Campaign Finance Reform:  State by State   At this writing (10/08), about half the states in the U.S. have public financing of elections in some form. Of these states, three have full public funding for top statewide offices; the remainder offer some public funding for a variety of offices, both state and local. The following digest (also available in pdf version) includes information about the genesis of these active programs, lists some of the differences among them, and attempts to track recent reform developments. ALASKA Clean Election Initiative Fails August 26, 2008, was primary day in Alaska and the ballot initiative to establish a statewide Clean Elections program failed to pass, losing by a 64 to 35 percent margin. The ballot measure (No. 3: 07CASE) was designed to authorize a voluntary program of public funding for state election campaigns. Jeanette Galanis, National Field Director for Public Campaign, explained:  "Without the resources necessary, state advocates were not able to fully explain the advantages of Clean Elections to the electorate. With incumbents under FBI investigation and three other ballot initiatives with more funding, the struggle for media attention and the focus of voters was highly competitive." Under the provisions of the rejected proposal, candidates would have needed to collect a certain number of signatures and $5 campaign contributions from district voters and agree to spending limits in order to qualify for funding. A qualified candidate could receive state matching funds if he/she was opposed by a candidate not taking part in the program. ARIZONA Opponents Chip Away At Landmark Arizona Clean Elections Achievements In November 1998, Arizona voters passed the Arizona Clean Elections Act, which since 2000 has provided full public funding for statewide and legislative candidates who qualify by raising a certain number of $5 contributions from voters. The sources of the public funds include a tax checkoff, voluntary contributions and a surcharge on civil and criminal penalties. Since the onset, state voters and a majority of eligible candidates have shown strong support for the system. Arizona is seen as a leader in this effort and officials and advocates often are asked to comment when other states and cities consider similar systems. Even so, special interests repeatedly have tried to overturn the system, hoping to restore power lost since the Clean Elections program was enacted. In 2004, for example, opponents collected petition signatures to place a repeal before voters but the issue was removed by a court ruling on constitutional grounds. A similar attempt was tried in 2008. An anti-Clean Elections group called The Goldwater Institute has worked for years to get the state's successful Clean Elections program overturned. In late August, 2008 the group was successful in getting District Judge Roslyn Silver to rule against the matching funds provision of the law that provides "rescue" funds to Clean Elections candidates who are significantly outspent by privately financed opponents. However, the Institute was unsuccessful in its first effort to halt the use of these funds for this election cycle, so candidates who have chosen to bypass private money in favor public funding are safe for now. Judge Silver ruled that the key “rescue fund” provision of Arizona’s system violates constitutional free speech rights but that a challenge came too late to warrant immediately putting it on hold. The Institute’s suit asked the judge to bar the state from paying so-called “matching funds” to candidates who are outspent by opponents who don’t sign up for state financing. The judge refused to do that outright, though, denying a request for a temporary restraining order. She wrote that the late challenge, filed just before a primary election, hadn’t given either side time to present evidence. She set a hearing to consider issuing a preliminary injunction or holding further hearings. Still, the ruling could have a major impact in November’s general election. If Silver issues a preliminary injunction, candidates who opted not to take public financing could spend as much as they want without worrying that opponentswill get a supplemental cash infusion fro m the state. Meantime, the Citizens Clean Elections Commission has assured participating candidates that the issuance of matching funds during the General Election will continue. Some 67 percent of those running for either the House or Senate (124 of 184) are using the historic program. Nine of 12 candidates running for three seats on Arizona’s Corporation Commission are “running clean” in November. Clean Election funding has been hiked 60% for statewide candidates, 30% for governor. Arizona’s recent experience has shown that donors of small amounts for qualifying purposes are more diverse racially, ethnically, economically and geographically than donors giving to campaigns of those opting to remain with the private system. ARKANSAS Arkansas has no provision for public support of elections but did in 1996 enact tax credits for contributions to candidates, parties and PACs. CALIFORNIA Clean Elections Pilot For SOS Races Up to Voters in 2010 In early October 2008, Governor Shwarzenegger signed a bill which, if approved by popular vote in June 2010, will establish a pilot project for voluntary full public financing for Secretary of State candidates in 2014 and 2018, modeled after the systems that have been working in Arizona and Maine for eight years. AB 583 has been amended to include funding by voluntary contributions designated on state tax returns plus a registration fee of $350 a year for lobbyists, lobbying firms and lobbyist employers, the same as in Illinois. Lobbyists now pay fees of $25 every two years, one of the lowest rates in the country. The Fair Elections measure was supported by several good government groups including the California Clean Money Campaign, League of Women Voters of California, California Common Cause, and CALPIRG. A Clean Elections ballot initiative, Proposition 89, was defeated in California in 2006 by a three-to-one margin. Supporters believe that non-public financing factors led to its demise, not general public opposition to the Clean Elections concept. Polls consistently show that nearly two-thirds of Californians believe that their state is run for the benefit of a few big special interests rather than for ordinary citizens. COLORADO Reform Initiative Spurs Clean Election Coalition A new enthusiasm for Clean Elections has sprung from the success of a 2006 ethics reform initiative here and the election of new pro-reform candidates. Coalition partners are working to craft new legislation and a plan to enact it. CONNECTICUT 2008 Fall Elections Inaugurate State’s New Clean Elections Program Connecticut’s inaugural election season with its new Citizens Election Program passed its first test in August, 2008. Legislative candidates from the various political parties who participated in the program won 15 of 19 primary contests. The first primary under the new program had an exceptional 85 percent participation rate—a record for a first-time system. The 19 contests nearly doubled the number of contested primaries seen in 2006 according to the State Elections Enforcement Commission. In these contested primaries, 35 of the 40 candidates, or 88 percent, participated in the voluntary program. Many of the candidates were newcomers who said they never would have run without the support of public money. A total of 52 Senate candidates and 178 House candidates have pledged to participate in the Citizens Election Program in November’s general election, while only 11 are not using the program. The support is strong from Democrats and Republicans alike. Additionally, the number of legislative races going unchallenged by a major party candidate has decreased from the 2006 level, according to Connecticut Common Cause. There are 59 unopposed races, a decrease from 70 in 2006. Under the CEP, legislative candidates must obtain a minimum number of $5 donations in private money from district voters before qualifying for public money. They must also agree to limit spending and may not accept donations from state contractors or lobbyists. To keep the playing field level, larger grants are available to candidates whose opponents refuse public financing. Some observers have called the Connecticut program the most comprehensive and well-rounded public financing program in the country. Legislators and citizens elsewhere will be watching to see how well the system works over the long run. Meanwhile, a suit brought by the ACLU is challenging Act provisions which the organization argues give preferential treatment to the two major parties. Public funding for gubernatorial candidates and other constitutional offices goes into effect in 2010. The Citizens Election Program was enacted by the Connecticut General Assembly in 2005. Earlier versions of the program were passed by the Assembly but vetoed by a Republican governor who later was driven from office by scandal. Connecticut also is beginning a pilot program for public funding of municipal elections which began in New Haven with financing for mayoral candidates. A federal judge expects to deliver a verdict in January 2009 on a constitutional challenge to the CEP statute. U.S. District Judge Stefan Underhill said that a later verdict could delay a resolution of the inevitable appeal of his decision until 2010, possibly disrupting the state's first publicly financed campaign for governor. The nationally watched case will be appealed immediately to the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York by the loser, according to lawyers for both sides. The reforms are under attack on two fronts: The Green Party argues that the law discriminates because minor parties are eligible for less campaign funding than Democrats and Republicans. Also, lobbyists object--on free speech grounds--to the complete ban on campaign contributions by lobbyists, state contractors and their spouses. The challenge doesn’t jeopardize public financing of General Assembly campaigns now underway. Connecticut recently has seen a record number of women seeking office.  According to the Secretary of the State, "2008 is turning out to be the year of the woman" with 14 women running for state senate and 88 running for state representative. More than 90 percent of women running this cycle opted for the Citizens' Elections Program. FLORIDA Florida introduced a partial system for the public financing of statewide elections in 1986. Under Florida law, candidates for governor and other statewide offices who raise a qualifying amount of money and agree to spending limits are eligible for public matching funds. Contributions of $250 or less from individuals are matched 1-to-1 with public funds. Also, if a candidate exceeds the voluntary spending limit, their opponent is eligible to receive additional public funds equal to the amount by which the limit has been exceeded. Reform supporters like the Florida Clean Election Campaign argue that the current election-finance system continues to suppress the influence of individual citizens by allowing elected officials to accept large campaign contributions from private interests over which they have governmental jurisdiction. On a positive note, constituents can examine detailed financial records of campaign contributions and expenditures in data required of political campaigns and committees in the state. GEORGIA Clean Election Package Proposed In Assembly In the now-adjourned 2008 session of the General Assembly, sponsors unsuccessfully proposed the Georgia Clean and Fair Elections Act to establish a commission to oversee a voluntary funding alternative to the current system and create the Georgia Democracy Endowment to serve as the source of clean funding. Inspired by measures in Arizona, Maine, Connecticut and elsewhere, the Act was designed to produce public funding for qualified candidates running for statewide and legislative offices. Several active good-government groups back a task force on public financing of judges as well a long-range plan for statewide and legislative Clean Elections reforms. HAWAII In 1979, Hawaii instituted a partial public financing system that provides money to all candidates agreeing to a voluntary cap on spending. The grant is an amount up to 15% of that spending limit. This system involving state offices is financed by general appropriations and a tax-form check off. Also, citizens are allowed tax deductions for contributions to candidates who abide by spending limits. IDAHO Since 1975, Idahoans have had a tax check off system which produces campaign funds for the political party designated by the taxpayer. IOWA State Leaders Block Election Reforms While key Senate and House leadership continues to stall on Voter-Owned Iowa Clean Elections (VOICE) legislation, other lawmakers support the need to change the state’s broken elections. Citizens for Community Improvement members and others worked unsuccessfully to pass House File 580, a component of VOICE, in the 2008 session of the legislature. The Assembly reconvenes in January, 2009. HF 580 would have required 527 groups to file disclosure reports similar to those filed by candidates, political parties and PACs if they engage in activities to influence elections. Currently, 527s (the name refers to a section of the U.S. tax code) are not required to disclose their funding or spending. This would allow powerful, special-interest groups - commonly known for their attack ads - to hide who their contributors are. CCI/VOICE has mounted a petition drive it hopes might influence Gov. Culver and the General Assembly. Since 1987, Iowa has had a tax check off system which benefits any political party designated by the taxpayer. ILLINOIS Public Financing Bill First In Years A bill to create the Illinois Clean Elections Act (HB1640) was introduced in 2008 General Assembly session but died in the Rules Committee. It was believed to be the first introduction in several years of a bill to require public financing of elections for Constitutional state officers, state senators and state representatives. The bill would have amended the State Finance Act to create the Illinois Clean Election Fund as a special fund in the State treasury and would have amended the Illinois Income Tax Act to create an individual tax return check off in support of the Fund. KENTUCKY Kentucky has partial public funding for gubernatorial races. MAINE Maine Takes Pride In National Leadership In November 1996, voters in Maine approved a ballot initiative, the Maine Clean Election Act. Effective in 2000, the Act established a system of public financing and voluntary spending limits for governor, state senator, and state representative candidates. Candidates who raise a threshold number of small contributions from registered voters in their district and agree not to raise any more private money qualify for a fixed amount of public financing for their campaign. The program has been upheld against constitutional challenge by the federal court of appeals. In 2008, seventy-three percent of Maine candidates (306 of 419) are running using the state’s historic Clean Elections system. In addition, 95 percent of the 186 seats up for election in the legislature have at least two candidates running. Voters have benefited by having a more diverse group of candidates from which to choose and see more competition for office. The popularity of taxpayer-funded legislative races here may be peaking after years of dramatic growth, according to figures from the state commission which administers the program. Almost three-quarters of the Democratic, Republican and Green Independent candidates who ran in the June primaries tapped the state's Clean Election Fund to pay for their campaigns, only slightly higher than the 74 percent in 2006 and 72 percent for primary races in 2004. Maine voters affirmed their strong support for the public financing system for gubernatorial candidates according to 2008 poll results released by Maine Citizens for Clean Elections (MCCE). When asked whether candidates for governor should use Maine’s Clean Election law, 82 percent of Mainers polled said “Yes,” and self-described “likely voters” were significantly more likely to support the law than those who don’t typically vote. Three-fifths of polled residents said they would be more likely to vote for a candidate for governor who participated in the Clean Election program. In 2006, the fund spent $3.3 million on legislative races and $3.5 million on gubernatorial campaigns. Raising the bar. In moves to make a good system better, the 123rd Legislature made changes to the Clean Election Act, the most significant being a 30 percent increase in the number of qualifying contributions required of candidates for governor to assure that public funds go only to viable candidates with broad support. Also enacted were a ban on paying family members with public funds, new protections to verify qualifying contributions and a measure to give the Ethics Commission authority to decertify candidates for serious infractions. MARYLAND State is best prospect for breakthrough in 2008. Maryland's public financing system provides matching funds (1:1 match) for candidates for governor and lieutenant governor in the primary and general elections. The source of the funds is contributions from taxpayers and revenue from fines related to the public financing law. The law has been in place since 1974, but since then only in the 1994 elections has a gubernatorial candidate from a major party opted into the system. In early 2008, Senator Paul Pinsky and Delegate Jon Cardin proposed a bill modeled on successful reforms in Maine, Arizona and Connecticut to create a voluntary, publicly funded system for General Assembly elections. The program would have been funded by an allocation of $7.5 million or more per year from Maryland’s $70 million unclaimed property fund, as well as a $5 check-off on state income tax forms, excess seed money, qualifying contributions and fines. The Assembly adjourned in April 2008 without adopting the measure. Last year the House of Delegates approved a similar measure but it was not considered in the Senate. A record $93 million was pumped into Maryland’s 2006 election, more than doubling what was spent a decade ago. As in most states, the skyrocketing campaign inflation rate gives wealthy individuals and special interests disproportionate influence in the state’s politics. Opinion polls show majorities of Marylanders believe lawmakers listen more often to deep-pocket contributors than to regular voters. Many lawmakers dislike the current system for various reasons. An October 2007 poll showed that 72% of Marylanders support this reform, as do the Washington Post, Baltimore Sun, NAACP, AFL-CIO, Common Cause, League of Women Voters, Sierra Club, and many other groups. Maryland already has a partial system for directing modest public funds to qualifying candidates for Governor and Lieutenant Governor. MASSACHUSETTS Voters Want Public Funding But Assembly Starves Funding In November 1998, Massachusetts overwhelmingly (67%) passed a "clean elections" public financing law that provided the option of full public financing for the campaigns of qualified candidates for statewide offices plus state Senate and House of Representatives. Faced with the unfamiliar threat of having competition as they run for office, the Legislature took measures to gut the law with schemes to divert funding and an inadequate voter check off. Some lawmakers claimed that the voters didn't understand what they were voting for via referendum. In 2003, the system was repealed after an advisory initiative in which voters voted nearly 2 to 1 against this use of government funds. After the repeal, a much weaker partial public financing law for six statewide offices was put in place which provides matching funds for contributions of up to $250 for qualified candidates who agree to specific limited expenditures for their campaigns. Good government groups are active here but have been unable to mount a successful campaign to reinstate Clean Elections on a statewide basis. MICHIGAN Ballot Measure Calls For Reforms In 1976, in the wake of Watergate, the state enacted the Michigan Campaign Finance Act establishing a public campaign financing program for gubernatorial elections. The program to provide supplemental public money to candidates willing to limit their spending is still in force but has fallen into disrepair. Inflation has driven campaign costs upwards and program revenue and disbursements of public money have failed to keep pace. Participation, which had been active for 20 years, now appears incompatible with running viable campaigns. After a study by the Center for Governmental Studies, Michigan was advised to undertake significant efforts to revitalize its program. However, the cost of serious reforms in the short term may make them impractical given the state’s poor economic situation. Under the old Campaign Finance Act, candidates for governor qualify for public funding by agreeing to limit their spending to $2 million per election and by raising $75,000 in qualifying contributions. Once qualified, major party candidates are eligible to receive two dollars in public money for every one dollar raised in public funds (up to $990,000) for the primary election. General election candidates receive a lump sum of $1,125,000. Both the primary and general elections have separate $2 million expenditure limits. Candidates cansupplement the public money with private contributions. Third-party candidates receive money in smaller quantities. The Center for Governmental Studies recommends that Michigan modernize the gubernatorial financing program or replace it with judicial public financing, plus strengthen existing campaign finance laws. A recent report by the Brennan Center for Justice called Michigan’s gubernatorial public financing system “almost obsolete.” In order to encourage candidates to participate and enable them to run viable campaigns, the Center encouraged the state to increase the amount of funding available to candidates as well as spending limits. Ideally, the report said, Michigan should implement a functional public financing system for all statewide, legislative and judicial campaigns. In early 2008, a group of activists and lawmakers introduced unsuccessful legislation to finance the campaigns of Michigan Supreme Court candidates. Under such a law, qualifying candidates would have been eligible for about $2 million in public funds. Up to 85% of the parties involved in cases before the court have made campaign contributions to one or more of the justices. MINNESOTA Loopholes Undermine Long-standing Clean Elections System Minnesota's public financing system was enacted in the 1970s and significantly reformed in 1993. It was the first state to provide public financing for both legislative and gubernatorial candidates and is generally considered one of the most successful campaign finance systems in the country. Candidates who agree to a spending limit receive public funding equal to 50% of the limit. Public funds come from a combination of annual appropriations and a tax check-off allowing taxpayers to direct those funds to a qualified political party. In addition, a unique program allows anyone contributing up to $50 to a party receives a refund from the state. Meantime, The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law issued a report finding that a major loophole permits special interests to funnel unlimited amounts of money to political parties, legislative caucuses, and PACs, creating opportunities for special interest groups to distort the political process. Independent spending by special interests has exploded in Minnesota. According to the lead author of the study, Suzanne Novak, the two major parties raised over $4 million in 2004 and each party's caucus campaign committees collected nearly $3 million apiece, sums that far outweighed the amounts candidates could raise and spend. Besides recommending limits on big-donor contributions, the report concluded that more must be done to combat the appearance of corruption. Novak noted that despite a high rate of participation in the public financing program, about one in four Minnesota citizens said that they were "extremely concerned" about "the influence of money in state politics" in a recent Joyce Foundation survey. "To restore the public's faith in the system, Minnesota lawmakers should consider implementing a full public financing system," she stated. State and local advocates have welcomed the Brennan Center's report and urged the Governor and Legislature to act on its recommendations. MISSOURI Reformers Struggle To Get Measure To Voters Missouri farmers, who helped gather more than 108,000 from state voters, have joined with other campaign finance reformers carrying petitions to Jefferson City to place a reform measure on the November, 2008 ballot. Missouri Voters for Fair Elections, a coalition of individuals and more than 50 organizations, has worked since September to gather the required signatures to qualify the Fair Elections Act, a comprehensive campaign finance reform measure. If enacted by the voters of Missouri, the Fair Elections Act would: • Limit the cost and the length of campaigns. • Level the playing field for candidates by allowing qualified Missouri citizens to run for state office. Candidates who abide by strict spending limits and take no private money can receive a set amount of public funding to run their campaigns. • Reduce the power of special interests by severing the ties between candidates and special-interest campaign contributions and limiting "soft money" contributions. MONTANA State Has Caps On Donations A 2007 amendment to the state’s campaign-finance laws allows donors to give up to $160 in each election to candidates running for the legislature. Even with that increase, legislative campaigns continue to operate under the most stringent campaign-contribution limits in the nation. NEBRASKA State’s Public Financing Plan Is Unique Nebraska passed a unique public financing law in 1992. The system provides public funds to legislative candidates who agree to a voluntary spending limit and whose opponent exceeds the spending limit. If sufficient funds are available, statewide candidates may also receive public funds. The source of the funds are primarily an appropriation and contributions by taxpayers from tax refunds. NEW HAMPSHIRE  Public Funding Commission Issues New Report  A commission tasked with finding if it's possible for the state to finance state campaigns with taxpayer money has issued its first report, saying it would be in the best interest of New Hampshire. The commission recommends that candidates for state senate, governor or executive council can receive matching funds if the candidate reaches a theshold number of donations from contributors. The commission estimates the cost at $6.5 million annually. To fund the system, the group said the state should offer a special "first in the nation" license plate, institute a voluntary check-off box on tax returns, and increase fees for lobbyists, criminal fines and the car rental tax. The state also could bring back an estate tax and institute a levy on plastic grocery bags to help fund the system. The commisssion suggested setting up a pilot program in six senate districts for three elections at a cost of about $750,000. The recommendations will be delivered to the legislature when its new session resumes in 2009. The commission's report said the conclusions confirmed the belief of members that a public funding system for campaigns was "in the best interest of New Hampshire, consistent with political traditions of citizen involvement in elections and government." Link to the report: New Hampshire Public Elections Financing Commission  NEW JERSEY Clean Elections Pilot Program Threatened The Clean Elections program, which backers hoped would reduce the influence of big-spending special interests in New Jersey legislative elections and open the door to a wider field of candidates, appears to be dead for 2009, and maybe for keeps. Its founder and chief booster, Assembly Speaker Joe Roberts, was quick to yank the plug after a federal judge in Arizona threw out a key part of Arizona's Clean Elections law. Arizona's program, like the two modest pilot programs run by New Jersey in 2005 and 2007, gives state money to candidates who collect a base amount of small private contributions and agree to cap their campaign spending. U.S. District Judge Roslyn Silver voided Arizona's "rescue money" provision, which,like New Jersey's, awards additional state funds to clean candidates who are outspent by nonparticipating opponents or targeted by independent groups' attack ads. Silver ruled that rescue money is similar to the so-called Millionaire's Amendment in federal election law, which the U.S. Supreme Court found unconstitutional on grounds that it discriminates against candidates who finance their own campaigns. New Jersey's nonpartisan Office of Legislative Services previously had reached the same conclusion. Other experts deny that the two situations are the same. It's possible that a higher federal court would recognize distinctions between the pilot program provisions and the Millionaire’s Amendment and overturn Silver's decision on appeal. And it remains to be seen whether legislators will table the whole experiment or re-tool for 2011 elections in conformity with guidelines left by the Arizona decision. The goals of the experiment are to improve the unfavorable opinion that many residents have toward the political process‚ strengthen the integrity of the process, and improve access to it by individuals and groups who have not been part of it. Since 1974, New Jersey has had a partial public financing system that modestly benefits qualifying candidates for Governor through a combination of direct appropriations and tax check offs. NEW MEXICO State Among Leaders In Clean Elections Movement In 2003, New Mexico passed a public financing law for candidates vying for a seat on the Public Regulation Commission, responsible for oversight of state public utilities. Similar to the full-public finance laws in Arizona and Maine, candidates who raise a threshold amount of small donations may receive full public funding for their campaigns if they agree not to accept additional private donations. The system is funded by a surcharge on the companies regulated by the commission. In 2007, New Mexico added public financing for candidates for judgeships on the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court of New Mexico. Advocates want to further expand the program in the next few years. Albuquerque, the capital city, has a public financing program for municipal offices. New Mexico is one of five states with no campaign contribution limits for corporations, unions or anyone else, but there’s been a strong push in recent years by good-government groups to change that. The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2008 decision to strike down a law designed to level the playing field for non-wealthy political candidates could have a dramatic impact on the campaign-finance laws here and elsewhere. In striking down the Millionaire’s Amendment, the court could threaten state public-financing systems and restrictions on corporate and union spending. NEW YORK Progress Very Measured In Empire State After years of extensive promises of election reform in Albany, little has been enacted. Under heavy criticism for inaction, Gov. David Patterson (D) in June 2008 announced details of yet another campaign finance reform plan with just days to go before the General Assembly session’s windup. Clean election supporters who had been encouraging such action for months found appealing aspects of the new proposal but rightly suspected that the bill would soon languish and die, as had others before them. Earlier, for example, Governor George Pataki introduced a campaign finance bill that he hadn't discussed with any of the leaders toward the end of a legislative session and proudly pointed to his accomplishment as the bill went nowhere. There was much speculation over how strongly the new governor is willing to advocate for campaign finance reform, an issue he strongly backed as Senate Minority leader. New York has the highest number of bills introduced in any state Legislature but the proportion passed into law is among the lowest of the states. New York City for many years has had a program of public financing for city races. NORTH CAROLINA State Tests Pilot Plan In Some Districts North Carolina is conducting a voluntary Clean Elections pilot project for downticket statewide offices in designated voting districts. The program provides a public-financing option for candidates who prove they have grassroots voter support in two House districts and two Senate districts as a way to test this type of program for legislative races. Candidates who do not raise or spend more than $6,000 are eligible. Qualifiers receive a competitive sum of public money for the general election (the median spent in earlier elections). No initial grant is awarded in the primary. The candidate who raises qualifying donations and is the party nominee gets funds for the general election (about $50,000 for the House, $75,000 for Senate). Qualification requires raising a minimum of 150 small donations ($10-$100) for the House and 300 for the Senate from registered state voters. The program’s cost (about $350,000 a year) is covered by voluntary taxpayerdesignated funds. In a recent expansion of the pilot program, candidates running for three Council of State seats—State Auditor, State Insurance Commissioner, and Superintendent of Public Instruction—have the option of using the Voter-Owned pilot program for the first time. North Carolina passed a public campaign-funding law in 2002 for judicial candidates only. The law, which went into effect in 2004, provides full public financing for candidates for Supreme Court and the State Court of Appeals, provided such candidates raise "seed money" from at least 350 contributors between $10 and $500 each. The grants are funded by a tax check-off and $50 voluntary contributions from lawyers when they pay their privilege license tax. In 2004, 12 of 16 judiciary candidates qualified for a total of $1.5 million. In the 2006 election, eight of 12 top-court candidates qualified for up to $216,650 each for the general elections. Recently a challenge to the law was raised in federal court. OHIO Scandals Demonstrate Need For Reforms In recent years, Ohio has been rocked by repeated corruption scandals and has risen to national prominence as a paradigm of dysfunctional democracy. With this troubled legacy, Ohio’s campaign finance laws plainly need reform. Last year, a Brennan Center for Justice study found: • The state’s limits on campaign contributions rank among the highest in the nation. • The weak limits that do exist are undermined by significant loopholes that allow wealthy donors to launder contributions through intermediaries. • For the first time since 1908, corporations may contribute to political parties. • The only public financing system is a tax refund of no more than $50 for individual contributions to candidates. Ohio’s political parties do benefit from a tax check off system that allocates funds on an equal basis. OREGON State Tries Public Funding At Local Level VOE (Voter-Owned Elections) legislation was enacted by the Portland City Council in May, 2005 after an 18-month process featuring three public hearings packed with reform supporters. Each of two Portland mayoral candidates in the last election put self-imposed limits on the size of contributions to their campaigns and on overall spending. Reining in campaign costs and reducing special interest influence by at least ratcheting down the size of contributions are in keeping with the goals of VOE. RHODE ISLAND Reform Plan Advanced By Young A challenge to the status quo in Rhode Island is coming from Te-Ping Chen, a 19-year-old Brown University sophomore from California, who is spearheading a drive to introduce a full program of public financing of elections. Chen, joined by other Brown students and Common Cause, promotes the Clean Elections concept used in Connecticut, Maine, and Arizona. Clean Elections legislation sponsored byRep. Edith Ajello (D-Providence) and Sen. Rhoda Perry (D-Providence) would affect state offices — legislators and general officers, including the governor. Proponents describe it as a way to encourage more candidacies, put more power in the hands of voters, and strengthen the democratic process. In 1988, Rhode Island enacted a partial public funding system under which candidates for statewide office who raise a threshold amount of money and agree to spending limits are eligible for public matching funds. Candidates are eligible for 2-to-1 matching grants for contributions of $500 or less and a 1-to-1 match for contributions in excess of $500. Public finance candidates also receive free air-time on community antenna television and the Rhode Island public television station. Grants are underwritten by tax check offs. Funds are distributed to eligible political parties designated by the taxpayer up to a ceiling of $200,000. Any remainder in the fund goes to qualifying candidates in the general election for top state officers in the form of matching funds. TEXAS Plan Pushed For Funding Races For Judges, Lege Clean Elections Texas, a collaborative effort of several statewide and national organizations, is spearheading an effort to pass two Clean Elections measures in the 81st Texas Legislative Session that will provide public funding for judicial and legislative races. The group calls this legislation the “single most important thing Texans can do to restore our government to a participatory democracy.” Clean Elections Texas is urging local officials (city council, county commissioners, others) to pass resolutions calling on the legislature to pass the CE measures in 2009 and to take a variety of other actions in support of these aims. UTAH Since 1998, Utah has had a partial public funding system underwritten by tax check offs. Money so earmarked goes to political parties designated by the taxpayer. VERMONT House Fails To Override Gov’s Veto Vermont’s legislature passed a Clean Elections Act in 1997 which applied to candidates for Governor and Lieutenant Governor. The Act has been the subject of federal court litigation which has rendered the program inactive, except for its use by two candidates in the 2000 election. The Act also imposed mandatory spending limits on all state and local candidates. Governor Jim Douglas backed his biggest political contributors in vetoing restorative campaign finance legislation (S.278) in 2008. Once more the Vermont House of Representatives failed to override the veto, this time by a onevote margin. The bill would have set limits on campaign contributions in the wake of the divided U.S. Supreme Court decision to strike down substantial portions of the state's landmark campaign finance law in 2006. Though the override vote passed easily in the Senate with support from both Democrats and Republicans, the 99-51 House vote fell largely along party lines, with just one Democrat and one Independent joining all of the House Republicans in upholding the veto. VIRGINIA In 1999, Virginia enacted a partial public system that sends money to designated political parties taken from tax refund surcharges in the amount of $25 per individual. WASHINGTON Public Financing Bill In Building Phase A coalition of non-profits, Washington Public Campaigns, is behind a proposal for the public financing of races for the state Supreme Court. A bill is in the drafting stage involving talks with coalition partners and legislative champions to build consensus around goals and provisions. Legislative language might not be finalized until late November 2008, or later. In March, 2008, Governor Gregoire signed a bill promoted by Washington Public Campaigns which eliminates a previous state ban on using public funds for political campaigns at the local level. The new law gives permission for cities, towns, counties and local districts to create their own programs offering public financing for campaigns for local office. Any such program must be submitted to local voters throug a local referendum or advisory ballot. Washington Public Campaigns has organized groups of activists in urban areas such as Olympia, Seattle and Tacoma. WEST VIRGINIA Coalition Mounts Petition Drive A coalition called WV Citizens for Clean Elections is sponsoring a petition drive to demonstrate that voters want change in the way Delegates and Senators are elected and a more diverse field of qualified candidates from which to choose. If you are a West Virginian, you can be involved by signing the petition and by telling your friends about this campaign. The hope of WVCCE and allies is to collect as many signatures as possible to present to legislative leaders while pushing for passage of the Public Campaign Financing Act during the 2009 legislative session. WISCONSIN Clean Election Gridlock By Design In 1977, Wisconsin instituted a tax form check off which provides modest public subsidies to qualifying candidates for state executive office, state legislature and state supreme court candidates in spring, general and special elections. The check off produces only about $300,000 of public funds per year. Good-government groups have been working for years to bring a full statewide Clean Elections system to the state, patterned after precedent-setting plans in Maine and Arizona. Others favor partial public funding embodied in legislation sponsored by Sen. Mike Ellis. The Clean Money Campaign Reform plan calls for full public financing, except for qualifying and seed contributions, while the Ellis model would provide a mix of 45 percent public dollars and 55 percent private money. Clean Money candidates could take money only from individuals and could not take contributions above $100 (with ceilings on totals). Under the Ellis plan, contributions up to $10,000 could be accepted, even by those taking public funds. Clean Money supporters claim that legislative leaders produce only public financing legislation that they know will later be overturned by the courts. Democracy Campaign director Mike McCabe said of the 2008 session: “What we’ve seen is gridlock by design; choreographed stalemate,” he said. The Senate passed the Impartial Justice bill creating publicly financed state Supreme Court elections on a bipartisan 23-10 vote only to have the bill held up in the Assembly. A bill requiring full disclosure of special-interest electioneering was passed unanimously by the Senate before being blocked in the Assembly. Legislative leaders acknowledged that the Senate-passed bill would get up to 75 votes in the Assembly but would not be debated because of “business opposition.” Proposals to change campaign and elections rules are expected to be an early focus in the next legislative session, including suggestions to close the issue-ad loophole to throw light on sources behind unregulated political ads. Interest groups pour in large amounts of money and keep the public in the dark about who is footing the bill behind the scenes. The state so far has failed to act despite a series of scandals and a Chamberlin Research poll showing 76% support for 100-percent public funding of campaigns. Over half of state residents believe publicly financed elections would make a “big difference,” even when explicitly told tax dollars would be used for political campaigns under such a system.