Skip Navigation
Analysis

No, Fusion Voting Won’t Make Public Financing of Elections More Expensive

Concerns that fusion voting, which allows candidates to run on multiple lines for the same office, and a public financing program might jointly be unsustainable reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the way the policy works.

March 19, 2019

In the next two weeks, we’ll find out if Governor Andrew Cuomo and the New York State Legis­lature will live up to their prom­ises to deliver small donor public finan­cing of elec­tions in New York State. Passage would have huge reper­cus­sions – it is by far the biggest reform possible to counter the influ­ence of big money and give greater polit­ical power to regu­lar New York­ers. Things look prom­ising: the governor included a solid proposal in the budget, and the Senate and Assembly major­it­ies both stated in their “one-house” budgets that they also support a small donor public finan­cing program.

In a nutshell, small donor public finan­cing works like this: candid­ates who choose to parti­cip­ate in the public finan­cing program agree to lower contri­bu­tion limits (no more massive dona­tions from lobby­ists and special interests). In exchange, for each small contri­bu­tion from an in-state resid­ent, a candid­ate for office would receive six times that in public money. A contri­bu­tion of $10 is worth $70. This funda­ment­ally changes the source of campaign dollars for candid­ates and office­hold­ers. The Campaign Finance Insti­tute estim­ates this program could make small dona­tions the biggest source of money for legis­lat­ive candid­ates, and it would cost less than a penny per day per New Yorker.

But reform, partic­u­larly a reform as import­ant as this one, is never easy. We’re already hear­ing murmurs about why maybe this can’t be done – at least right now. (A favor­ite way to kill reform in Albany is to prom­ise it will come “one day,” just not today.)

Some in Albany have raised concerns that because New York State offers fusion voting, which allows candid­ates to run on multiple lines for the same office, public finan­cing for elec­tions could become very expens­ive. One candid­ate could receive campaign funds for each line she’s running on. Or maybe she’ll be running in primar­ies for multiple party nomin­a­tions – would­n’t that be unsus­tain­able?

In fact, these concerns reflect a funda­mental misun­der­stand­ing of the way the policy works. Public match­ing funds don’t go to parties or primary contests, they go to candid­ates. And they only go to candid­ates who reach qual­i­fy­ing thresholds (by collect­ing a minimum number of small dona­tions from constitu­ents to show real viab­il­ity) and who continue to collect dona­tions that can be matched. The amount of public funds a candid­ate can receive is capped.

The number of parties on the ballot is irrel­ev­ant to all of this. And a candid­ate does­n’t get more money because she’s listed on more than one ballot line.

Inter­est­ingly, two of the biggest juris­dic­tions with success­ful public finan­cing programs, New York City and Connecti­cut, both have fusion voting. Neither has had a prob­lem with candid­ates receiv­ing more money because they are running on more than one line.

In sum, there’s noth­ing special about having fusion voting and public finan­cing of elec­tions. Fusion voting does­n’t make public finan­cing more expens­ive. New York City and Connecti­cut both have fusion voting and success­ful public finan­cing programs.