From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Clean Elections (sometimes called Clean Money or Voter-Owned Elections) is a system of government financing of political campaigns used in a small number of states and local political jurisdictions in the United States. Some form of Clean Elections legislation has been adopted, mostly through ballot initiatives, in Maine, Arizona, North Carolina, New Mexico, Vermont, and Massachusetts (though in the latter two it has been weakened or repealed). Clean Elections was passed by normal legislative means in Connecticut in December, 2005. Two municipalities in 2005, Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Portland, Oregon have also passed Clean Elections for municipal elections. A Clean Elections ballot initiative, Proposition 89 was defeated in California in 2006 by 25.7% to 74.3%.

Under a Clean Elections system, candidates hoping to receive public financing must collect a certain number of small "qualifying contributions" (often as little as $5) from registered voters. In return, they are paid a flat sum by the government to run their campaigns, and agree not to raise money from private sources. Candidates who are outspent by privately-funded opponents may receive additional public matching funds.

Because the system is voluntary, it appears not to run afoul of the United States Supreme Court's Buckley v. Valeo decision, which struck down mandatory spending limits as an unconstitutional restriction on free speech.

Comprehensive Clean Elections systems have been in effect in Arizona and Maine for several years. Not surprisingly, most candidates take the subsidies rather than compete under the resulting handicap of raising voluntary contributions. In Maine, an overwhelming majority (3/4) of state legislators take the government money. In Arizona, the same is true of a majority of the state house, as well as the current Governor (Janet Napolitano).

At the Federal level, Senator Russ Feingold is a supporter. In the 2008 Presidential Campaign, John Edwards has also expressed support.

Contents 1 Differences between Clean Elections and traditional Campaign Finance Reform 2 Effectiveness of Clean Elections 3 Supporters of Clean Elections 4 External links 4.1 Legislation 4.2 Studies 4.3 Related organizations 4.4 Press coverage

Clean Elections can be considered a type of Campaign Finance Reform. Clean Elections differs from more traditional reform proposals, however, in a number of important ways:

• Traditional Campaign Finance laws are restrictive, placing campaign donation caps on the donors. Clean Elections laws include these types of restrictions but supplement them by providing qualified candidates with a fixed amount of government funding with which to run their campaigns. To receive tax money, "Clean Candidates" must forgo all fundraising and accept no private or personal funds. Candidates who choose not to participate typically operate under significant restrictions on fundraising.
• Campaign Finance regulations traditionally attempt to limit the amount an individual contributor can donate to a politician. Clean Elections allows for traditional, privately funded candidates, subject to sometimes severe restrictions on fundraising, but in addition provides tax funding for candidates who decline private funding. Tax-funded candidates who are outspent normally receive additional funds to match their privately funded opponent, up to a cap, with the intent of assuring that a candidate who refuses public money cannot gain a substantial financial advantage. Such provisions have called into question the extent to which such programs are truly "voluntary."
• Candidates participating in a Clean Elections system are required to meet a certain qualification criterion, such as collecting a predetermined amount of signatures along with a small contribution (generally around $5) before the candidate can receive public support. Generally these qualifying contributions must be given by constituents. Traditional Campaign Finance laws focus only on limits.

Studies by various ideological advocacy groups have found that Clean Elections are effective or ineffective largely in accordance with the position the sponsoring organization has taken on the question. The most important independent study of clean elections is one undertaken by the nonpartisan General Accounting Office pursuant to a provision in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (also known as "McCain-Feingold"). The study, of Clean Elections programs in Arizona and Maine, concluded that more experience was required before any final judgments could be made on the effectiveness of the system. However,it found no short term benefits from clean elections in either of the two states. ([1])

• Governor Eliot Spitzer of New York
• Former U.S. Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey
• U.S. Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, co-sponsor of Fair Elections Now Act, SB 1285
• Former U.S. Representative Cecil Heftel of Hawaii
• Former U.S. Senate candidate Ned Lamont of Connecticut.
• Mr. Ralph Nader of Connecticut
• Governor Janet Napolitano of Arizona
• John Bonifaz, founder of the National Voting Rights Institute
• NBA player Adonal Foyle founded Democracy Matters to involve college students in advocating for Clean Elections.
• U.S. Presidential Candidate and Former U.S. Senator John Edwards
• U.S. Presidential Candidate and U.S. Senator Barack Obama, co-sponsor of Fair Elections Now Act, SB 1285
• U.S. Presidential Candidate and Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM)
• Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), sponsor of Fair Elections Now Act, SB 1285
• Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), sponsor of Fair Elections Now Act, SB 1285

• Proposed US bill (introduced in House)
• Arizona law (pdf)
• Maine law
• Common Cause - list of state efforts
• Proposed New York Bill

• 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.

• Public Campaign
• Public Citizen
• Center for Competitive Politics
• Democracy Matters
• The New York Democracy Project
• Clean Elections Institute (Arizona)
• Common Cause
• Fair Elections
• Just Six Dollars
• Citizens for Clean Elections
• Clean Elections Rhode Island
• California Clean Money Campaign
• MAPLight.org
• The National Institute on Money in State Politics
• Oregon Follow the Money (from the Money in Politics Research Action Project)
• Portland, Oregon's Friends of Voter-Owned Elections
• Clean Elections Rhode Island
• Voter Owned Iowa Clean Elections (VOICE)
• Washington Public Campaigns (Washington State)

• 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