Blog
Public Financing
By ReformNY – 02/03/12
Crossposted at ReformNY.
Every Friday, the Brennan Center will be compiling the latest news concerning the corrosive nature of money in New York State politics — and the ongoing need for public financing and robust campaign finance reform. We’ll also be linking to dispatches from around the country highlighting the national scope of this crisis. This week’s links were contributed by Dan Rockoff.
For more stories on an ongoing basis, follow the Twitter hashtag #moNeYpolitics
NY Campaign Finance:
1. Today, over 100 organizations that support Fair Elections for New York wrote Governor Cuomo detailing the need for publicly financed campaigns, lower contribution limits, and better enforcement. The civil rights, business, faith, grassroots community, good government, environmental, and labor organizations who signed the letter, thanked the Governor for his strong support and expressed their enthusiasm to work with him and members of the Legislature to pass publicly financed elections and other campaign finance reforms during this legislative session.
2. Despite the annual $150,000 contribution limit by individuals to candidates in New York, luxury-apartment mogul Leonard Litwin gave almost $700,000 to candidates in 2011. A study by the New York Public Interest Research Group revealed that Litwin was the biggest individual donor in the state. Litwin was able to dodge the state’s campaign finance laws by utilizing the limited liability company (LLC) loophole, which allows companies to contribute multiple times through affiliated LLC’s, even when the LLC is completely controlled by a corporation or individual who has already reached the maximum contribution limit.
3. Governor Cuomo spoke with reporters about the need for public financing and campaign finance reform after participating in a fundraising event for the Democratic Governors Association. “One of the things we have to work on is getting money out of politics,” Cuomo said. In response to a reporter’s question about the meeting, Cuomo replied, “Your issue of, ‘You are in a room where people contribute money’ — that is the current state of politics and that is (the case for) every elected official in every fundraising forum.”
4. Manuel Ortega, law chairman of the Staten Island Democratic Party, filed a complaint with the FEC against Republican Representative Michael Grimm. The complaint alleges excessive and illegal cash contributions. A key fundraiser of Grimm’s is now being investigated for embezzling millions of dollars from a rabbi’s congregation. According to the New York Times story that Ortega used as the basis for his FEC complaint, unnamed followers allege that Grimm sought donations over the legal limit, and that he sought those donations in cash and from undocumented aliens.
5. The Democrat and Chronicle calls for Governor Cuomo to follow through on his election promises for public financing and campaign finance reform. The newspaper notes that “the governor continues to say the right things” and urges him to “prod the Legislature to deliver.”
Other News Nationwide:
1. In his State of the Union address, President Obama spoke about the “corrosive influence of money in politics.” He called for “a bill that bans insider trading by Members of Congress,” places limits on incumbents’ ability to own stocks in industries they impact, and restricts the ability of bundlers to lobby Congress.
2. The New York Times editorializes that under the federal lobbying law, “Newt Gingrich can legitimately claim that he is not a lobbyist.” The paper stated that Gingrich had “made a great deal of money in Washington peddling his influence, while carefully staying about half-an-inch short of the legal definition of lobbyist.” The paper calls for a better law limiting lobbyist activity and promoting disclosure. Part of the problem is that many Members of Congress use the revolving door—more than 400 former members have become lobbyists or consultants in the last decade.
3. In Massachusetts, Senator Scott Brown and likely Democratic opponent Elizabeth Warren agreed on a plan to stop outside groups from running negative ads. The agreement “requires each side to donate to a charity of the other’s choosing” when benefiting from a third-party ad, and also requires each side to write to outside groups and television station managers requesting a cease-fire. Brown, who is up for re-election to a full term, said that third-party ads “spend millions of dollars from anonymous donors portraying their opposition unfairly and misleading voters.” The question now is whether the agreement is enforceable.
4, In Montana, the State Supreme Court upheld by a 5-2 vote a law banning corporations from making political expenditures. A New York Times editorial praised the Montana Supreme Court, stating that “in Citizens United, the conservative majority turned itself into a copper kings’ court.” The majority rejected Justice Kennedy’s “misguided reasoning” that money does not “give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” The court’s dissenters, however, argued that the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision dictates the opposite result, and warned that the Supreme Court would not allow Montana to ignore precedent.
Tags: Democracy, Campaign Finance Reform, Public Financing, NY Reform
By John Travis – 01/25/12
Crossposted at ReformNY.
In a joint op-ed in today’s Times-Union, former New York State Congressmen Sherwood Boehlert and Scott Murphy voiced their support for Governor Cuomo’s plan to enact a system of public financing of elections, an issue he gave prominence in his State of the State address.
Speaking from their experiences as former members of Congress representing both major political parties, Boehlert and Murphy acknowledge the “corrosive role that private money plays in political campaigns and the legislative process,” both in Washington and Albany. The increased cost of running for office in New York means that candidates have to spend more and more time courting special interests to raise money for their campaigns. This has only contributed to Albany’s culture of dependence on big money.
The solution for our state: adopt a system of voluntary public financing of elections with matching funds like we have in New York City. If small donor contributions are matched on a 4-to-1 ratio, politicians would be able to spend less time raising money from lobbyists and special interests, and more time focusing on serving the interests of their constituents.
A recent Siena poll indicates that public financing of elections has broad support among both Republicans and Democrats in New York. Boehlert and Murphy have now added to the growing — and bipartisan — chorus of calls for meaningful campaign finance reform in Albany.
Tags: Democracy, Campaign Finance Reform, Public Financing, NY Reform
By John Travis – 01/05/12
Crossposted at ReformNY.
During his State of the State address, Governor Andrew Cuomo reaffirmed his commitment to clean up Albany, telling legislators he would send them a campaign finance reform bill that would include voluntary public financing of elections. The system would be modeled on New York City’s successful matching funds system which has increased the competitiveness of elections, diversity among candidates, and the participation of small donors.
In his written message, the governor called for additional campaign finance reforms, including lowering the state’s sky-high contribution limits, enacting pay-to-play rules, and improving the enforcement of campaign finance laws by creating a new enforcement unit at the Board of Elections. Given the recent corruption scandals involving elected officials and those seeking to do business with the state, this is a positive reform for New Yorkers that would reduce the dependence on money from special interests and help restore trust in state government.
The Brennan Center’s Michael Waldman appeared on NY1 and Capital Tonight to discuss the governor’s speech. "This exciting and vital proposal would make New York a national example of how to revitalize our democracy," Waldman said. "Meaningful campaign reform would curb corruption and boost accountability. It is the single most important next step to transform Albany. We welcome the Governor’s leadership on this issue and are looking forward to helping him make these reforms a reality."
Tags: Democracy, Campaign Finance Reform, Public Financing, NY Reform
By ReformNY – 12/02/11
Crossposted at ReformNY.
Every Friday, the Brennan Center will be compiling the latest news concerning the corrosive nature of money in New York State politics — and the ongoing need for public financing and robust campaign finance reform. We’ll also be linking to dispatches from around the country highlighting the national scope of this crisis. This week’s links were contributed by Matthew Ladd and Dan Rockoff.
For more stories on an ongoing basis, follow the Twitter hashtag #moNeYpolitics
NY Campaign Finance, Corruption and Politics:
1. The Buffalo News has issued an editorial calling for the state Senate and Assembly to work together to enact public financing of state elections in the next legislative session. Public financing would not only “help our state legislators clean up their collective act and limit the corrosive influence of money on their decisions,” the editorial argues, but would also “give challengers better footing to take on incumbents” and, combined with nonpartisan redistricting, make elections fairer and more competitive.
2. The $33,000 that Syracuse Mayor Stephanie Miner funneled to local candidates through the state Democratic Committee is “further evidence of a campaign finance system in disarray,” writes the Syracuse Post-Standard. Although Miner withdrew the contributions in the face of public criticism, steering money from PACs to campaign committees is business as usual in Albany. “It’s done all the time to get around the very lax campaign finance limits and nonexistent campaign laws in New York state,” says Barbara Bartoletti of the state League of Women Voters. “It’s not going to change until we reform the campaign finance laws.”
3. Fresh from his acquittal on corruption charges, Brooklyn State Assemblyman William Boyland Jr. has been arrested again — this time for soliciting bribes during his trial, apparently in order to pay the attorneys who represented him. Boyland is now charged with soliciting over $250,000 in bribes since he was charged in the first case; last April, mere weeks after he was released on bond, FBI agents posing as real estate investors recorded Boyland seeking money to pay his lawyers, but insisting that he needed to “stay clean” by working through a “bag man.”
4. One of the state’s key witnesses in the corruption trial of Larry Seabrook has given inconsistent accounts of her connection with the ex-assemblyman, inconsistencies that the prosecution attributes to age and memory loss. Another witness for the prosecution, Laila Yu, testified on Tuesday that three nonprofit groups connected to Seabrook received $2.1 million in city funds, in addition to overbilling the city for rent reimbursements.
5. Companies that drill for natural gas have contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to state legislative campaigns, and spent over $3.2 million in lobbying, in the run-up to Gov. Cuomo’s decision on when and where to permit hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) in New York State. The energy industry has also contributed to campaigns in Texas, Pennsylvania and Ohio in order to elect fracking-friendly legislators. In response to public debate over the issue, the NY Department of Energy has extended its public comment period to January 11, 2012.
National stories:
6. The New York Times criticized House Republicans for their attempt to repeal the voluntary public funding program for presidential candidates, created in the wake of the Watergate scandal. The editorial points out that the justification for attempting to repeal the program — deficit savings — is especially cynical given that the Republican Party recently requested, and received, $17.7 million in public money to finance next year’s presidential convention.
Tags: Democracy, Campaign Finance Reform, Public Financing, NY Reform
By ReformNY – 11/18/11
Every Friday, the Brennan Center will be compiling the latest news concerning the corrosive nature of money in New York State politics—and the ongoing need for public financing and robust campaign finance reform. We’ll also be linking to dispatches from around the country highlighting the national scope of this crisis. This week’s links were contributed by Matthew Ladd and Dan Rockoff.
For more stories on an ongoing basis, follow the Twitter hashtag #moNeYpolitics
NY Campaign Finance and Corruption:
1. The Second Circuit overturned ex-state senator Joe Bruno’s corruption conviction, paving the way for a retrial and rejecting Bruno’s arguments for double jeopardy. The court found that “the government’s evidence... would permit a reasonable jury to find that Bruno performed virtually nonexistent consulting work for substantial payments.” As an example, the court observed that a new jury could reasonably conclude that a payment to Bruno of $40,000, ostensibly for a racehorse, was “an illegitimate gift.”
2. William Boyland’s acquittal on corruption charges related to his ‘no-show’ consulting job continues to generate controversy. A member of the jury that exonerated Boyland stated that the assemblyman “clearly did things wrong,” but that the jury “could not connect the dots” to reach a consensus on the legality of Boyland’s acts. After a relieved Boyland told reporters that he was “going to sleep and breathe” after the acquittal, The Capitol blog remarked that this “doesn’t seem much different from what he had been doing all year in Albany.”Commenting on the Boyland case, U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said, “It should be a jarring wake-up call. Instead, it seems no matter how many times the alarm goes off, Albany just hits the snooze.”
3. Citing a dizzyingly long list of New York state legislatorseither convicted of or facing charges for corruption—including Joe Bruno, William Boyland, former comptroller Alan Hevesi, former Assemblymen Clarence Norman, Roger Green, and Brian McLaughlin, and former Assemblywoman Diane Gordon—City Room wryly remarks that perhaps New York’s official state motto, “Excelsior,” should be changed to “Ubi Est Mea?”, or “Where is mine?”
4. The federal criminal trial of Bronx City Councilman Larry Seabrook continued this week, as prominent Bronx lobbyist and lawyer Stanley Schlein took the stand against Seabrook, testifying that
Seabrook steered him to a local contractor looking to contract for work at Yankee Stadium. Seabrook is facing 12 counts of money laundering, fraud, conspiracy and receiving corrupt payments.
5. Further proof of the value of strong campaign finance enforcement: An undercover FBI sting culminated in the arrest Wednesday of Xing Wu Pan, a fundraiser for NYC Comptroller John Liu, for illegally funneling thousands of dollars into Mr. Liu’s campaign account. After an FBI agent posing as a businessman offered to donate $16,000—over three times the legal limit for individuals—Mr. Pan recruited 20 straw donors to circumvent the limit. He is charged with two counts of wire fraud. Mr. Liu released a statement Wednesday disavowing any knowledge of the fraud. Meanwhile federal officials continue their investigation of the comptroller’s campaign finance operations.
Other News Nationwide:
6. A study released November 16 by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington examined campaign donations to members of key House committees and found that becoming chairman or the ranking member leads to a massive jump in donations from regulated industries. House Financial Services Committee chairman Spencer Bachus has seen contributions from all sources increase by 234 percent since 1998, while contributions from the financial industry jumped 620 percent. CRE Executive Director Melanie Sloan said, “People who are giving you that much money – it is not out of the goodness of their hearts – clearly they want something.”
7. The New York Times criticized the proliferation of “super PACS” and unlimited contributions in this election cycle, calling them a “noxious weed . . . in the lawless jungle of campaign finance.” The editorial called for the Department of Justice to pursue criminal investigationsagainst fundraisers who improperly attempt to influence the candidates, observing: “It is now clear that giving to a candidate’s PAC is equivalent to giving to his campaign; the leaders of the PAC, for all practical purposes, are the campaign’s bag men.”
8. In a New York Times Op-Ed, Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig advocates for a national small-dollar public funding system for Congress. He suggests giving every voter a “democracy voucher” that could then be given to any candidate for Congress who agreed in advance to finance his or her campaign by either those vouchers or individual contributions capped at $100. Lessig argues that such a program would “weaken the power of the very few to demand costly kickbacks for their contributions.”
Tags: Democracy, Campaign Finance Reform, Public Financing, NY Reform
By Elizabeth Kennedy – 07/18/11
In Citizens United last year, the U.S. Supreme Court stunned the country by overturning the ban on corporations spending money to influence elections. This year, for the first time in three decades, the Court heard a case involving public financing of elections. Campaign finance reformers held their breath and braced for another blow.
On the final day it issued opinions this term, the Supreme Court released another 5-4 decision, this one involving Arizona’s public financing law. Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Bennett struck down a provision that gave additional funds to publicly funded candidates when they faced high opposition spending.
Although the decision is a blow to efforts to curb the corrupting role of large campaign contributions, it does not sound the death knell for public financing as a whole. For that, reformers can be thankful.
The case only involved one provision of Arizona's law, but there was reason to fear, and for opponents to hope, that an overreaching Supreme Court would take down all public financing — as various groups supporting the challenge to Arizona’s law expressly requested.
The constitutionality of public financing programs was established in Buckley v. Valeo, the foundational campaign finance case. There, the Court found that providing public financing served to “facilitate and enlarge public discussion and participation in the electoral process, goals vital to a self-governing people.” The challengers of Arizona’s law disagreed.
Arizona’s law was adopted by referendum after a huge corruption scandal. Candidates who voluntarily participated in the program received an initial grant and agreed to a spending cap. If a publicly financed candidate faced high-spending opposition, though, she would receive more money to respond, up to a maximum amount. Plaintiffs argued that the threat of a response burdened their speech.
Reform opponents argued, further, that public financing as a whole was a failure and that public financing “fundamentally alters the relationship between the governed and the government.” Plaintiffs told the Court at oral argument that “[t]his case is about whether the government may insert itself into elections and manipulate campaign spending to favor its preferred candidates.”
We’d seen this horror movie before.
Citizens United itself was first heard by the Supreme Court as a narrow challenge. That case could, and many argue should, have been decided on much narrower grounds — whether the ban on corporations running advertisements meant to influence elections should apply to Citizens United’s video on-demand movie. Instead, the Supreme Court chose to strike down the entire ban and allow corporations to spend directly to influence elections. This overreaching was widely decried, and it demonstrated a willingness by the Court to reach beyond the facts of the case in front of them in First Amendment challenges to campaign finance laws.
Fortunately, in the Arizona case, the Court did not repeat Citizens United’s overreaching. In fact, Chief Justice Roberts explicitly wrote that questioning the wisdom of public financing was “not our business.”
After Arizona Free Enterprise Club, public campaign financing remains a vital and constitutional campaign finance reform. It defends our democratic system from the corrupting influence of big money in elections. Representatives can better represent their constituents when they are not beholden to special interests, and they can spend more time getting voters invested in elections when they are not constantly chasing big checks. In her searing dissent, Justice Kagan explained that people support public financing because it serves “to stop corrupt dealing – to ensure that their representatives serve the public, and not just the wealthy donors who helped put them in office.”
There are many existing public financing programs that continue to pass constitutional muster, including New York City’s small donor matching system, where small privately raised donations from New York residents are matched by public funds. They are models for reform.
This is surely not the last time that those who prefer a wild-west campaign spending environment — where money talks and big money owns the only amplifiers — will try to derail public financing. But for now, reformers can exhale and continue to implement and strengthen public financing systems around the country. By doing so, they will return voters to the center of our democracy.
Tags: Democracy, Campaign Finance Reform, Public Financing
By Mark Ladov – 07/14/11
Crossposted at ThinkProgress.
Public financing of elections can curb the corrupting influence of large campaign contributions. But has the Supreme Court doomed this important political reform?
Certainly, by striking down a piece of Arizona’s public financing law (in yet another divisive 5-4 campaign finance opinion), the Roberts Court set back one particular model of public financing. But the Arizona ruling was limited to a narrow question: whether states can award additional funding to publicly financed candidates who face a high-spending opponent or unexpectedly expensive outside attack ads. The Court expressly refused to cast doubt on the constitutionality of public financing generally. Nor did the Court question its long-standing belief (from the 1976 case of Buckley v. Valeo) that public financing helps “to facilitate and enlarge public discussion and participation in the electoral process, goals vital to a self-governing people.”
Based on this narrow victory, some opponents of campaign finance reform will crow about the death of public financing. But don’t believe the hype. Public financing is alive and well…and living in New York City.
For more than two decades, New York City candidates have participated in a voluntary public financing program. As is too often the case, this reform was born out of scandal and tragedy — including the 1986 suicide of former Queens Borough President Donald Manes following revelations about extortion and bribery among contractors and city officials. The City Council overwhelmingly passed a voluntary public financing program as part of the ensuing political reforms. New York City has been at the forefront of public financing ever since.
The City’s most notable innovation is its use of multiple matching funds to encourage small donor outreach.
Under current rules, the City gives participating candidates a $6 to $1 match in public financing for the first $175 they raise from New York City voters. A voter’s $175 donation to her local City Council candidate is now worth as much as a $1,225 contribution from a special-interest lobbyist. This encourages candidates to target average New Yorkers — and allows candidates with grassroots support to run viable campaigns, even without the backing of big money.
New York City’s pioneering experiment has been a resounding success. The program has enjoyed robust participation by serious, credible candidates. It has promoted voter choice by increasing diversity and competition in City elections. It has dramatically expanded the number of New Yorkers who participate in electoral campaigns. And it is a powerful weapon against the corrupting influence of special interest money; research suggests that large donors, unions and PACs exert less influence on publicly-financed candidates who depend heavily on small donors.
Crucially, the small donor matching fund model used by New York City matches public funding to a candidate’s own fundraising. This avoids the constitutional problems raised in the Arizona case, by ensuring that a candidate’s public financing rises or falls based on her own success at campaigning.
Some have suggested that the Supreme Court’s ruling raises questions about New York City’s “bonus” funds. This rarely-triggered provision increases the matching ratio when a participating candidate faces a really high-spending opponent. Importantly, under this scheme, any additional public funds received by the participant are pegged to her own campaign fundraising. Moreover, the bonus funds are largely irrelevant to the success of New York’s program. In Arizona, all participating candidates received the same lump sum grant and had no access to additional money without the triggered funds – and so, seriously risked being overwhelmed by a high-spending opponent. Under the small donor matching fund model, on the other hand, candidates can continue to fundraise on their own when facing vigorous opposition. So, unlike in Arizona, New York’s program would remain strong even without the bonus funds.
New York City’s program has deep roots. But it is a particularly important model for reform in the Internet age. President Obama’s groundbreaking 2008 presidential run showed how a candidate could use digital media and social network tools to reach a broader base of supporters than ever before. These small donors provide important political balance, particularly in our post-Citizens United world of unchecked political spending. When a candidate must rely entirely on wealthy donors to run for office, it’s only natural that those donors will dictate our laws and policies. But when a candidate can run for office with the support of small donors, he can remain responsive to the voters at large — and not just a handful of special interests.
So the next time someone says the Supreme Court has closed the book on public financing, you can tell them we’re just opening a new chapter. And you read it first in New York City.
Tags: Democracy, Campaign Finance Reform, Public Financing
By Adam Skaggs – 07/14/11
Crossposted at Huffington Post.
Last week, a campaign finance watchdog group blasted Rep. Mike Simpson, chair of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior, for using his position to dole out major favors to big money campaign backers. Simpson's subcommittee rewarded agribusiness backers — who have given his campaigns at least $643,000 — with exemptions that weaken rules on greenhouse gas emissions and pollution. For oil and gas interests that gave Simpson more than $131,000, the subcommittee expanded offshore drilling and restricted the EPA's ability to limit pollution stemming from these new exploration permits.
When handing out political favors like these is standard operating procedure, it is not surprising that many Americans fear our elected officials are more interested in doing what their campaign donors want — instead of what's in the public's interest.
This same story played out two decades ago in Arizona, during the 1990s "AzScam" scandal. After a video camera caught a politician illegally collecting campaign cash in a duffle bag — and 10 percent of the state legislature was indicted in a sweeping corruption scandal — Arizonans enacted a clean elections law that provided public funds to political candidates. The law aimed to make sure lawmakers would act to benefit the public, not campaign benefactors.
Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court considered one provision of Arizona's law — its "triggered matching funds." These provided supplemental funding to publicly financed candidates who faced high spending opposition.
By a 5-4 vote, the Court struck down the triggers, concluding they disadvantaged privately funded candidates and interest groups who oppose publicly financed candidates. Essentially, the majority declared that under the Constitution, it is less important to promote speech by candidates who can't run without public funds than it is to ensure that wealthy, self-funded candidates and special interests can speak free of response.
Put differently, the Roberts Court recognized a series of new "rights" under the First Amendment: a right to speak without any response, a right to preserve your monetary advantage in political debate — even a right to purchase the silence of any potential political rivals.
Surely, this is not what the Framers of the First Amendment had in mind.
Justice Elena Kagan's eloquent dissent explained clearly how the five-justice majority got it wrong. The law didn't in any way reduce or burden speech, Kagan wrote. "What the law does — all the law does — is fund more speech. And under the First Amendment, that makes all the difference."
However misguided, the majority's decision was a relatively narrow one, limited to the specific trigger provisions at issue. Reports of the demise of public financing as a whole are greatly exaggerated. Even the majority recognized that voluntary public financing without triggers is fully constitutional.
That is crucial, because no reform works better than public financing to fight corruption and restore confidence in our democracy. In Arizona and dozens of other jurisdictions, public financing has effectively constrained political corruption.
Despite the proven successes of various campaign finance reforms, the current Supreme Court has shown severe hostility to any attempt to reduce the influence of money in our elections. As recently as 2003, the Court upheld most of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. But since John Roberts and Samuel Alito joined the Court, things have changed — dramatically.
Five times in five years, the Roberts Court considered a campaign finance case. Five times, including in Citizens United, the court struck down attempts to address the domination of elections by corporate and special interests.
In its latest decision, the Court said triggers make opponents refrain from political spending because their spending causes extra money to be disbursed to candidates they oppose. In reality, empirical analyses of political spending in Arizona (and elsewhere) confirm that triggers haven't deterred any spending. Overall political spending increased substantially after Arizona adopted public financing. Triggers saved taxpayer money from being wasted in uncompetitive contests where additional funds were not needed.
And they made Arizona's clean elections law a tremendous success. A clear majority of likely voters in Arizona said in 2010 that they supported public financing; just 7 percent disapproved. Candidates from across the political spectrum have participated — incumbents and challengers, Republicans and Democrats — and with public financing, competition in Arizona elections has improved and there have been fewer uncontested elections.
Public funding ensures that voters remain at the center of our democracy — and that elections aren't bought and paid for by special interests. Public financing limits the influence of big money campaign donations, encourages candidates with limited resources to run for office, and increases competitiveness and diversity in elections. It frees politicians from the burden and distraction involved in constant fundraising. And for more than a decade, public financing in Arizona prevented another scandal like AzScam.
New York City also adopted public financing after a major corruption scandal more than 20 years ago. New York's program is a resounding success, and it provides a model for other jurisdictions. New York's law doesn't include triggers like Arizona's. Instead, it matches small donations from city voters — with a 6 to 1 match of contributions up to $175.
Small donor matching programs fuse fundraising and voter outreach efforts by encouraging candidates to spend time reaching out to ordinary voters, not fat-cat donors. They supercharge the power of small donations and promote voter choice by enabling a diverse pool of candidates to run competitive campaigns — even if they have little access to wealthy, powerful benefactors.
Congress, the states, and municipalities around the country should adopt small donor matching programs without delay. They are the surest way to guarantee that voters, not dollars, are the heart of our democracy.
Tags: Democracy, Campaign Finance Reform, Public Financing
Page 1 of 7 pages 1 2 3 > Last »
Permalink