voters were unaware of the public financing program. The study concluded that "with ... only one election from which to observe most statewide races, it is too early to draw causal linkages".A 2006 study of the 2004 and 2002 campaigns by political scientists Mayer, Werner, and Williams of the University of Wisconsin—Madison argued that the GAO "understate[d] the reforms' impact, in part by making some unusual methodological choices and jettisoning valuable data." They found that the candidate pool and competitiveness increased significantly, while the incumbency rate dropped significantly. A 2007 update, however, found that in the 2006 campaign competitiveness continued to increase slightly but reelection rates "returned to pre-reform levels". The number of at least nominally contested races also continued to increase, reaching 100% in Maine. Mayer, Werner and Williams also found that women were much more likely than men to accept public funding but this had no effect on the gender composition of the legislature.
A study by the non-partisan, privately funded Clean Elections Institute found that the number and geographic, economic, and ethnic diversity of campaign contributors increased significantly, with contributors almost quadrupling, contributions from people with incomes below $40,000 increasing by 40% and contributions from Latinos increasing significantly. A 2008 study by the non-profit, non-partisan Center for Competitive Politics concluded that the process of gathering small contributions needed to qualify for public funding still relied heavily on interest groups. Another 2008 study by the Center for Competitive Politics of Clean Elections programs in Maine and Arizona found that neither state had seen a decline in legislators with “traditional” [law and business] backgrounds in the eight years since the campaign laws were first implemented.
Other studies conducted by the nonpartisan Center for Competitive Politics, found that the programs in Maine, Arizona, and New Jersey had failed to accomplish other stated goals, including electing more women (http://www.campaignfreedom.org/docLib/20080826_Issue_Analysis_3.pdf), reducing government spending (in fact in both states government spending grew more rapidly after the enactment of clean elections) (http://www.campaignfreedom.org/research/resID.104/research_detail.asp), or meeting most other stated objectives, including increasing competition or voter participation. (http://www.campaignfreedom.org/research/resID.87/research_detail.asp)
A 2006 study by the non-partisan, libertarian-leaning Goldwater Institute
Goldwater Institute
The Goldwater Institute is a Phoenix, Arizona-based conservative public policy research organization established in 1988. The president is Darcy A. Olsen. The Goldwater Institute advances public policies with emphasis on lower taxes, limited government spending, school choice, and a reduction in...
found that "incumbency rates have remained near 100% [while] the number of candidates fell substantially ... from 247 to 195. Moreover, the law has not increased minor or third-party participation in politics, and Arizona campaigns remain every bit as hard-edged." However, according to the Clean Elections Institute, the number of legislative candidates increased from 135 in 1998 (http://www.azclean.org/articles/press1.html), the last year before Clean Elections, to 188 in 2004, as reported in the Goldwater study—a 40% increase. In 2006 there were 204 legislative candidates (http://azclean.org/documents/2006WebPrimaryCandidateListing_049.PDF), a 51% increase over the pre-Clean Elections numbers.
In 2008, a study released by the non-partisan, non-profit organization Public Campaign, examined the demographic profile of $5 qualifying contribution donors in Clean Elections gubernatorial campaigns in Arizona over the course of the 2002 and 2006 elections, comparing and contrasting them with contributions raised by candidates running with funding from private sources — more than 67,000 contributions in all. The data were analyzed by zip code alongside U.S. Census data to determine the racial, ethnic, geographic, and economic characteristics of donors. The study, titled All Over The Map, found that Arizona’s qualifying contribution donors are more diverse racially, ethnically, economically, and geographically than donors giving to candidates who choose to rely on private fundraising. In nearly every category, Clean Elections $5 donors were more representative of the state's population than were donors to privately funded campaigns. However, the study has been criticized because it compares donors to Clean Elections only to donors of $200 or more to federal campaigns - in other words, it compared $5 donors under clean elections to $200 donors in federal races, rather than comparing the common universe of all donors, or donors at the same levels of contributions. Federal candidates are not required to report names and addresses of contributors of less than $200 to federal candidates thus the information is not made public.
Supporters
SB 752, the Fair Elections Now Act, calling for Clean Elections in U.S. senate campaigns, was sponsored in the 111th Congress (2009–10) by Senators: Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Arlen SpecterArlen Specter
Arlen Specter is a former United States Senator from Pennsylvania. Specter is a Democrat, but was a Republican from 1965 until switching to the Democratic Party in 2009...
(D-PA). A companion bill, H.R. 1826, was introduced in the House, sponsored by John Larson (D-CT), Chellie Pingree (D-ME), and Walter Jones (R-NC). Unlike the Clean Elections laws in Maine and Arizona, H.R. 1826 dids not include the "rescue funds" provision, perhaps due to concern about constitutionality in the wake of the Davis decision. Neither bill moved out of Committee.
Others who have endorsed clean elections include:
- Barack ObamaBarack ObamaBarack Hussein Obama II is the 44th and current President of the United States. He is the first African American to hold the office. Obama previously served as a United States Senator from Illinois, from January 2005 until he resigned following his victory in the 2008 presidential election.Born in...
as an Illinois senator was the first co-sponsor of the 2007 version of the Durbin-Specter bill.
- John BonifazJohn BonifazJohn C. Bonifaz is a Boston-based attorney and political activist specializing in constitutional law and voting rights, and founder of the National Voting Rights Institute. He is also a former candidate for Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth...
, founder of the National Voting Rights InstituteNational Voting Rights InstituteThe National Voting Rights Institute was a non-partisan, non-profit advocacy organization based in Boston, which described itself as committed to making real the promise of American democracy that meaningful political participation and power should be accessible to all regardless of economic or... - Bill BradleyBill BradleyWilliam Warren "Bill" Bradley is an American hall of fame basketball player, Rhodes scholar, and former three-term Democratic U.S. Senator from New Jersey. He ran unsuccessfully for the Democratic Party's nomination for President in the 2000 election.Bradley was born and raised in a suburb of St....
(D-NJ), former U.S. Senator - John EdwardsJohn EdwardsJohnny Reid "John" Edwards is an American politician, who served as a U.S. Senator from North Carolina. He was the Democratic nominee for Vice President in 2004, and was a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004 and 2008.He defeated incumbent Republican Lauch Faircloth in...
(D-NC), former U.S. Presidential Candidate and Senator - Adonal FoyleAdonal FoyleAdonal David Foyle is a retired Vincentian-American former professional basketball center. He was selected by the Golden State Warriors with the eighth overall selection of the 1997 NBA Draft. He played ten seasons with the team until the team bought out his contract on August 13, 2007. At the...
, NBA player, and founder of Democracy MattersDemocracy MattersDemocracy Matters is a non-profit, non-partisan grassroots student political organization that is dedicated to deepening democracy. Democracy Matters advocates for public financing of election campaigns and other pro-democracy reforms in order to get big private and corporate money out of elections... - Cecil HeftelCecil HeftelCecil Landau Heftel, popularly known as Cec Heftel was an American politician and businessman from Hawai'i...
(D-HI), former U.S. Representative - Ned LamontNed LamontEdward Miner "Ned" Lamont, Jr. is a businessman and heir and most recently an unsuccessful candidate for the 2010 Democratic nomination for Governor of Connecticut. On May 22, 2010, Lamont received more than fifteen percent of the vote at the state Democratic convention, and appeared on the...
(D-CT), former U.S. Senate candidate - John McCainJohn McCainJohn Sidney McCain III is the senior United States Senator from Arizona. He was the Republican nominee for president in the 2008 United States election....
(R-AZ), U.S. Presidential Candidate and Senator (McCain has also expressed opposition to a national version of the system and has not endorsed or co-sponsored the bills introduced in the U.S. Senate.) - Ralph NaderRalph NaderRalph Nader is an American political activist, as well as an author, lecturer, and attorney. Areas of particular concern to Nader include consumer protection, humanitarianism, environmentalism, and democratic government....
of ConnecticutConnecticutConnecticut is a state in the New England region of the northeastern United States. It is bordered by Rhode Island to the east, Massachusetts to the north, and the state of New York to the west and the south .Connecticut is named for the Connecticut River, the major U.S. river that approximately...
, U.S. Presidential Candidate - Janet NapolitanoJanet NapolitanoJanet Napolitano is the third and current United States Secretary of Homeland Security, serving in the administration of President Barack Obama. She is the fourth person to hold the position, which was created after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. A member of the Democratic Party, she was the 21st...
(D-AZ), former Governor, current Secretary of Homeland Security - Bill Richardson (D-NM), U.S. Presidential Candidate and Governor
- Eliot SpitzerEliot SpitzerEliot Laurence Spitzer is an American lawyer, former Democratic Party politician, and political commentator. He was the co-host of In the Arena, a talk-show and punditry forum broadcast on CNN until CNN cancelled his show in July of 2011...
(D-NY), former Governor - John EderJohn EderJohn Eder is an American activist and politician from the state of Maine. Eder lives in Portland and is a member of the Maine Green Independent Party, the Maine affiliate of the national Green Party. He served in the Maine House of Representatives as the legislature's first member of the Green...
Green Party leader who utilized Maine's public financing to win office to the Maine State Legislature
See also
- Iron triangle
- Money trailMoney trailThe phrase "money trail" is a catch phrase, used to describe the source of funding for a politician or interest group. Such funding sources are not always obvious and is often only discovered through investigation by journalists, government agencies, or opposition groups...
- Political financePolitical financePolitical finance covers all funds that are raised and spent for political purposes. Necessarily such purposes include all political contests for voting by citizens, especially the election campaigns for various public offices that are run by parties and candidates. Moreover all modern democracies...
, section on Regulation
Legislation
- Proposed US bill (introduced in House)
- Center for Competitive Politics Analysis of Fair Elections Now Act
- Arizona law (pdf)
- Maine law
- Common Cause - list of state efforts
- Proposed New York Bill
Studies
- Early Experience of Two States that Offer Full Public Funding of Political Campaigns, study by United States Government Accounting Office.
- Reclaiming Democracy in Arizona, study by the Arizona Clean Elections Institute
- Campaign Promises: A Six-Year Review of Arizona's Experiment with Taxpayer-financed Campaigns, study by the Goldwater Institute.
Related organizations
- Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission
- California Clean Money Campaign
- Center for Competitive Politics
- Clean Elections Institute (Arizona)
- Common Cause
- Democracy Matters
- Fair Elections
- Rhode Islanders for Fair Elections
- Just Six Dollars
- League of Women Voters
- MAPLight.org
- The National Institute on Money in State Politics
- The New York Democracy Project
- Oregon Follow the Money (from Democracy Reform Oregon)
- Public Campaign
- Public Citizen
- Voter Owned Iowa Clean Elections (VOICE)
- Washington Public Campaigns (Washington State)
Press coverage
- The Dirty Truth About Clean Elections
- Senator Peter Mills discusses Clean Elections in Maine
- Votes for Sale? A one-hour special from NOW on PBS
- Large Database of Clean Money Fair Elections Reform News
- Lou Dobbs article on CNN.com
- Coverage from PBS's NOW with Bill Moyers
- AlterNet article
- YES! Magazine article by Public Campaign's Micah Sifry
- "Is Rhode Island Ready for Clean Elections?" - Providence Phoenix