Albuquerque, New Mexico
Enacted: 2005
Program Type: Full grants
Offices: Mayor, city council
Enacted Through: Ballot referendum
Administered by: Albuquerque City Clerk
Anne Arundel County, Maryland
Enacted: 2023
Program Type: Progressive match of between two-to-one and four-to-one for county council candidates and two-to-one and six-to-one for county executive candidates on in-county individual contributions of $150 or less (in implementation)
Offices: County executive, county council
Enacted Through: Legislation
Administered by: Public Campaign Financing System Commission and State Board of Elections
Austin, Texas
Enacted: 1992
Program Type: Partial grants in runoff elections
Offices: Mayor, city council
Enacted Through: Legislation
Administered by: Austin City Clerk
Baltimore, Maryland
Enacted: 2018
Program Type: Progressive match of between two-to-one and nine-to-one on in-city contributions of $150 or less to candidates for city council president, city comptroller, and mayor and progressive match of between five-to-one and nine-to-one on in-city contributions of $75 or less for city council candidates (in implementation)
Offices: City council, city council president, city comptroller, mayor
Enacted Through: Ballot referendum
Administered by: Baltimore City Fair Election Fund Commission and State Board of Elections
Baltimore County, Maryland
Enacted: 2020
Program Type: Progressive match of between two-to-one and four-to-one for county council candidates and two-to-one and six-to-one for county executive candidates on in-county contributions of $150 or less (in implementation)
Offices: County council, county executive
Enacted Through: Ballot referendum
Administered by: Baltimore County Fair Election Fund Commission and State Board of Elections
Berkeley, California
Enacted: 2016
Program Type: Six-to-one match on in-city contributions of $60 or less
Offices: Mayor, city council, auditor, school board directors, rent stabilization board commissioners
Enacted Through: Ballot referendum
Administering Entity: Berkeley Fair Campaign Practices Commission
Boulder, Colorado
Enacted: 2000
Program Type: One-to-one match on contributions up to 50 percent of the expenditure limit
Offices: City council
Enacted Through: Ballot referendum
Administering Entity: Boulder City Clerk
Denver, Colorado
Enacted: 2018
Program Type: Nine-to-one match on in-city contributions of $50 or less
Offices: Mayor, city council, city council at-large, auditor, judges, clerk and recorder
Enacted Through: Ballot referendum
Administered by: Denver City Clerk and Recorder
Howard County, Maryland
Enacted: 2017
Program Type: Progressive match of between one-to-one and five-to-one for county council candidates and one-to-one and seven-to-one for county executive candidates on in-county contributions of $150 or less per donor
Offices: County council, county executive
Enacted Through: Ballot referendum
Administered by: Howard County Citizens’ Election Fund Commission and State Board of Elections
Long Beach, California
Enacted: 1994
Program Type: Two-to-one match up to 33 percent of the expenditure limit in the primary elections and one-to-one match up to 50 percent of the expenditure limit in runoff elections
Offices: Mayor, city council, city attorney, city prosecutor, city auditor
Enacted Through: Ballot referendum
Administered by: Long Beach City Clerk
Los Angeles, California
Enacted: 1990
Program Type: Six-to-one match on in-city small contributions of up to one-seventh of the contribution limit for the relevant office
Offices: Mayor, city council, city attorney, city controller
Enacted Through: Ballot referendum
Administered by: Los Angeles City Ethics Commission
Miami-Dade County, Florida
Enacted: 2000
Program Type: Lump-sum partial grant funding
Offices: Mayor, board of county commissioners
Enacted Through: Ballot referendum
Administered by: Miami-Dade County Department of Elections
Montgomery County, Maryland
Enacted: 2014
Program Type: Progressive match of between two-to-one and four-to-one for county council candidates and two-to-one and six-to-one for county executive candidates on in-county contributions of $150 or less
Offices: County council, county executive
Enacted Through: Legislation
Administered by: Montgomery County Public Election Fund Commission and State Board of Elections
New Haven, Connecticut
Enacted: 2006
Program Type: Lump-sum partial grant funding and match for in-city contributions: two-to-one match on contributions up to $30 and $60 match on contributions of $30 or more
Offices: Mayor
Enacted Through: Legislation
Administered by: New Haven Democracy Fund Board
New York City, New York
Enacted: 1988
Program Type: Eight-to-one match on the first $250 or $175 of an eligible contribution from city residents
Offices: Mayor, public advocate, comptroller, borough presidents, city council
Enacted Through: Legislation; modified by ballot referendum increased the matching ratio
Administered by: New York City Campaign Finance Board
Oakland, California
Enacted: 1999
Program Type: City residents receive vouchers to contribute to participating candidates (in implementation)
Offices: Mayor, city auditor, city attorney, city council at-large, city council, school board directors
Enacted Through: Legislation, ballot referendum expanded the program
Administered by: Oakland City Public Ethics Commission
Portland, Maine
Enacted: 2022
Program Type: Full grants with the option to qualify for supplemental grants (in implementation)
Offices: Mayor, city council, school board members
Enacted Through: Ballot referendum
Administered by: Portland City Clerk
Portland, Oregon
Enacted: 2016
Program Type: Nine-to-one match on contributions of $20 or less from city residents
Offices: Mayor, city commissioners, auditor
Enacted Through: Legislation
Administered by: Portland Elections Commission
Prince George’s County, Maryland
Enacted: 2018
Program Type: Progressive match of between one-to-one and seven-to-one on in-county contributions of $150 or less (in implementation)
Offices: County council, county executive
Enacted Through: Legislation
Administered by: Prince George’s County Fair Election Fund Commission and State Board of Elections
Richmond, California
Enacted: 2003
Program Type: Matching funds disbursed in increments of $2,500 based on total matchable contributions raised
Offices: Mayor, city council
Enacted Through: Legislation
Administered by: Richmond City Clerk
San Francisco, California
Enacted: 2000
Program Type: Lump-sum partial grant funding and six-to-one match on in-city contributions of $150 or less
Offices: Mayor, board of supervisors
Enacted Through: Ballot referendum
Administered by: City and County of San Francisco Ethics Commission
Santa Fe, New Mexico
Enacted: 1987
Program Type: Full grants with the option to raise a capped amount of additional contributions of up to $100 that are matched at a ratio of one-to-one
Offices: Mayor, city council, municipal judge
Enacted Through: Legislation
Administered by: Santa Fe City Clerk
Seattle, Washington
Enacted: 2015
Program Type: City residents receive $100 in vouchers to contribute to participating candidates
Offices: Mayor, city attorney, city council at-large, city council
Enacted Through: Ballot referendum
Administered by: Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission
Tucson, Arizona
Enacted: 1985
Program Type: One-to-one match on contributions up to the contribution limit of $500
Offices: Mayor, city council
Enacted Through: Ballot referendum
Administered by: Tucson City Clerk
Washington, DC
Enacted: 2018
Program Type: Lump-sum partial grant and five-to-one match on in-city contributions of $200 or less
Offices: Mayor, attorney general, city council, state board of education
Enacted Through: Legislation
Administered by: District of Columbia Office of Campaign Finance