Clean Elections gives candidates the option to qualify for public funding to run their campaigns. While the specifics vary, typically a candidate must collect a set number of small qualifying contributions—usually $5—from people in their district. The number of signatures and contributions required varies according to the office sought. If a candidate runs under the Clean Elections system and is outspent by a privately funded opponent, the law will typically provide a matching grant to the publicly funded candidate, up to a limit. Extra funding is also often available if there is independent spending against a candidate by an outside group or individual.
Candidates who choose not to be participate in the Clean Elections system can raise money from private donors, but must follow state campaign finance limits and disclosure laws. Clean Elections laws must be voluntary to comply with the Supreme Court’s 1976 Buckley v. Valeo ruling, which specifically approved of voluntary public financing systems.
2. What's this going to cost?
Illinois could operate a public financing program that would provide funding at the level of total spending on state-level political and high court and appellate court judicial races for $11.00 per state resident per year. This is based on the average total amount spent on campaigns during the last four campaign cycles, divide by the estimated 2007 state population. It is likely it would cost less than this since not all candidates would choose public financing. Also, in other states where public financing has been enacted the total amount spent by all candidates has decreased.
3. How will a public campaign system be funded?
Other states have used a combination of the qualifying contributions raised by participating candidates, a surcharge on all civil and criminal fines, and an annual appropriation from the state's general fund.
4. Will candidates who qualify for Clean Money receive sufficient funds to run a competitive campaign?
Candidates who qualify for Clean Money funding will get the average dollar amount spent by those seeking that office in recent elections. One great advantage to the system is that participating candidates will no longer have fundraising expenses. So, public financing will help hold down the overall cost of campaigns, as the grant given to qualifying candidates can go directly to getting their message to voters.
5. Won't participating "Clean Money candidates" still get outspent by wealthy, self-financed candidates who can spend as much as they want?
If a non-participating opponent spends more than the basic public financing limit, or if said participating candidate is the target of an independent expenditure, then the participating candidate receives matching funds. This won't mean an unlimited amount of money, but non-participating candidates will have to think twice before deciding they want to surpass the Clean Money cap, and be responsible for additional public funds going to their opponent or be open to being attacked as a “special interest” candidate.
6. Are there any examples that this works?
Versions of Clean Money Reform have passed in Arizona, Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont. In Arizona and Maine, who have now experienced full elections cycles using Clean Money Reform, there has been an increase in qualified candidates for office, more competitive elections, and a decrease in private money in the political system.
7. Will the public campaign system open the ballot up to so many people that the reform will "break the bank?"
One of the goals is to open up the system to as many qualified people as possible, and to help establish a more level campaign playing field. But, again, the qualifying requirements are stiff enough so that anybody considering a run for office will think long and hard about the seriousness of their efforts before embarking on a campaign to qualify for funds. It is therefore unlikely that "too many" candidates will qualify for Clean Money funds. Moreover, the required number of qualifying contributions can always be raised if experience shows us that it was set too low.
8. Will Washington Public Campaigns enable "fringe candidates" to run for office with public money?
While the public certainly has a right to support whichever candidates it chooses, the qualifying requirements for Clean Money campaign funds will be stiff enough to deter fringe candidates with little or no support from getting public funds. Some form of public financing already exists in 22 states and a number of municipalities. Where these systems are in place, fears about public money spurring fringe candidates have proven to be unfounded.
9. Why should my money pay for campaigns of candidates I don't support?
A democracy requires a robust discussion of issues with all sides represented. Candidates who have proven that they have support deserve to be heard. If they run on public money, their supporters will be paying for your candidate just as you are paying for theirs. Anyone who has supported an underdog candidate should appreciate that they deserve a level playing field with the other candidate(s).
10. Will candidates be willing to adopt a public campaign system?
There are strong incentives for candidates to try and qualify as "Clean Money candidates." No elected official should have to spend the vast amounts of time raising money that the current system demands. No challenger looks forward to the task of trying to raise the huge sums of money required to mount a viable campaign against an incumbent. In fact, these obstacles discourage many good candidates from running for office. Moreover, what candidate or elected official enjoys the public perception that they are compromised by their acceptance of large contributions from big money?
11. Won't the "usual suspects" run for and win political office with public campaigns?
Public financing of campaigns encourages more competitive elections, especially because it provides funding for Party primaries as well as general election campaigns. It empowers candidates with no personal wealth or access to big financial contributors - but who have a proven base of public support - the means to compete for office with the "usual suspects." In their defense, incumbents and the more familiar faces who decide to run as "Clean Money candidates" will be freed of the pressures to grant access to large donors and big money contributors that they have faced in the past, which is, after all, one of the major objectives of Washington Public Campaigns.
12. How can we justify spending money on politicians when worthy programs like education are not funded adequately?
Most people have differing ideas of what parts of society should be in the public sector, or in the private sector - such as energy, communications, and health care. But most people will probably agree that if anything should be in the public sector, it should be the government itself! Is the cost of about one movie ticket per person per year too much money to free our politicians from the influence of "big money" and the time spent in raising money? Is it too much to give back to ordinary citizens their power with elected officials? Would not an official elected in a publicly financed election be in a more objective position to provide adequate money for education rather than for other less essential expenditures?
13. Would a Clean Money system undermine the strength of, and need for, political parties in the electoral process?
Washingtonians will still be allowed to make a financial contribution to a political party under the Clean Money system. Further, it is our belief that under a Clean Money system, political parties can and should remain active in the nomination and endorsement of candidates; identifying, researching, and developing the Party's positions on issues; and carrying out non-candidate specific voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives and other "party building activities." Clean Money reform allows political parties to play a vital role within the political process as long as they do not serve as a conduit through which big-money campaign contributors can gain access to elected officials.
14. Do public campaigns suppress first amendment rights to free speech?
If anything, public campaigns would finally grant political speech to those who never really feel they've had it. It is a voluntary system designed to give a voice to those potential candidates who do not have personal fortunes or instant access to big money contributions. Our political and policy debate, as well as our democracy itself, will only be revitalized and diversified by this system. Freedom of speech would increase since special interests would have to rely on using speech to validate their positions rather than using money to buy the favor of the legislator.
15. Aren't campaign contributions protected by the constitution as free speech?
According to the U.S. Supreme Court, public financing of election campaigns is constitutional as long as the system is voluntary.
16. Does the public really support taxpayer funding of campaigns?
Clearly, the public distrusts politicians, and taxpayers are wary of new public expenditure. However, public financing will save Illinois taxpayers money in the form of wiser, well thought out public policy decisions. The wealthy individuals and powerful corporations who supply most of the money for political campaigns are the recipients of millions of dollars in "corporate welfare" subsidies, unnecessary tax breaks, and regulatory exemptions. By eliminating the dependence of Clean Money candidates on these big-money donors, public campaigns will give elected leaders more freedom to say "NO" to these kinds of costly giveaways without feeling like they're putting a source of funds for their next election at risk.
