There’s a big difference between the full public financing system backed by Eliot Spitzer (Clean Money Clean Elections) and the partial public financing system that the State Assembly passes each year.
Legislature Should Join Spitzer in Support of Full Public Financing
- Richard Kirsch
It hasn’t taken long to learn that our new governor isn’t afraid to throw down the gauntlet in Albany.
Soon he’ll be challenging the Legislature on one of the issues closest to their hearts—campaign finance reform. Legislators would be well advised to join the governor’s call for creating a new system of full public financing of elections in New York, one that puts voters and taxpayers before the wealthy special interests that fund campaigns. They might even be surprised to find they like a system that frees them from perpetual fundraising from interests who expect something for their campaign dollars. That’s been the experience of legislators in the two states that regularly elect legislators—and statewide officials including a governor—who have never collected a contribution of more than $100 for their election campaigns.
Full public funding of campaigns is already law in Maine and Arizona, where it has worked well through four election cycles. Connecticut will implement the reform in its 2008 election. Arizona’s Gov. Janet Napolitano was elected twice under the system as were four out of five state legislators in Maine, Democrats and Republicans both. It is a proven, sensible way for voters to take back control of politics and make elected officials accountable.
To participate in the voluntary, publicly funded system, candidates must demonstrate broad community support by collecting several hundred small contributions in the district they wish to represent. If successful, they receive enough public funding to wage competitive campaigns and agree to accept no more private donations.
This reform enables people with community support but ordinary financial means to run for office. It frees candidates from too much fundraising, giving them more time to listen to regular voters. Most important, publicly funded candidates who win owe nothing to deep-pocket contributors.
There’s a big difference between the full public financing system backed by Eliot Spitzer and the partial public financing system that the State Assembly passes each year, which is a watered-down version of New York’s City’s matching system. Under the New York City system, according to a recent report from the city’s Campaign Finance Board, candidates who are backed by wealthy campaign contributors still have a big advantage, as do incumbents. The Campaign Finance Board found that, “It is clear that candidates with access to the wealthiest donors have a substantial advantage over opponents who do not.” In fact, the Board reports that less than 6 percent of high-end contributors gave 40 percent of the money in 2005’s citywide races. The Board also found that City Council incumbents maintain a sizeable financial advantage against challengers under the city’s system.
It’s no mystery why the city’s partial public financing system falls short of its stated goals: partial public financing means mostly private financing. In 2005, two-thirds of the money (64 percent) for City Council races was private. Candidates for City Council or citywide office still need to raise money throughout the campaign, looking for the biggest checks possible, often from interests with a financial interest in city government. Under full public financing, candidates get their money up-front, once they qualify, and can stop fundraising.
Full public financing has one more big advantage over partial systems: the ability to effectively deal with “the Bloomberg factor,” the specter of a candidate who either from personal wealth or private fundraising, spends more than the spending limits allowed for publicly financed candidates. Under a matching system, the publicly financed candidate must keep fundraising in the hope the he or she will stay competitive. But under full public financing, candidates receive grants of public funds to keep them competitive, without having to do more fundraising.
Now, with the governor’s endorsement, that support is rapidly growing.
The Democratically controlled Connecticut State Legislature and Republican Gov. Jodi Rell established that state’s full public financing system in 2005, shortly after Rell’s predecessor, Gov. John Rowland, went to jail in a campaign finance scandal. We shouldn’t need a scandal in New York for the Legislature to join Gov. Spitzer in giving New York a campaign finance system that is among the strongest in the nation, one which removes all the conflicts for legislators having to choose between voters and campaign contributors.
Under full public financing, voters are campaign contributors and the public’s interest comes first.
Richard Kirsch is the executive director of Citizen Action of New York.