Clean Election Reform Shows the Way Forward

REVITALIZINGDEMOCRACY

Clean Election ReformShows the Way Forward

JANUARY 2002

MARC BRESLOW, PH.D.JANET GROAT

PAUL SABA

A publication of the

Money & Politics Implementation Project

CLEAN ELECTION REFORM SHOWS THE WAY FORWARD

2

THE MONEY AND POLITICS IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTAND ITS SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS

The Money and Politics Implementation Project is a joint effort of Northeast Action, PublicCampaign, and the state organizations most responsible for passing and implement-ing Clean Election reform in their states. Project partners at the state level are MaineCitizen Leadership Fund, the Vermont Public Interest Research Group, Mass Vot-ers for Clean Elections, and the Clean Elections Institute in Arizona. The Implemen-tation Project works to ensure that the Clean Election laws passed in these four statesare fully and fairly implemented and that the lessons learned there are shared withcampaign finance reformers across the nation.

• Northeast Action is the regional hub and support center for a dynamic network ofcitizen action organizations and coalitions in the New England states and New York.It played a key role in initiating and supporting Clean Election research and policy re-form initiatives in Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts and other Northeastern states. North-east Action. 30 Germania Street, Boston, MA 02130. 617.541.0500. www.neaction.org.

• Public Campaign is a non-partisan national organization dedicated to promotingfar-reaching campaign finance reform measures, such as those enacted in Maine, Ver-mont, Massachusetts and Arizona. Public Campaign. 1320 19th Street, NW, Suite M-1, Washington, DC 20036. 202.293.0222. www.publicampaign.org.

• Maine Citizen Leadership Fund is a multi-issue, statewide organization dedicatedto advancing Maine’s progressive movement for social and economic justice. For mostof its history, it has focused on organizing for campaign finance reform, defendingMaine’s Clean Election law, and educating candidates and the public on how the newsystem works. Maine Citizen Leadership Fund. One Pleasant Street, 2nd Floor, Port-land, ME 04101. 207.780.8657. www.mclf.org.

• Vermont Public Interest Research Group is the state’s leading advocacy organiza-tion, working to promote and protect the health of Vermont’s environment, people,and locally based economy. It has been a leader in the passage and legal defense ofVermont’s Clean Election law. Vermont Public Interest Research Group. 141 MainStreet, Suite 6, Montpelier, VT 05602. 802.223.5221. www.vpirg.org.

• Mass Voters for Clean Elections is a nonpartisan citizen effort to reduce the influ-ence of private money in the electoral process and level the playing field for all Massa-chusetts voters and candidates. It was the lead organization in the passage of Massa-chusetts’ Clean Election law. Mass Voters for Clean Elections. 37 Temple Street, 5thFloor, Boston, MA 02111. 617.451.5999. www.massvoters.org.

• The Clean Elections Institute works to implement Arizona’s Clean Election law,encourages participation in the electoral process and seeks to build confidence in demo-cratic institutions. Clean Elections Institute. 2001 North Third Street, Suite 210, Phoe-nix, AZ 85004. 620.840.6633. www.azclean.org.

Copyright © 2002. Northeast Action. All Rights Reserved.

MONEY AND POLITICS IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT 617-541-0500

3

Clean Election Reform Shows the Way Forward

Since 1996 four states — Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts and Arizona — have challenged the role of private money

in our electoral process by passing comprehensive campaign finance reform laws. Under the new Clean Election

systems, candidates forego large private contributions and agree to strict spending limits with fixed and equal fi-

nancing from a publicly financed election fund. In 2000, elections were held for the first time in Maine, Arizona and

Vermont under these new systems. The results herald the beginnings of a profound revitalization of democracy.

This report provides a detailed analysis of the 2000 election results from Maine and Arizona (Vermont’s new system only

covered races for governor and lieutenant governor in 2000). It measures the success of Clean Election reform in relation

to four key criteria that advocates have determined are essential to effective campaign finance reform:

1. Increasing electoral competition and enhancing voter choice

✓ In both Maine and Arizona, Clean Election reform in 2000 contributed to an increase in contested

races and a notable rise in the number of candidates running for office as compared to 1998.

✓ A substantial percentage of candidates chose to run for office under the new public financing systems.

Many women and people of color cited the availability of public funds as the decisive factor in their

decisions to run for public office in 2000.

2. Allowing candidates to pay more attention to voters and less to potential donors

✓ Candidates who participated in the new systems consistently reported that public funding allowed

them to concentrate on connecting with voters rather than on soliciting campaign contributions. Can-

didates and voters alike were enthusiastic about this shift in focus.

3. Helping candidates with less access to wealthy private contributors to be more competitive

✓ Clean Election reform resulted in greater financial parity among candidates, thereby enhancing elec-

toral competition. On average, participating candidates in both states matched non-participants in

campaign spending. Challengers came far closer to matching incumbents than in the 1998 elections,

and spending by losing candidates was much closer to that by winners.

✓ Notwithstanding this achievement, fundraising parity did not overcome the numerous advantages of

incumbency. In both states, incumbents continued to dominate the general elections.

4. Reducing the influence of special interests on elected officials

✓ Almost half of Maine’s current state Senate and 30% of the House ran with public funding. In Ari-

zona, the proportions were 20% for the House and 7% for the Senate, while both members of the

three-person Arizona Corporation Commission who were elected in 2000 participated in the Clean

Election system.

✓ The victories of so many Clean Election candidates has already begun contributing to a new kind

of state politics that reflects the diminished power of special interests to influence legislative decision-

making.

The achievements of Clean Election reform seem even more impressive in light of their modest cost to taxpayers. It cost

less than $1 per Maine or Arizona resident to run the systems, including both the funding of candidates and associated

administrative costs. Measured against all these criteria, after only one election cycle Clean Election reform has clearly

demonstrated that it can play a critical role in revitalizing American democracy.


4

AcknowledgementsThis report would not have been possible without the expert assistance of a host ofcampaign finance reform leaders and activists from across the nation. We want to es-pecially thank the following people: Andrea West of the National Institute on Moneyand State Politics (NIMSP), Cecilia Martinez and Monica Perez of the Arizona CleanElections Institute (ACEI), Alison Smith of the Maine Citizen Leadership Fund(MCLF), and Peter Sterling of the Vermont Public Interest Research Group.

We also want to acknowledge our debt to those organizations whose tireless effortson behalf of Clean Election reform are responsible for the tremendous achievementsdetailed in this report. These include MCLF, the Dirigo Alliance, ACEI, the VermontPublic Interest Research Group and Vermont Citizen’s Coalition for Clean Elections,Mass Voters for Clean Elections, Public Campaign, DemocracyWorks, the BrennanCenter, and NIMSP. This report also made extensive use of previous studies and re-ports issued by a number of these organizations (see the references in Section IX formore details).

Finally, we are also very grateful to the following foundations whose financial supporthas been critical to the success of campaign finance reform efforts. Carnegie Corpo-ration of America, the Open Society Institute, The Ford Foundation, The Joyce Foun-dation, the Stern Family Fund, the Threshold Foundation, The Arca Foundation,Alida Messenger, the Albert A. List Foundation, the French American CharitableTrusts, The Educational Foundation of America, the Solidago Foundation, the Or-chard Foundation, and the Unitarian Universalist Veatch Program.

MethodologyThe statistics in this report come primarily from databases compiled by NIMSP, ACEI,and Maine Citizens for Clean Elections (MCCE), a project of MCLF. The NIMSP com-bined its data on primary and general election races into one database that providesunified information on the election for each available office. Tables in this report thatpresent unified data are from the NIMSP. The two state-based organizations, MCLFand ACEI, provided data separately on primaries and general elections, and tables inthis report that appear in this fashion utilize their data. In some cases, the informa-tion from the NIMSP does not precisely match that from MCLF and ACEI, and thisaccounts for any inconsistencies that emerge between tables. In most cases, the differ-ences are due to candidates having dropped out at some point during the election cycle,and their being included in one database but not another.


5

CONTENTS

Executive Summary 7

I. Introduction: The Problem of Money in Politics 11

II. How Clean Election Reform Operates in Maine, Arizona, and Vermont 13

A. MAINE’S CLEAN ELECTION SYSTEM 13

B. ARIZONA’S CLEAN ELECTION SYSTEM 16

C. VERMONT’S CLEAN ELECTION SYSTEM 19

III. Year One in Maine and Arizona: How Well Did the New Systems Perform? 21

A. INCREASING COMPETITION AND VOTER CHOICE 21

1. Number of candidates rose, high participation in Clean Election systems 21

2. Number of contested primary races rose in both Maine houses, Arizona Senate 23

3. Many women and people of color ran due to Clean Election reform, but numbersof candidates remained limited 24

B. FREEING CANDIDATES FROM THE MONEY CHASE AND INCREASING THEIR TIMEWITH THE VOTERS 26

C. ACHIEVING GREATER FINANCIAL PARITY FOR CANDIDATES WHO LACKSPECIAL-INTEREST FUNDING 27

1. Spending by candidates 28

2. Publicly financed candidates were competitive 29

3. Challengers were more competitive in terms of spending, but won few races 29

4. Competitiveness in Maine general election races increased 31

D. REDUCING THE INFLUENCE OF SPECIAL INTERESTS 32

1. New legislatures and the Arizona Corporation Commission less tied to special interests 32

2. Role of private funds in campaigns greatly reduced 34

IV. Surveys of Participating Candidates’ Satisfaction with Clean Election Reform 36

V. Who Qualified for Clean Election Funds and Who Did Not 38

VI. Issues Requiring Further Research 39

VII. Conclusions 41

VIII. Appendix: Additional Tables 43

A. INCUMBENTS, CHALLENGERS AND CANDIDATES RUNNING FOR OPEN SEATS 43

B. CLEAN ELECTION REFORM AND POLITICAL PARTIES 44

C. WOMEN: PARTICIPANTS, ELECTORAL SUCCESS AND INCUMBENCY 45

IX. References 46

X. Notes 47


6


7

IntroductionThe harmful role of “big money” in politics — campaigncontributions by wealthy donors and special interests —is widely documented and recognized as a critical problemof American democracy. No legislation to effectively ad-dress this problem has yet been passed by Congress, andthe federal bills under active consideration are limited inscope.* Instead, it is at the state level that ambitious effortsto stem the flow of money in politics have emerged andbeen successful. Prodded by citizen activists, four states —Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts and Arizona — havepassed Clean Election laws that are revolutionizing the waypolitical campaigns are financed, providing the option ofcomprehensive public funding for participating candidates.

These Clean Election laws vary slightly from state to state,but have one common element: they offer a fixed andequal amount of public funding to candidates who qualifyby collecting a prescribed number of small contributionsfrom voters in their districts. The system turns modern-daypolitical fundraising on its head: candidates must collectsmall donations from many people instead of collectinglarge donations from a few. Because participation in aClean Election system is voluntary, other candidates maychoose to run in the traditional way, relying on privatedonors. But in some states these candidates are now sub-ject to stricter limits on the size of the donations they mayreceive and to additional reporting requirements.

Last year, three of the four states (Maine, Arizona and Ver-mont) conducted elections under their new Clean Election

systems. This report looks at how the new systems operatein each state and analyzes the election results from Maineand Arizona — the two states where the most races underthe new systems were run (in Vermont only races for gov-ernor and lieutenant governor were covered in 2000).

The new Clean Election systems in Maine and Arizona werea clear success in their first year of operation, based on fourgoals that reformers had set for these laws. Clean Electionreform has:

✔ Increased competition and voter choice;

✔ Freed participating candidates from the “money chase”and allowed them to spend more time with voters;

✔ Achieved greater parity in financial resources amongcandidates;

✔ Reduced the influence of wealthy special interests inlegislative decision making and in the electoral process.

The 2000 elections were a trial run for Clean Election re-form. Even before going into effect, the new systems werebeing challenged in court, and there was a great deal ofuncertainty among candidates as to how well the systemswould serve those who participated. In the end, these CleanElection systems worked, and their successes were achievedat a modest expense to taxpayers. It cost less than $1 perMaine or Arizona resident to run the systems, includingboth the funding of participating candidates and associatedadministrative costs. We expect that many more candidateswill participate in these Clean Election systems in 2002 and2004, making them even more effective.

This report presents highlights of the first year of CleanElection reform and assesses the new systems according tohow well they met four key goals.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

* The McCain-Feingold proposal, the most ambitious reform pro-posal currently under debate in Congress, deals mainly with do-nations to and from political parties. It does nothing to curb theflow of money directly to candidates from wealthy individualsconnected to special interests.


8

people of color as decisive in their decisions to run foroffice in 2000. 87% of the women who ran in Arizonasaid that they would not have run without the availabil-ity of public funds, as did many of the women who ranin Maine. 80% of the Latinos who ran in Arizona in2000 also said that public funding was a decisive factorin their decision to run.

GOAL #2: Freeing Candidates from the MoneyChase and Increasing Their Time with Voters

As the costs of campaigning have risen dramatically in re-cent years, candidates have been forced to spend more andmore time in pursuit of dollars, and less with voters. An-other goal of Clean Election reform is to reverse this trend.Here, too, the results from Maine and Arizona show theextent to which the new systems succeeded in meeting thisgoal.

✔✔✔✔✔ Qualifying processes facilitate voter contact. In orderto qualify for public funding under the new Clean Elec-tion systems, candidates must collect a fixed number ofsmall donations from a set number of registered voters.This process requires candidates to reach out to votersearly in the campaign season, rather than to big-moneydonors.

✔✔✔✔✔ Grassroots campaigning increased. Interviews withcandidates who ran with public financing in Maine andArizona in 2000 demonstrated that Clean Election re-form allowed them to concentrate on meeting votersrather than soliciting campaign contributions. Largelybecause of this shift, participating candidates expresseda high degree of satisfaction with the new systems. Ari-zona Senator David Peterson described his experiencewith Clean Election reform this way, “The previous cam-paigns, I would say at least a half or a third of the campaigntime was spent raising the dollars… [Clean Election reform]gave me the opportunity to work more with my constituentsand let them see me and talk to me about some of the issues...It made me be more of a grassroots candidate.”

GOAL #1: Increasing Electoral Competitionand Voter Choice

Under traditional electoral systems in which private moneyprevails, the number and variety of candidates running foroffice has declined over time. This decline in competitionand voter choice has contributed to a decrease in voterturnout and in political participation in general. One goalof Clean Election reform is to foster a more vigorous de-mocracy by reversing these trends. The results from Maineand Arizona show that reform has been successful in meet-ing the goal of increasing competition and voter choice.

✔✔✔✔✔ Number of candidates for public office increased. Inboth Maine and Arizona, Clean Election systems con-tributed to a rise in the number of candidates runningfor state legislative seats in 2000 compared to the pre-vious election in 1998. The number of candidates run-ning for office in primary and general elections com-bined rose by 12% in Arizona and by 5% in Maine.

✔✔✔✔✔ Rates of participation in Clean Election systems high.In both states, substantial numbers of candidates choseto participate in Clean Election systems in both the pri-mary and general elections, and in races for both legis-lative houses, giving many voters the option of choos-ing a candidate who did not accept large private dona-tions. The percentages ranged from 27% in Arizona’sprimary to 33% in Maine’s general election.

✔✔✔✔✔ Number of contested races rose, Clean Election candi-dates an important factor. The number of contestedprimary races in the 2000 elections rose by 40% and 33%in Maine’s House and Senate, respectively, while falling2% and rising 40% in Arizona’s House and Senate. InMaine, Clean Election candidates helped boost these to-tals, as they were involved in contested primaries atmuch higher rates than non-participating candidates.

✔✔✔✔✔ Clean Election Reform encouraged more women andpeople of color to run for office. The availability ofClean Election funds was cited by many women and

How Clean Election Reform Achieved Its Goalsin the 2000 Elections in Maine and Arizona


9

GOAL #3: Achieving Greater FinancialParity for Candidates Who Lack SpecialInterest Funding

Under traditional electoral systems, it often takes a greatdeal of money to run a successful campaign for state of-fice. As a result many candidates without access to corpo-rate contributions or special interest money are unable tocompete, or even contemplate running for office. A thirdgoal of Clean Election reform is to enable many more can-didates to run and win elections by ensuring greater par-ity in financial resources among all candidates for a givenoffice. The 2000 results show that the public financing pro-visions of the new systems met this goal.

✔✔✔✔✔ Participating candidates matched non-participatingopponents in campaign spending. Participating can-didates on average matched non-participants in cam-paign spending, indicating that the new systems areworking to reduce financial disparities among candi-dates. Clean Election systems provided participatingcandidates with a base amount of public funds to en-able them to be competitive, and a “matching funds”provision in the laws provided additional funds if theiropponents spent more.

✔✔✔✔✔ Participating candidates competitive. Participatingcandidates won a notable proportion of their races,showing that running with public funds allowed them

to be competitive with traditionally funded candidates.In the 2000 general elections, Clean Election candidateswon 53% of their races in Maine and 36% of their racesin Arizona.

✔✔✔✔✔ Clean Election reform narrowed the spending gapbetween winning and losing candidates. In bothstates, the difference between the amount spent on cam-paigns by winning and losing candidates was reducedsignificantly, indicating that races were more competi-tive and voters had more balanced information on thecandidates. In Maine, losing candidates were able toraise and spend more than three-quarters of the amountspent by winners (78%), compared to just over half asmuch (53%) in the previous election cycle, held underthe old rules. In Arizona, losing candidates raised andspent 69% of the amount spent by winners, comparedto 46% in 1998.

✔ Clean Election reform narrowed the spending gapbetween challengers and incumbents. In 2000, can-didates who challenged incumbent legislators in Maineraised 78 cents for every dollar raised by their incum-bent opponents, compared to 54 cents to every dollarin 1998. In Arizona, challengers were able to spendthree quarters as much money as incumbents, com-pared to only 37% as much in 1998 — a dramatic gainin their competitiveness. These numbers are significantbecause challengers traditionally have a much hardertime raising money than incumbents.

✔✔✔✔✔ Overall competitiveness of races increased. Maine vot-ers also benefited from a jump in the number of com-petitive elections in 2000 compared to 1998.* Theseraces — where the losing candidate won at least 40%of the vote — prompted a greater amount of debate anddiscussion during the campaign season.

✔✔✔✔✔ Incumbency remains a powerful factor. Incumbencywas still a powerful force in the 2000 elections in Maineand Arizona. In both states they dominated the generalelections, winning more than 90% of their races.

* This competitiveness analysis was performed for Maine only,due to the availability of data and the larger number of legisla-tive races available to examine.

54%

78%

37%

76%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Maine1998

Maine2000

Arizona1998

Arizona2000

Ratio of Spending, Challengers to Incumbents,2000 and 1998


10

GOAL #4: Reducing the Influence ofSpecial Interests

Special interests pour millions of dollars into electoralpolitics, using their financial power to influence the pub-lic policy agenda and legislators’ votes. The resulting wide-spread public perception that special interests have a dis-proportionate voice in governmental decision-makingdiscourages voter participation and political engagement.A fourth goal of Clean Election reform is to reduce theinfluence of special interest money in politics. The resultsfrom Maine and Arizona in 2000 show that the new sys-tems also met this goal.

✔✔✔✔✔ Substantial portions of new legislatures not tied toprivate funding. Almost half of Maine’s current stateSenate (17 out of 35 members) and 30% of the House(45 of 151) ran under Clean Election rules. In Arizona,20% of House members and 7% of Senate members ranas Clean Election candidates.

✔ Arizona Corporation Commission more independent.Both newly elected members of this important commis-

sion, whose duties include regulating public utilities andthe securities industry, participated in the Clean Electionsystem. These new commissioners, two out of a total ofthree on the Commission, are the first elected withoutcontributions from the businesses they regulate, peopleassociated with them, or any other private source.

✔✔✔✔✔ Private funding cut dramatically. On a per-candidatebasis, private funding in the 2000 elections fell by 17%in Arizona and by 51% in Maine, greatly reducing thereliance of candidates on private donors.

✔✔✔✔✔ Reduced role of special interests in government deci-sion making. The results of Clean Election reform arealready beginning to show in the way state legislaturesoperate. In Maine, for example, the state overcame cor-porate opposition to pass a successful universal healthcare plan bill in 2001. According to Rep. Paul Volenik,the bill’s Democratic sponsor, the insurance industry’sinfluence in the legislature was diminished, and “a por-tion of that is due to Clean Elections.”

Conclusions: Challenges and AchievementsThe analyses of Clean Election systems contained in thisreport are, by their nature, limited, given that they are basedon the first and only year of data available. Much more re-mains to be learned from the operation of Clean Electionreform in 2002 and 2004. At the same time, we are awareof the extent to which our electoral systems, even the CleanElection ones, are still beset by a host of problems andbarriers to full democratic participation. The advantages ofincumbency are still powerful factors in determining theoutcome of many elections. Our political process is stillawash in a sea of special interest money, and wealth con-tinues to play a disproportionate role in elections, if notin the financing of races, then in the way that issues andpolicy solutions are framed, publicized and publicly de-bated. Women and people of color still face additional ob-stacles to running for and winning public office.

Nevertheless, we believe that this report documents anumber of major achievements for the public funding

approach to campaign finance reform. Our findingsshow that public funding of state elections has fostereda healthier democracy by increasing electoral competi-tion and voter choices. Public funding frees participat-ing candidates from endless fundraising and enablesthem to devote their campaigns to meeting with andtalking to the voters. This, too, promotes a more vigor-ous democracy. Clean Election reform addresses theimbalances in financial resources in traditional electoralsystems by fostering greater parity in campaign fundsavailable to incumbents and challengers, financially wellconnected individuals and average citizens. Finally,Clean Election reform reduces the role of special inter-ests in the electoral process, and in government decisionmaking, by creating a system where candidates can beelected without having to rely on a single dollar of spe-cial interest money. In short, our findings reveal that re-forming the electoral system is possible.


11

For a long time now, the United States has been expe-riencing a crisis in the way we choose our elected officials. A critical aspect of this crisis is the dispropor-

tionate role of money in politics in general and in electionsin particular. Today, there are more dollars in politics thanever before. As big money throws its weight behind candi-date after candidate, many voters search in vain for mean-ingful alternatives at the ballot box.

In most states, virtually all candidates are forced to putmuch of their time and energy into asking for funds fromwealthy individuals and organizations instead of meetingwith voters. No matter what the candidate’s qualificationsor how cogent the campaign platform, without the moneyto make one’s voice heard, a candidate has little chance ofbeing elected. Since making oneself heard — via literature,paid staff, media advertising, and other means — oftentakes large amounts of funds, those who have the mostaccess to money have a major advantage in running.

As a result of this situation, big donors and special inter-ests receive more access to candidates — both before andafter elections. This means more opportunities to talk to,and influence, public officials about issues that affect them.The system has an inherent bias. The voices of ordinarycitizens get drowned out.

But politics does not have to be this way. On November 5,1996, Maine voters changed the rules of the game dramati-cally. They passed a Clean Election Act by a margin of 56%to 44% — a resounding victory for democracy. This votemade Maine the first state in the nation to provide theoption of full public financing for political campaigns. Thereform effort was spearheaded by the Dirigo Alliance, astate-based nonprofit coalition, together with NortheastAction, a regional center for citizen action.

In 1997, the Vermont Legislature adopted a similar law,instituting new campaign spending limits and the optionof public funding for qualified candidates for governor andlieutenant governor. Then, on November 3, 1998 Arizonavoters passed Proposition 200 — the Citizens Clean Elec-tions Act — with similar provisions to those in Maine. Inall three states, the new laws went into effect in 2000, cov-ering legislative races in Maine and Arizona, as well as racesfor seats on the Arizona Corporation Commission. A simi-lar law was scheduled to become operational for legisla-tive and statewide offices in Massachusetts in 2002, but isbeing held up by the legislature’s refusal to adequately fundthe new system.

Clean Election systems are designed to drastically reducethe role of large private funders in political campaigns,while not interfering with constitutionally protected speechas defined by the U.S. Supreme Court.1 Candidates whochoose to run for office by participating in a Clean Elec-tion system are provided with a limited and equal amountof public funds in exchange for a pledge to abide by strictspending limits. Those who choose not to participate maycontinue to raise and spend private funds, although theyare subject to new limits on the amount that any singlecontributor may give them, and to new reporting require-ments.

Clean Election candidates become eligible to participate atthe beginning of an election cycle by collecting a largenumber of small private contributions — $5 per contribu-tor in Arizona and Maine. A state “Clean Election Fund”then provides participating candidates with a pre-deter-mined amount of funding to allow them to compete withtheir non-participating opponents. The systems offersupplemental funds, dollar for dollar, throughout the cam-

I. Introduction:The Problem of Money in Politics


12

paign to help participating candidates keep pace with theirprivately financed opponents. These “matching funds” arealso available when candidates are targeted by independentexpenditures, but they are subject to limits on the dollaramount that any one candidate may receive.

This report examines Clean Election reform in the electionresults from Maine and Arizona in 2000. (There is also amuch more limited look at the Clean Election system andthe 2000 elections in Vermont.) We have organized ouranalysis of these results and the impact of the new systemsaccording to four goals that clean election reformers hopedto achieve with these laws:

• Increasing competition and voter choice;

• Freeing candidates from the money chase and increas-ing their time with the voters;

• Fostering greater parity in financial resources amongcandidates; and

• Reducing the influence of special interests in legislaturesand other public bodies.

The statistical evidence documented in the sections below,and the anecdotal reports from candidates (summarizedin quotes throughout), demonstrate convincingly that elec-tions conducted under these new public financing systemswere a resounding success in their first year of operation.The problem of money in politics is, of course, greater thanthe problems associated with campaign fundraising andspending. As more than one commentator has noted, thecampaign finance system is deeply embedded in a complexworld of political practices, all or most of which are heavilydependent on money for their continued operation. Thereare the problems of “soft money” contributions to politi-cal parties, self-funded candidates, campaign issue ads andindependent expenditures that indirectly boost campaigns.These serious problems all need to be addressed. But CleanElection reform is a critical first step in this direction.


13

A. MAINE’S CLEANELECTION SYSTEMThe Reform’s Beginnings

In November 1996 Maine voters passed an historic refer-endum to become the first state in the nation with a CleanElection system. Work for the Maine Clean Election Actbegan in the early 1990s, when the Maine Citizen Lead-ership Fund (MCLF) began tracing the source of campaigncontributions and documenting the overwhelming influ-ence of private interests on public policy. MCLF and itssister organization, the Dirigo Alliance, organized a broadcoalition of organizations to lay the basis for fundamen-tal reform: Maine Voters for Clean Elections. The coali-tion (later renamed Maine Citizens for Clean Elections)included the Maine League of Women Voters, the MaineAFL-CIO, the AARP, Maine Common Cause, the NaturalResource Council of Maine, the Maine People’s Alliance,the Dirigo Alliance, and the Reform Party of Maine.

The coalition spent several years building a solid base ofsupport, preparing a carefully crafted ballot referendum,expanding grassroots organizing and conducting publiceducation. In a single day more than 1,000 coalition vol-unteers were able to collect the necessary 65,000 signaturesto put the referendum on the ballot. All this hard work paidoff in 1996 when the measure passed, by a 56%-44%margin, inaugurating the most comprehensive overhaul ofcampaign financing achieved anywhere in the nation upto that time. It has since become a model for reform acrossthe country.

The first elections under the Maine Clean Election systemtook place in 2000, covering all state House and Senateseats. In 2002 it will apply to the gubernatorial race as well(all other statewide offices are filled by appointment orthrough elections in the Legislature).

Overcoming a Legal Challenge

The new law was immediately challenged in Federal court,and reformers set to work helping the legal team that wasprepared to defend its constitutionality. It was a long pro-cess, but ultimately the Federal Court decisively ruled thatMaine’s Clean Election system, and its incentives for can-didates who accept public financing, is constitutional. Inaddition, the court upheld the law’s new limits on cam-paign contributions to privately funded candidates. Thesedecisions created a binding precedent on these issues forthe states in the First Circuit, and persuasive legal author-ity for states in all other Circuits. They were major victo-ries for finance reform advocates nationwide.

How the Maine Clean Election SystemOperates

How Candidates Qualify for Public Funding

Candidates who want to participate in the Clean Electionsystem begin the process by filing a “declaration of intent.”In it they agree to forego all private contributions (includ-ing self-financing) except for limited “seed money,” and tolimit their spending to the amounts they receive from thefund. They must then demonstrate citizen support by col-lecting a set number of $5 qualifying contributions fromregistered voters (50 contributions for a State house race,150 for the State senate, and 2,500 for a gubernatorial race).The number of qualifying contributions required was setby law and is based on the relatively small populations ofhouse districts (8,000 people) and senate districts (34,000people) in Maine. These qualifying contributions are notavailable for the candidates to spend but go into the MaineClean Election Fund.

II. How Clean Election Reform Operatesin Maine, Arizona, and Vermont


14

Permissible Seed Money

Candidates seeking to qualify may raise and spend limitedamounts of “seed money” from individuals only to helpthem with the qualifying process. Gubernatorial candidatesare limited to $50,000 of “seed money”, senate candidatesto $1,500 and house candidates to $500. No single con-tribution to a candidate’s seed money may exceed $100.

Table #1:Maine Seed Money and Qualifying Contributions

Individual Number ofSeed Seed Qualifying Amount of

Money Contribution Contributions QualifyingCaps Limit Required Contribution

Governor $50,000 $100 2,500 $5

State Senate $1,500 $100 150 $5

State House $500 $100 50 $5

What Qualified Candidates Receive

Predetermined amounts of campaign funds are given to allqualified candidates for primary and general election racesbased on the average amount spent in similar races in theprevious two election cycles. Participating Clean Electioncandidates are also eligible for additional matching fundson a dollar-for-dollar basis if they are outspent by privatelyfunded opponents or are the target of independent expen-ditures (such as ads that benefit an opponent’s campaignbut are produced by a group not associated with that op-ponent). The total amount of matching funds available toa candidate is capped at double the initial distribution thecandidate received for that race.

Table #2:What Qualified Candidates Received in Maine in 2000

Primary Election General Election

Initial Maximum Initial Maximumdistribution Grant with distribution Grant with

Matching Funds Matching Funds

State Senate

Contested Races $4,334 $13,002 $12,910 $38,730

Uncontested Races $1,785 $1,785 $0 $0

State House

Contested Races $1,141 $3,423 $3,252 $9,756

Uncontested Races $511 $511 $0 $0

Contribution Limits on Non-Participating Candidates

Candidates who reject the option of public financing orwho fail to qualify are still free to collect and spend privatemoney. However, traditionally funded legislative candi-dates are now limited to receiving contributions of $250or less per donor and gubernatorial candidates are limitedto contributions of $500 or less. In the past they could havecollected up to $1,000 from individuals and $5,000 frompolitical action committees and corporations. Of course,privately funded candidates may spend as much of theirown money as they want on their races.

Sources of Money in the Clean Election Fund

The funds for the Clean Election system come from a vari-ety of sources. The system receives $2 million annually intax revenues from the state’s general fund. The Fund hasalso garnered approximately $250,000 a year from a vol-untary check off program on state tax returns. All qualify-ing contributions raised by candidates also go into theFund.

Cost of the System to Maine Taxpayers

The cost of running the Clean Election system for theyear 2000 legislative elections was minimal, at 69 centsper resident of the state. In relation to the state budget,it was only three one hundredths of one percent of to-tal state spending.


15

Table #3:Maine Clean Election Spending in 2000 Relative to

Population and State Government Budget2

Expenditures per resident of state 69 cents

Expenditures per voting age resident 92 cents

Expenditures as a % of all state government spending 0.03%

How the Maine System is Administered

The Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Elec-tion Practices is responsible for administering the CleanElection system. It reviews candidate disclosure reports,decides on the payment of matching funds, and has thepower to penalize candidates who fail to comply with therequirements of the law.

Modifications to the Maine Clean Election Lawin 2001

In 2001, Maine Citizens for Clean Elections successfullyrecommended a number of modest changes to improvethe law, based on surveys and other feedback from candi-dates. Among the changes approved by the legislature werethe following:

1. Improvements in the “matching funds” system. Therewill be more checks and balances on privately financedcandidates in the future, to ensure the immediate pro-vision of supplemental “matching funds” to publiclyfunded candidates when their opponent spends beyonda certain limit. While most candidates surveyed said thematching funds system worked well, officials discoveredpost-election that 10 privately financed candidates hadneglected to file timely reports that would have triggeredsupplemental funding to their opponents. Administra-tors concluded that the violations were not intentional,but resulted from unfamiliarity with the new reportingrequirements. However, the law was amended to requireadditional reports from privately financed candidates at

42, 21 and 12 days before each election. Also, theamendment requires more monitoring of the reports bythe state Ethics Commission and more frequent meet-ings of the Ethics Commission in the final weeks beforean election.

2. Membership communications. The issue of member-ship communications came up during the campaignseason, when several candidates cried foul because theiropponents had received help from a union, which hadactivated its members. The law was amended to clarifythat membership communications will not be consid-ered independent expenditures under the Clean Elec-tion law. In fact, it was the intention of the law’s draft-ers to encourage this type of grassroots campaigning,rather than large-scale media buys.

3. Other Issues. The law was also amended to extend thetime period in which candidates may qualify for pub-lic funds, and to provide a modest distribution of fundsto uncontested general election candidates.

Looking Toward 2002

Based on the overwhelmingly positive responses to the newsystem from participating candidates in 2000 — many intelephone interviews with Maine Citizens for Clean Elec-tions — advocates expect that more legislative candidateswill use the system in 2002. Already, 1 of 2 Republicancandidates and 1 of 2 Independent candidates for gover-nor in 2002 have pledged to run with public financing. Theindependent is the former mayor of Lewiston, and the firstAfrican American to run for statewide office in Maine. TheRepublican is a former 4-term lawmaker and a crediblecontender. Two Green Party candidates also intend to usethe Clean Election system. As for legislative seats, MaineCitizens for Clean Elections anticipates that more candi-dates will use the system in 2002 as well. 87% of Mainecandidates who ran with public financing in 2000 said thatthey would definitely or very likely participate in the sys-tem if they ran again for state office.


16

B. ARIZONA’S CLEANELECTION SYSTEMHow Arizona Passed Clean Election Reform

Arizona voted to adopt the Clean Election model of cam-paign finance reform by a 51-49% majority in a 1998 bal-lot initiative. This victory was the result of a carefullyplanned statewide educational and political campaignorganized by a coalition that had broad popular support.Coalition members included the Arizona League ofWomen Voters, the Arizona Women’s Political Caucus,the Reform Party, the Arizona AFL-CIO, the AARP, theSouthwest Center for Bio-Diversity, Arizona Citizen Ac-tion, Arizona Common Cause, and the Arizona SierraClub. In spite of a determined opposition, led by the Ari-zona Chamber of Commerce, nearly one million Arizo-nans voted for campaign finance reform.

The Arizona law applies to all legislative and statewideoffices. In 2000, it covered races for the legislature and fortwo seats on the State Corporation Commission, an ad-ministrative body that has broad power to regulate utili-ties, securities dealers, and other businesses. In 2002 it willcover a host of additional statewide races as well.

After Passage: Facing a Legal Challenge

The constitutionality of the new law was immediately chal-lenged in state court, and, while the case was ultimatelydismissed by the Arizona Supreme Court, the decisioncame so close to the primary election and the nominatingpetition deadline that it discouraged some candidates fromrunning under the new system. A subsequent action chal-lenging the funding mechanism of the Arizona Clean Elec-tion Law, brought by a lobbyist and a legislator, is currentlypending in state court. The suit challenges two of the fund-ing provisions of the law. The first, an annual fee on lob-byists, does not generate significant income, and is notmuch of a concern for reformers. The second, however,challenges the 10% surcharge on civil/criminal penalties,which generates 66% of Clean Election Fund revenues.Reformers feel that they are on solid legal ground in theway the law is written, and are looking forward to prevail-ing in court.

How the Arizona Clean Election SystemOperates


Persons who desire to run as Clean Election candidates inArizona must first file with the state an “Application forCertification as a Participating Candidate.” Next, prospec-tive candidates must collect $5 qualifying contributionsfrom a set number of registered voters in their districts (orstatewide if they are running for a statewide office), withthe number required varying according to the office beingsought. Gubernatorial candidates must collect contribu-tions from 4,000 voters; house and senate candidates from200 registered voters. As in Maine, all qualifying contribu-tions go into the state Clean Election Fund.

Permissible Seed Money

Candidates seeking to qualify may raise and spend limitedamounts of seed money to help them with the qualifyingprocess. Gubernatorial candidates may collect $40,000;candidates for the Corporation Commission, $10,000; andsenate and house candidates, $2,500. No single contribu-tion to a candidate’s seed money may exceed $100.

Table #4:Arizona Seed Money and Qualifying Contributions

Individual Number ofSeed Seed Qualifying Amount of

Money Contribution Contributions QualifyingCaps Limit Required Contribution

Governor $40,000 $100 4,000 $5

Attorney General &Secretary of State $20,000 $100 2,500 $5

CorporationCommission $10,000 $100 1,500 $5

State Senateor House $2,500 $100 200 $5


17

What a Qualified Candidate Receives

Once the state certifies that candidates have met the quali-fying requirements, they receive a set and equal “baseamount” of public funding for their primary and generalelection campaigns. Once qualified, candidates may notuse any of their own money in their races, nor may theyaccept contributions from any private sources.

The “base amount” of money the Clean Election candidatereceives is that candidate’s spending limit. If, however,during the primary or the general election a Clean Electioncandidate is outspent by a privately funded opponent, thislimit may be exceeded. In such situations, Clean Electioncandidates quickly become eligible for supplemental, dol-lar for dollar matching funds so that they can keep pacewith their opponents’ spending.

Table #5:What Qualified Candidates Received in Arizona in 2000

Primary Election General Election

Initial Maximum Initial Maximumdistribution Grant with distribution Grant with

Matching Funds Matching Funds

CorporationCommission $40,000 $120,000 $60,000 $180,000

State Senate& House $10,000 $30,000 $15,000 $45,000

Note: Amounts shown are for contested races. Unopposed candidates received anamount equal to $5 times the number of qualifying signatures a candidategathered.

Independent expenditures by other groups or organiza-tions that benefit a candidate’s campaign may also triggerthe allocation of matching funds. The total amount ofmatching funds a candidate may collect is three times thebase amount the candidate originally received.

Contribution Limits on Non-Participating Candidates

Candidates who choose not to participate in the CleanElection system may continue to raise and spend moneyfrom individuals, PACs and corporations and run their

campaigns in the conventional way. However, now theymust abide by new limits on the size of contributions theyaccept. These new limits are 20% less than those that ex-isted prior to the passage of the Clean Election law. Con-tributions from individuals and political committees arenow limited to $270 for candidates for legislative office and$700 for candidates for statewide office.

Table #6:Arizona Contribution Limits for Non-ParticipatingCandidates or Authorized Candidate Committees

Legislative StatewideOffices Offices

Individual’s contribution to a candidate $270 $700

Political Committee’s contribution to a candidate $270 $700

Committees certified to give at the upper limit(“Super PAC”) $1,380 $3,460

Combined total from all Political Committeesother than political Parties $6,910 $69,120

Nominee’s total from political party and allpolitical organizations combined $6,910 $69,120

Total contributed in a calendar year by anindividual to candidates and committeeswho give to candidates $3,230 $3,230

Sources of Money for the Clean Election Fund

In Arizona, the funds for the Clean Election system comefrom fees from lobbyists, a 10% surcharge on civil andcriminal fines and penalties, the $5 qualifying contribu-tions candidates collect, a $5 check off on state tax returnsand a number of other smaller sources. In 2000, the CleanElection Fund received over $4.6 million from surchargeson fines and penalties, and approximately $1.8 millionfrom the tax check off. Another $1.4 million was raised bythese methods from January through April 2001. In the2000 elections, over $1.9 million in Clean Election fundswas distributed to the 59 candidates who ran under thesystem.


18

The Cost of the System to Arizona Taxpayers

The cost of running the Arizona Clean Election system forthe 2000 legislative and Corporation Commission elec-tions was minimal, at less than $1 per resident or votingage resident of the state. In relation to the state budget, itwas a meager one twentieth of one percent of total statespending.

Table #7:Arizona Clean Election Spending in 2000 Relative to

Population and State Government Budget3

Expenditures per resident of state 66 cents

Expenditures per voting age resident 94 cents

Expenditures as a % of all state government spending 0.05%

How the Arizona System is Administered

The Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission is re-sponsible for administering the Clean Election system. Itreviews candidate disclosure reports, decides on the pay-ment of matching funds, and has the power to penalizecandidates who fail to comply with the requirements of thelaw. The Arizona Secretary of State is responsible for moni-toring candidates’ spending reports. A nonpartisan watch-dog group, the Arizona Clean Elections Institute, alsooversees implementation and has played a substantial rolein educating candidates about the law.

The Arizona Clean Election Law in the2001 Legislature

In 2001 Arizona reformers worked with supportive sena-tors on a proposal to make the Clean Election system workmore smoothly. Among other things, it would have estab-

lished an earlier qualifying deadline and strengthened theenforcement provisions of the law. The bill was defeatedin a floor vote because, reformers believe, it had too manydifferent provisions.

On the opposing side, several bills were submitted to un-dermine Clean Election reform in the state house. Onecalled for a repeal of the law through a re-vote on the bal-lot initiative. Two others, authored by the same represen-tative, would have raided the Clean Election Fund by reas-signing the monies to the state Traffic Safety Fund, andreduced the effectiveness of the voluntary state tax checkoff funding mechanism. This legislation re-energized thepublic, and the response in support of the law was so over-whelming that none of the bills made it out of commit-tee.

Looking Toward 2002

The next elections to be held in Arizona under the CleanElection system will be in the fall of 2002. Already, a widerange of candidates has indicated an interest in participat-ing in the Clean Election system, if they decide to run. Thegroup includes six of seven prospective gubernatorial can-didates, Democrats and Republicans. Given that Arizonais in the middle of a redistricting process, some legislativecandidates are waiting to see what the new districts willlook like before making their decision. Nonetheless, basedon phone calls and contacts with the Arizona Clean Elec-tions Institute, the majority of Democrats, Republicansand independents currently considering running are sug-gesting that they will seek to qualify for public funding.Reasons for increased participation include the successfulresolution of the lawsuit that, in 2000, kept many candi-dates from opting in, and the positive experiences of thosewho did run with public financing that year.


19

C. VERMONT’S CLEANELECTION SYSTEMVermont — First Legislative Victory forClean Elections

In 1997, Vermont’s Citizens’ Coalition for Clean Elec-tions (CCCE) spearheaded a successful drive for campaignfinance reform legislation. The Vermont bill represents thefirst legislative victory for Clean Election reform in the coun-try. Among several other provisions, Vermont’s law, as ori-ginally passed, featured public funding for qualifyingcandidates for the offices of Lieutenant Governor and Gov-ernor and strict limits on political party, PAC, corporate andindividual giving. Unlike the Clean Election laws in Maineand Arizona, the Vermont law also imposed strict spend-ing limits on privately funded candidates. Proponents ofthese latter provisions were well aware that they would besubject to judicial attack on constitutional grounds.

In fact, the law was almost immediately challenged in Fed-eral Court by the Vermont Right to Life PAC and otherparties. A District Court decision, issued on August 10,2000, affirmed the constitutionality of the law’s lowest-in-the-nation limits on individual, corporate and PAC con-tributions (which ranged from $200 to $400 dependingon the office sought), but declared its limits on contribu-tions from political parties to candidates unconstitution-ally low. Judge Sessions also declared that the law’s spend-ing caps — ranging from $300,000 for gubernatorialcandidates down to $2,000 for a House candidate — wereunconstitutional. The case is currently on appeal before theSecond Circuit Federal Court of Appeals.

How the Vermont Clean Election System Works


Persons who desire to run as Clean Election candidatesmust meet certain qualifications. They cannot have raisedor spent more than $500 on their campaigns prior to Feb-ruary 15th of the election year. Thereafter, they may notaccept or expend any monies on their campaigns exceptqualifying contributions and any public funds they receiveafter qualifying. As in Maine and Arizona, prospective can-

didates must collect a set number of qualifying contribu-tions from registered voters to be eligible for public fund-ing. A gubernatorial candidate must collect no less than$35,000 from no fewer than 1,500 qualified individualcontributors, making a contribution of no more than $50each. A candidate running for lieutenant governor mustcollect no less than $17,500 from no fewer than 750 quali-fied individual contributors, contributing no more than$50 each. No more than 25% of the total number of quali-fied individual contributors may be residents of the samecounty.

Use of Qualifying Contributions as Seed Money

A candidate may use the qualifying contributions for thepurpose of obtaining additional qualifying contributionsand may expend the remaining qualifying contributionsduring the primary and general election periods. Amountsexpended to obtain qualifying contributions are expendi-tures of the candidate and count toward the candidate’sspending limits.

The Funding Qualified Candidates Receive

Candidates who qualify for public financing receive the fol-lowing amounts from the Vermont campaign fund for theirraces, except for incumbents, who receive 85% of theseamounts. Candidates for Governor receive $75,000 for useduring the primary election and $225,000 for use duringthe general election. Candidates for Lt. Governor receive$25,000 for the primary election and $75,000 for the gen-eral election. The primary election grant to all candidatesis reduced by the amount of qualifying contributions re-ceived. Candidates may use grants awarded but not spentin a primary election in their general election campaigns.

There is no matching funds provision in the Vermont law,as there is in the Clean Election laws in Maine and Arizona.The original law sought to level the playing field amongcandidates by restricting the amount that all candidatescould spend, thereby rendering a matching funds provisionunnecessary. However, this spending restriction was sub-sequently declared unconstitutional by a federal court (seeabove).

Sources of Money in the Clean Election Fund

The funds for the Clean Election system come from annualreport fees paid by corporations registering to do businessin Vermont, and a number of smaller sources.


20

How the Vermont System is Administered

The Vermont Secretary of State is responsible for adminis-tering the Vermont Clean Election system, with enforce-ment being the responsibility of the Vermont AttorneyGeneral.

The 2000 Elections in Vermont

The first elections were conducted under the VermontClean Election law in 2000. Two candidates ran with publicfinancing. One was Douglas Racine, a long time supporterof campaign finance reform, who campaigned successfullyand won re-election for a third term as the state’s Lieuten-ant Governor. Although the race garnered only limitedpublicity, the fact that Racine insisted upon conducting hiscampaign with public financing was an important vote ofconfidence in the new law. The other candidate who ranwith public funding was Anthony Pollina, the ProgressiveParty’s gubernatorial candidate.

The Vermont gubernatorial election was a hotly contestedthree-way race, particularly given the bitter dispute betweenRepublicans and Democrats over the governor’s support fora recently passed “civil union” law granting legal rights topartners in gay couples. Over $2 million was spent in theelection (with most coming from political parties), com-pared to approximately $900,000 two years previously.

Because the federal court removed the law’s spending limitson privately funded candidates part way through the cam-paign, Governor Howard Dean, who had begun campaign-ing under the Clean Election system, changed his mind andreturned his public funds to the state. He cited concernsthat his Republican opponent was receiving enormousamounts of money, much of it from out-of-state groups,and that the recent court ruling left him no way to keep up.

While Dean’s decision was a blow to Clean Election advo-cates, the gubernatorial race in Vermont nonetheless dem-onstrated how a Clean Election law can broaden anddeepen the democratic process by offering new visibilityfor third-party candidates. Progressive Party candidateAnthony Pollina — a well-respected grassroots organizerwith over 20 years experience — raised issues in the cam-paign that no other candidate was addressing. Theseincluded issues of rural development and sustainable ag-riculture, and environmental issues, including dam remov-

als, shutting the Vermont Yankee nuclear reactor, and stop-ping a proposed sprawl-inducing highway.

Public funding also gave Pollina legitimacy in the politi-cal process: he was quoted consistently along with theDemocratic and Republican candidates in the press, andincluded with them in all major debates. In the end, hegarnered nearly 10% of the vote, a respectable showing fora first-time candidate in a heated three-way race.

Looking Toward 2002

Vermont reformers are currently supporting a number ofamendments to the state Clean Election law to expand andimprove its provisions in light of the Federal Court deci-sion. The three most important proposals would:

• Close the political party contribution loophole. TheCourt ruling indicated that limited political party con-tributions may not be unconstitutional per se, and aproposal is under consideration to establish limits rang-ing from $2,000 for a house seat to $50,000 for guber-natorial candidates.

• Extend public funding. A bill has been introduced toextend public funding for senate candidates in additionto the two highest statewide posts. Another proposalsubmitted by the Secretary of State suggests that thecurrent public funding be used for house races, insteadof statewide offices, an idea that has sparked some con-troversy among reformers.

• Add a matching funds provision to the law. The sen-ate bill would also create a matching funds mechanism,whereby a participating candidate would be entitled tomatching funds in the event an opponent who choosesnot to participate in the system spends more than themaximum allowed by the Clean Election law for that of-fice. This reform is important, because the federal courtruling in August 2000 left Vermont with no mechanismto keep candidates financially competitive. .

The next elections to be held in Vermont under the CleanElection system will be in the fall of 2002. At this point itappears that none of the Democrats or Republicans whointend to run for governor or lieutenant governor in 2002will seek to do so with public funding. The ProgressiveParty has declared its intention of running candidates forboth offices using the Clean Election system.


21

A. INCREASING COMPETITIONAND VOTER CHOICEIn most states operating under traditional electoral systems,there is often little competition for state legislative offices.In November 2000, a third or more of the elections wentuncontested in 26 of the 50 states — meaning that votersin those races had no choice about whom their electedofficials would be. The percentage of uncontested electionsranged from a high of 73% in Arkansas to a low of 3% inNorth Dakota. While there are many reasons for this situ-ation, among them is the difficulty that challengers face inraising the necessary money to conduct a credible cam-paign.

The lack of competition is particularly dramatic in primaryelections. The absence of competition in these races meansthat fewer issues are raised and debated and, because un-challenged candidates don’t have to fight to stay in office,they are less accountable to voters. For all these reasons, akey goal of Clean Election reform is to increase electoralcompetition and thereby expand the range of choices avail-able to voters.

Our analysis of the 2000 elections in Maine and Arizonafound that the number of candidates for the legislature rosein both states with the introduction of Clean Election sys-tems. We also found a substantial increase in the numberof contested primary races for seats in both houses of theMaine legislature, and for seats in the Arizona senate.Moreover, candidates participated in the Clean Elections

system at relatively high rates during its first year. Many ofthese candidates indicated that the existence of a CleanElection public funding system was a decisive factor in theirdecisions to run for public office. In particular, a significantpercentage of the women and people of color who werecandidates in Maine and Arizona said that they would nothave run without the public financing option.

1. Number of Candidates Rose, HighParticipation in Clean Election Systems

The number of candidates running for office in primaryand general elections combined in 2000 rose in Arizonaby 12% and in Maine by 5%. While a variety of factorscontributed to enhanced competition, including term lim-its and changes in the political climate, Clean Election re-form also contributed to this result, as many of the candi-dates ran with public funding. In fact, candidates whoparticipated in Clean Election systems represented a size-able portion of the total number of candidates in each state.(See Table #8)

These participation levels were achieved even though therewere legal challenges to the Clean Election laws in eachstate, creating an air of uncertainty about the laws’ actualimplementation. These court challenges were defeated, butin Arizona the decision came down so close to the primaryelection that it made it more difficult for candidates tochoose to participate. Given such adverse conditions, theparticipation results obtained in each state are especiallyimpressive.

III. Year One in Maine and Arizona:How Well Did the New Systems Perform?


22

Table #8:Number of Candidates Running for

State Legislative Seats4

Maine Arizona

All candidates

1998 407 188

2000 426 211

Change 19 24

Percent change 5% 12%

Participating candidates 134 54

Participating as % of total 31% 26%

Arizona has a history of noncompetitive legislativeraces. Not only did we see a significant increase incompetitive races, we also saw Clean Election candi-dates running against incumbents who had not hadan opponent in years. Cecilia Martinez, ExecutiveDirector, Arizona Clean Elections Institute.

Equally impressive were some of the things that electedofficials themselves had to say about the experience ofparticipating in the Clean Election process: I wouldn’t haverun for public office if it hadn’t been for Maine Clean Elections.I wouldn’t have asked my family to have sacrificed thousandsof dollars for a campaign. Linda Clark Howard, a retiredschool teacher who ran for the legislature for the first timein 2000.

We were able to field some really ter-rific people in seats that frankly wouldhave been difficult to find good candi-dates in the past. And in fact someseats where we had no candidates twoyears ago, people are running becausethe Clean Elections Act allowed themto be competitive. Sen. Rick Bennett isSenate President and part of the Re-

publican leadership team that recruited candidatesto run in 2000. As a candidate in 2000, he alsoparticipated in the Clean Election system.

In Maine, about one-third of all candidates in both theprimary and general elections in 2000 participated in thenew system, while in Arizona between one-quarter andone-third of candidates participated. Given that this wasthe first test of these systems, it was a substantial achieve-ment that such a large percentage of all candidates volun-tarily chose to limit their total fundraising options and relyon public funds.

Figure #1:Percent Participating Candidates

Here is how Professor Anthony Corrado, a recognized ex-pert on campaign finance reform at Colby College, assessesthe impact of this degree of participation for the future ofClean Election reform: The fact that we had incumbents, chal-lengers and open seat candidates participate to the extent thatwe did has to be regarded as successful. And given the outcomeof this election where we had a significant percentage of the[Maine] senate and of the house elected as clean candidates,one would have to think that that will only encourage others torun under the public funding option.5

The following charts provide more detailed information onparticipation levels in both states. Looking first at Arizona,when the figures for candidates using public funding in theprimary and general elections are broken out separately,participation in the Clean Election system in the generalelection was slightly higher than in the primary.

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Arizona primary

Arizona general

Maine primary

Maine general


23

Table #9:Arizona: Number and Percent of Participating

Candidates in 2000 Primary and General Elections 6

Primary General

Total number of candidates 221 151

Number of participating candidates 59 44

% of all candidates who participated 27% 29%

For Maine, participation in the system was also slightlyhigher in the general election than in the primaries. Almosthalf of all candidates for the State senate participated, whilemore than one quarter of house candidates did so.

Table #10:Maine: Number and Percent of Participating Candidates

in 2000 Primary and General Elections 7

Primary General

Number of participating candidates 134 116

House 94 81

Senate 40 35

% of all candidates who participated 31% 33%

House 27% 29%

Senate 47% 49%

2. Number of Contested Primary RacesRose in Both Maine Houses, Arizona Senate

In Maine, the number of contested primary races has beensmall and decreasing in recent elections. But in 2000, thenumber rose significantly for seats in both houses of thelegislature.8 In Arizona, the number of contested primariesrose substantially in the senate, on a percentage basis, whiledeclining slightly in the house.9

Table #11:Contested Legislative Primary Races in 1998 and 2000

Maine ArizonaHouse Senate House Senate

1998 15 3 39 10

2000 21 4 38 14

% change 1998 to 2000 40% 33% -2% 40%

Clean Election reform does appear to have played a signifi-cant role in increased electoral competition in both statesfor two reasons. First, because a sizable number of CleanElection candidates participated in contested races. InMaine, Clean Election participants ran in half of the con-tested house primaries and three-quarters of the senateones. In Arizona, participating candidates ran in two-fifthsof the contested house primaries and one-fifth of the con-tested senate ones. Second, because many of these CleanElection participants have stated that, but for public financ-ing, they would not have run for office in 2000.

Figure #2:Participating Candidates in Contested Races 2000

0 10 20 30 40

Maine House

Maine Senate

Arizona House

Arizona Senate

races without a participating candidate

races with a participating candidate


24

3. Many Women and People of ColorRan Due to Clean Election Reform, ButNumbers of Candidates Remained Limited

Women and people of color have historically been under-represented in public office and as candidates, relative totheir percentages in the population. While the problem ofthe under-representation of people of color has not im-proved significantly in recent years, the number of womenelected officials has increased. In 2000, women were 22.5%of all state legislators in the United States. The figures forArizona and Maine in 2000 were slightly better in thisregard, at 35.6% and 28.0%, respectively, — although nei-ther state came close to providing women with represen-tation proportional to their share of the voting popula-tion.10

For years a friend of mine who was aformer representative used to come intothe restaurant where I worked... ’Youshould run for office, you should runfor office. ‘No, no, no. I can’t do that,I’m a single mother.’ And then Ithought maybe that’s the reason I

should. Rep. Deborah Simpson, who ran as aClean Election candidate in Maine in 2000.

The low representation of women and people of color inAmerican government is due to a variety of factors, manyconnected to the history of discrimination and disenfran-chisement that both groups have experienced. At the moreimmediate level, another factor is their relative lack of ac-cess to the money needed to run political campaigns. Thus,the availability of Clean Election funding enables morewomen and people of color to run for office and competeon a more equitable basis.

For me, personally and financially, it just madesense. I’m retired from teaching and we just put adaughter through college and are helping her payback her loans. The idea of starting a political cam-paign, providing public service, and still takingmoney from private interests felt uncomfortable anda little offensive to me. We’re seeing the repercus-

sions from campaign donations—look at what thepharmaceutical companies have done in this state.Clean Elections takes what people are unhappy without of public service—and that’s what governmentis. Linda Clark Howard.

In fact, the testimony of the women and people of colorwho did run for public office in Maine and Arizona in 2000confirms that the presence of the Clean Election reformoption was decisive in their decisions to become candi-dates. Many of the women candidates in Maine creditedthe existence of the new Clean Election system as a majorfactor in their decision to run.

I never thought to run without Clean Elections. I’ma single mom with two kids, working full time withno time to raise money. I like the whole concept ofit. Kelly Ann Staples, a social worker and first timecandidate for the Maine House of Representativesin 2000.

The Clean Election system was also an attractive option forArizona women candidates in 2000, 26% of whom par-ticipated in the system. In a telephone survey conductedin Arizona of those candidates who participated in the pub-lic financing system, the vast majority of women (87%)said that they would not have run without the availabilityof public funds. 11

Without the Clean Elections option, Iwould not have run for office and sub-sequently defeated a powerful incum-bent and the future Speaker of theHouse. Representative Meg BurtonCahill, a first-time Arizona legislativecandidate in 2000.

The role of Clean Election reform in the decisions of themore limited numbers of candidates of color who ran foroffice in 2000 was similar. A telephone survey of the Latinocandidates who ran with public funding in Arizona in 2000revealed that 80% of them said that they would not haverun without the availability of public funds.12


25

However, while positive, the results of the first election cycleof Clean Election reform in Maine and Arizona do notprovide sufficient data to draw firm conclusions about howpublic financing will ultimately affect political representa-tion of people of color and women. This is particularly truewith regard to the former. In Maine (with a minority popu-lation of 2%), no candidates of color ran in 1998 and onlyone ran in 2000. In Arizona, there were 26 candidates ofcolor in the 1998 general election and 23 in 2000, so noupward trend during the first year of Clean Election reformwas apparent.13

There is more data available on women in the 2000 elec-tions in these states. Compared to 1998, the number ofwomen running for legislative seats in the 2000 primaryand/or general elections rose in both states, growing by afifth in Arizona. For general elections alone, however, thenumber of women candidates in both states in 2000 wasonly slightly above the average for elections from 1988through the present.14

Table #12:Women Running in 2000 Legislative Elections15

Number of women candidates Maine Arizona

1998 113 61

2000 121 73

Change 8 12

% change 7% 20%

Note: data is for the primary and general elections combined.

Perhaps more telling than the statistics on the number ofwomen candidates running in 2000 is the fact that a sig-nificant number of these candidates participated in theClean Election systems. In both states, women participated

in the clean elections system at a greater rate than did men,in both primary and general elections. The difference wasslight in Arizona, but more substantial in Maine, where amuch higher rate of women were participants in the gen-eral election (45%) than were men (28%). (See Table #31for further details.) 39% of the women who ran for the statelegislature in Maine chose to run with public financing.

Notwithstanding these participation rates, it is not clearwhether participation in Clean Election systems helped thewomen who did run. Changes in electoral success bywomen were small in both states. The number who wonthe general election to the legislature in Maine rose by four,or 8%, from 1998 to 2000, while falling by the same per-cent in Arizona. In Maine, about half the winning womenwere participating candidates, while in Arizona only asmall percentage of the winners participated in Clean Elec-tions.

Conclusions

In both Maine and Arizona, Clean Election reform suc-ceeded in increasing the total number of candidates run-ning for office. It also increased the total number of con-tested primary races in the 2000 elections in both housesof the Maine legislature and in the Arizona senate. CleanElection reform attracted numerous candidates to partici-pate in the new systems, and the presence of so many can-didates not beholden to wealthy contributors was an im-portant new factor in these races. Interviews withparticipating candidates in Maine, and survey data fromArizona indicate that high percentages of participatingwomen and Latinos chose to become candidates in 2000because Clean Election funding was available. All of thesefactors enabled Clean Election reform to contribute to anincrease in electoral competition and enhanced voterchoice in the 2000 elections.


26

B. FREEING CANDIDATES FROMTHE MONEY CHASE ANDINCREASING THEIR TIME WITHTHE VOTERSClean Election reform addresses the seemingly unavoid-able requirement of American politics that candidates forelective office devote a large portion of their efforts to rais-ing money. Its goal is to enable candidates to spend theirtime with the voters, without regard to the individual vot-ers’ financial status. The evidence from their first test runin 2000 is that the availability of public funds frees partici-pating candidates from the money chase, and that the can-didates who ran “clean” enjoyed their newfound freedom.

In previous campaigns I have spent enormousamounts of time raising money, and it takes moneyto make money, so it’s costly. Clean Elections gaveme more time to talk with my constituents. Rep.Elizabeth Watson, a Democrat who won herfourth term in the Maine House in 2000.16

Here in Arizona, we have been verysuccessful with this process... It gave agood opportunity for individuals to getout there, talk to more of their con-stituents, do more of an effort to reachmore individuals... I would definitelyrun again as a Clean Election candi-date... The response was phenomenal.

Arizona Rep. Leah Landrum, D-Phoenix, andHouse Minority Whip.

Clean Election systems turn modern-day politicalfundraising on its head: candidates must raise a little bitof money from a lot of people instead of a lot of moneyfrom a few.

Regardless of the office being sought, candidates seekingto qualify must collect a set number of $5 contributionsfrom voters. In Arizona, candidates need 200 contributionsif running for a house or senate seat. In Maine, where dis-tricts have much smaller populations, candidates need 150contributions to run for senate seats and 50 to run for a seatin the state house. Candidates for statewide offices are re-quired to obtain a larger number of contributions.

This qualifying process forces candidates to spend theirtime interacting with potential voters early in the campaignseason, rather than with big-money donors. While solicit-ing a signature on a petition might be relatively easy, ob-taining a $5 contribution from a registered voter frequentlyrequires a candidate to spend time with that voter inthoughtful conversation and discussion. As a result, par-ticipating candidates in both states reported that the sys-tem caused them to modify significantly the way they cam-paigned — and that they preferred the new way of runningfor office.

The previous campaigns, I would say at least a halfor a third of the campaign time was spent raisingthe dollars. In this campaign, the time I spent rais-ing the dollars was actually in front of my constitu-ents, because as I went door to door...it gave me theopportunity to work more with my constituents andlet them see me and talk to me about some of the is-sues... It made me be more of a grassroots candi-date. Senator David Peterson, an Arizona Republi-can incumbent who ran with public financing in2000.

Maine Citizens for Clean Elections conducted a compre-hensive survey of candidates who ran with public financ-ing in the 2000 elections. 72% of candidates said that par-ticipating had a significant impact on the way theycampaigned.

I spent 90 percent of my time knocking on doors.This is where a candidate belongs, standing onporches. Don Gean, a former House member andcurrent Executive Director of the York CountyHomeless Shelter, who lost a state senate race in2000.


27

Among those candidates who said that participating in theClean Election system had a significant impact on the waythey campaigned, the single most important change theyidentified was its effect on how they spent their time. CleanElection reform allowed them to devote “more time forvoters, less time for soliciting.”17

It absolutely changed the way I cam-paigned. I spent more time on issuesand I budgeted better as well, since Iknew how much I could count on. Ittotally changed the focus — it was nolonger on money. I did a lot of door-to-door and phone banking. Rep. BoydMarley, newly elected Democratic

House member and Clean Election candidate fromPortland, Maine.18

Conclusions

Clean Election reform in Maine and Arizona showed itsstrength in the 2000 elections. Every potential voter had anequal claim to the attention of the participating candidates— a far cry from most elections in the United States. It’snot surprising that voters appreciated this change, butequally important is that candidates strongly preferredfocusing on the voters rather than being forced to concen-trate on those with the potential to be big donors.

C. ACHIEVING GREATERFINANCIAL PARITY FORCANDIDATES WHO LACKSPECIAL-INTEREST FUNDINGAnother critical goal of clean election reform is to reducethe financial disparities between candidates who have ex-tensive access to private funding and those who do not.Clean Election laws attempt to address this problem byoffering public funding to qualified candidates. This allowscandidates who have significant public support (as dem-onstrated by their ability to obtain qualifying contribu-tions) to afford a full-fledged electoral campaign. Limita-tions on the size of individual donations to privatelyfunded candidates may also contribute to greater financialparity.

There are a number of criteria that can be used to measurethe success of Clean Election reform in relation to achiev-ing this goal of greater financial parity:

• The degree to which participating candidates were ableto keep pace financially with their privately fundedopponents;

• The extent of spending by losing candidates as com-pared to the spending of winners;

• The extent to which publicly financed candidates wontheir races;

• The degree to which challengers were able to raisemoney and win their races against well-financed incum-bents;

• The closeness of electoral outcomes, and the degree towhich Clean Election systems had an impact on com-petitiveness.

These criteria and the relevant data from the 2000 electionsin Maine and Arizona are discussed in greater detail in thesections below.


28

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Maine 1998

Maine 2000

Arizona 1998

Arizona 2000

1. Spending by Candidates

Participating Candidates Matched the Spending ofNon-Participants

On average, participating candidates in Maine and Arizonawere able to match non-participating candidates in theircampaign spending, indicating the success of the system inproviding greater financial parity among all candidateswithout restricting the spending of privately funded can-didates. (See Table #13)

In Maine house races, participating candidates spentslightly more money on average than other candidates,while in Arizona house races they spent substantially more.In senate races in Maine, non-participating candidates wereable to outspend participating candidates by about 15%,while in Arizona non-participating candidates for senateseats slightly outspent participating candidates.

These results were due, in part, to a “matching funds” pro-vision in both laws that supplements the initial amount ofmoney provided to publicly funded candidates. A partici-pating candidate receives additional funds, dollar-for-dol-lar, when his or her privately funded opponent files papersrevealing spending beyond the initial threshold amount.Candidates may receive up to two times their original al-lotment in this manner in Maine and up to three timestheir original allotment in Arizona.

Table #13:Spending By Participating and

Non-Participating Candidates in 2000 Elections (Primary and General Combined)

Maine Arizona

Partici- Nonpartici- Partici- Nonpartici-pating pating pating pating

House $ 3,972 $ 3,350 $31,699 $23,360

Senate $15,135 $17,338 $29,718 $30,674

The figures above are for all legislative races, including thoseinvolving two participating candidates running againsteach other and those where only privately funded candi-dates ran. It is also important to look at spending in onlythose races involving participating and a non-participatingcandidates running against each other.

In Maine in 2000, there were 42 such house races, andparticipating candidates were able to outspend their oppo-nents by 17%, on average. In elections for the Maine sen-ate, there were 14 such races, and participants in the CleanElection system spent 18% more than those candidateswho relied on private funds.

Some participating candidates in each state were challeng-ers; others were incumbents, and still others ran for openseats. Of particular interest are those races where a partici-pating challenger ran against an incumbent non-partici-pant. Could Clean Election reform achieve financial par-ity in such cases, where the incumbent would presumablyhave the ability to raise substantial private funds? The an-swer in Maine appears to be “yes.” In 2000 there were 13such races, and the participating challengers obtained 12%more funding, on average, than their incumbent oppo-nents spent. Participants running for open seats in Mainespent 20% more than their privately funded opponents.Thus, the Clean Election systems in both states providedcandidates with adequate funding to make their voicesheard and engage in meaningful campaigns.

The Spending Gap between Winners and LosersWas Narrowed Significantly

As a result of Clean Election reform in Maine and Arizona,the spending gap between winning and losing candidatesnarrowed in 2000, compared to 1998. In Maine, in 1998,losing candidates succeeded in raising and spending only53 cents for every dollar raised by winners. In Arizona, theywere able to raise and spend only 46 cents for every dollarspent by winners. After the Clean Election system wasimplemented, these proportions changed to 78 cents and69 cents, respectively.

Figure #3:Ratio of Spending, Losing to Winning Candidates


29

As a result of Clean Election reform it also cost less to wina race for legislative office in Maine, and for a seat in thestate senate in Arizona in 2000, as compared to 1998. Inthe past, strong candidates often did not need to seriouslyengage their poorly funded opponents. Clean Election re-form is helping to create real contests in which strong can-didates must work for votes and become involved withtheir constituents.

Table #14:Spending By Winning and Losing Candidates,

1998 and 2000 Elections

Maine Arizona

1998 2000 1998 2000

House

Winners $7,203 $4,500 $29,615 $33,652

Losers $3,345 $3,500 $14,989 $20,330

Senate

Winners $24,812 $20,803 $39,992 $32,529

Losers $15,620 $13,597 $16,047 $38,920

2. Publicly Financed CandidatesWere Competitive

Candidates who ran with public funding in both stateswon a significant percentage of their races — an indicationthat the system allowed them to be competitive. In thegeneral elections in Maine, participating candidates did aswell as non-participants. If only those races where a CleanElection candidate ran against a traditionally funded op-ponent are considered, the results are similar. In Maine’sgeneral election in 2000, there were 56 such races, and theparticipants won 29 of them, for a 52% win ratio, virtu-ally the same as for all legislative races. Looking at the sepa-rate legislative chambers, the ratio was 55% in the Houseand 43% in the Senate. Thus, participating candidates inMaine were fully competitive with privately funded oppo-nents.

In Arizona, where Clean Election candidates were quitesuccessful in the primaries, in the general election they wona substantially smaller share of their races than did non-participants, largely because they were challengers facingestablished incumbents.

Table #15:Percentage of All and Participating Candidates

Who Won Their Races in 2000

Maine Arizona

Primary Election

All candidates 57% 69%

Participating candidates 43% 75%

General Election

All candidates 53% 60%

Participating candidates 53% 36%

3. Challengers Were More Competitive inTerms of Spending, but Won Few Races

Spending by Challengers and Incumbents Compared

In both Maine and Arizona, the spending differential be-tween challengers and incumbents narrowed sharply withthe introduction of Clean Election reform. This result re-flects two processes: an increase in the amount of moneyavailable to challengers, if they participated in the CleanElection systems, and a decline in the amount spent byincumbents. In 1998, challengers in Maine raised slightlyover half as much money as did incumbents, but in 2000their funding, from both public and private sources, wasalmost four-fifths as much, on average, as those raised byincumbents. In Arizona, during 2000, challengers were ableto spend three quarters as much money as incumbents,compared to only 37% as much in 1998 — a dramatic gainin their competitiveness.


30

Figure #4:Ratio of Spending, Challengers to Incumbents,

2000 and 1998

Equally dramatic are the figures showing the decline incampaign spending of incumbents in 2000 as comparedto the 1998 election.

Table #16:Spending By Incumbents and Challengers,

1998 and 2000 Elections19

Maine Arizona

1998 2000 1998 2000

Challengers $ 5,606 $4,868 $13,541 $24,643

Incumbents $10,345 $6,265 $35,916 $32,376

Rate of Election Victories by Challengers

The 2000 election results from Maine and Arizona confirmthat incumbency remains an enormous advantage for can-didates. Incumbents, including the substantial number ofincumbents who participated in the new public financingsystems, continued to win 90% or more of their races. (SeeAppendix, Tables #24 and #25.) It would be a mistake,however, to conclude that this illustrates the limitations of

Clean Election reform. As George Christie, director of theDirigo Alliance in Maine, explains, “Clean Elections werenever intended to, like term limits, sweep out incumbents. Theywere intended to make it a fairer contest.” Christie adds, “CleanElections moved running against an incumbent from beingnearly impossible to damn hard. It is a step in the rightdirection.”20

A few of the most hotly contested races in Maine and Ari-zona in 2000 provide limited evidence that, while fund-ing alone is not enough to overcome the power of incum-bency, a well-organized Clean Election candidate can beata long-time office holder. Once such race in Arizona pit-ted Jay Blanchard, a professor of education at Arizona StateUniversity, against the departing Speaker of the ArizonaHouse Jeff Groscot. While a scandal involving Groscot wasa prominent factor in Blanchard’s win, without the CleanElection system, Blanchard would not have been runningin the first place. Blanchard provides this assessment of theimpact of Clean Election reform on a challenger’s abilityto take on an incumbent. “Clean Elections helped get me onthe playing field. It didn’t necessarily give me the win, but it putme on the playing field so at least I could participate against theArizona Speaker of the House.”21

Another challenger success story is that of Senator EdYoungblood of Maine. A first-time candidate, Youngbloodran against a three-term incumbent and chair of the pow-erful Senate Taxation Committee, who had previouslyserved five terms in the House. Youngblood says that theClean Election option made his decision to run “a wholelot easier.” In fact, he says he wouldn’t have run withoutit. Youngblood’s willingness to take on a powerful incum-bent — and to do so without private funds — turned thisrace into a surprise battleground contest, and the upsetvictory of election 2000 in Maine.

Of those Maine and Arizona challengers who were success-ful in defeating incumbents, a relatively high proportionof them ran with public funding. Four out of 10 in Mainewere participating candidates, while 4 out of 14 in Arizonawere participants. Maine challengers who used the newsystem in the general election were more successful thanthose who did not.

54%

78%

37%

76%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Maine1998

Maine2000

Arizona1998

Arizona2000


31

Figure #5:Percent of Challengers Winning General Election Races

4. Competitiveness in Maine General ElectionRaces Increased

While winning an election is obviously the crucial criterionof a candidate’s success, for purposes of evaluating the ef-fectiveness of Clean Election reform it is also relevant toconsider whether races became closer in states that imple-mented public financing systems. A close or truly competi-tive race has inherent value in generating more vigorouspublic debate, and in increasing the accountability of vic-torious candidates to the electorate.

One definition of a competitive race is where the losingcandidate obtains at least 40 percent of the vote, or — in athree-way race — where the runner-up comes in no morethan 20 percentage points behind the winner. This is thedefinition we have used for this analysis.22 To determineif there was an increase in competitiveness in Maine, wereviewed all general election results from 2000 and 1998to see how many races met this criterion.23 We found thatthe number of competitive races rose by 21% in MaineSenate elections and by 17% in elections for the House.(See table #17)

Table #17:Maine: Increase in Competitive General

Election Races From 1998 to 200024

1998 2000

Number of competitive races

House 54 64

Senate 14 17

% of all races that were competitive

House 37% 40%

Senate 37% 45%

Conclusions

The Clean Election laws in Maine and Arizona were care-fully structured to provide both fixed initial distributionsof funds to participating candidates, and matching fundsto those who were outspent beyond that initial distribu-tion by their privately financed opponents. As a result, thenew systems succeeded admirably in achieving the goal ofensuring greater financial parity among candidates overall,and between incumbents and challengers, and winners andlosers. In terms of the results of the 2000 elections in bothstates, participating candidates proved themselves competi-tive, winning more than half their general election races inMaine and more than a third of those in Arizona. Yet, whileClean Election systems increased financial parity, in thisfirst electoral cycle, public financing by itself did not enableparticipating candidates to overcome the advantages of in-cumbency, as incumbents continued to dominate the elec-tion results. Nonetheless, elections in both states weremade more competitive, campaigns were made more rig-orous, and strong candidates were forced to engage theiropponents and connect with their constituents.

7%

9%

11%

17%

13%

17%

0%

4%

8%

12%

16%

20%

Maine2000

Maineparticipating

2000

Maine1998

Arizona2000

Arizonaparticipating

2000

Arizona1998


32

D. REDUCING THE INFLUENCEOF SPECIAL INTERESTSCampaign contributions — especially large ones — are of-ten given in anticipation that they will produce results oncethe election is over and the process of governance begins.Generally, the more money wealthy donors give to success-ful candidates, the more access to the office holders, andinfluence over their decisions, they hope to have. CleanElection reform aims to put an end to this system. By sig-nificantly restricting the size of individual donations to par-ticipating candidates to small amounts, and by offeringpublic funds as an alternative, clean election reform cancontribute to greatly restricting the influence of special in-terests on our legislative institutions.

The campaign was different because Ididn’t have to fund-raise. I feel the realdifference will be in serving, though,simply by having no encumbrance fromprivate money. Sen. Lynn Bromley, aMaine Democrat who won her firstterm in office in 2000, after an un-successful bid in 1998.

1. New Legislatures and the ArizonaCorporation Commission Less Tied toSpecial Interests

Historically, well-heeled special interests seeking influencehave given generously to legislators in Maine and Arizona.In 1998, in Arizona, 52% of total campaign contributions(or $5.9 million) came from business interests. These in-cluded $1.4 million from lawyers and lobbyists and $1.4million from the finance, insurance and real estate indus-tries. In Maine, more than a third of all contributions ($1.5million) came from business sources. The largest contrib-uting business sectors were finance, insurance and real es-tate, lawyers, and the health care industry. In each state,only 2% of all contributions came from labor unionsources.25

The results of the 2000 legislative elections in these statesindicate that the influence of wealthy contributors on leg-islators and policy making may be weakening. In Maine,17 members of the newly elected state senate, almost half(49%) of that body, ran and won without accepting con-tributions from business interests. Forty-five members ofthe newly elected state house, or 30% of the total, ran asClean Election candidates.

“It was refreshing not to have to raisemoney, or in some cases spend myown... I feel a certain independencefrom certain special interest groups. Itwas nice to be able to say, ‘Thanks forthe thought, but I’m running clean’.”Sen. Peter Mills, a Maine Republicanand 2000 Clean Election candidate

who is serving his fourth term26

In Arizona, the percentage of the new legislature electedwith public funding was smaller in this first year, but stillsignificant. Twelve members of the House (20% of thetotal) and two members of the Senate (7%) were electedwithout contributions from special interests. Also in Ari-zona, both newly elected members of the CorporationCommission ran as Clean Election candidates.

Table #18:Percentages of Maine and Arizona Legislatures

Elected in 2000 Who Participated inClean Elections System

Maine Arizona

House Senate House Senate

Participated and won 45 17 12 2

Total winning 151 35 60 30

Participating as% of winners 30% 49% 20% 7%


33

“I remember the first time I decided togo to talk to the spokesperson of alarge employer in the district. And Ithought, this person will want to giveme money. And I’ll be able to tell himno, that we would have a differentkind of relationship. And that feelingwas very reassuring.” Sen. Beth

Edmonds, a Maine Democratic and 2000 CleanElection candidate serving her first term in thelegislature27

It is too early to assess the impact of candidates’ runningwith public financing on their actual voting andpolicymaking in Arizona and Maine. However, we haveevery reason to believe that these dramatic shifts in thesource of campaign funds will cause corresponding shiftsin how members of the legislatures and other elected bod-ies choose to govern.

It is important to me that decisionsregarding legislation are based onthoughtful reasoning, and not on theinfluence of special interest contribu-tions. Arizona State House MinorityLeader, Ken Cheuvront, an incum-bent Democrat who ran as a CleanElection candidate in 2000.

Already, there are some very positive signs. In the spring of2001, Maine’s legislature took a major step toward creat-ing a single-payer health care system, an important reformthat had not been achievable in earlier years. But in 2001,“The insurance industry’s influence has been diminished, anda portion of that is due to Clean Elections,” says Rep. PaulVolenik, the Democratic sponsor of the legislation. “Thebusiness lobbyists left me alone,” confirms Rep. GlennCummings.”28

Arizona Corporation Commission

The Corporation Commission is a three-member bodywith extensive regulatory authority. Its Utilities Divisionhas responsibility for regulating the rates and the qualityof service provided by public utilities, including those fur-nishing electric, gas, and water service. Its Securities Divi-sion has authority over the issuance of stock and bondofferings, and oversees securities dealers and brokers. Fi-nally, the Commission’s Corporations Division approvesall filings for business incorporation, collects and main-tains annual reports from corporations, and has the powerto revoke corporate charters.

Six candidates ran for two available seats on the ArizonaCorporation Commission in 2000. In a rejection of busi-ness as usual, all five of the leading candidates participatedin the Clean Election system, and both new Commission-ers were participants. Clean Election funds made up theoverwhelming bulk of monies spent in the CorporationCommission races, constituting approximately 88% oftotal spending by the five contending candidates.29 For thefirst time ever, two of the three members of this body wereelected without accepting contributions from businesses orutilities in the state — or from individuals connected tothem.

I am not a novice campaigner, havingrun for office successfully four timesunder traditional private financingand in 2000 under Arizona’s CleanElections law. The comparison is stark.Clean Elections empowers the constitu-ency, gives voices to thousands of vot-ers, expands opportunities and en-

hances democracy. Clean Elections is about bringingback grassroots, one-to-one politics, the way it usedto be, instead of high-dollar media campaigns fi-nanced by huge contributions from the well-heeled.Clean Elections is about the restoration of democ-racy.” Marc Spitzer, a Republican, CorporationCommissioner and 2000 Clean Election candi-date.30


34

As a quasi-judicial body, it is unconscionable to mehow a member of the Corporation Commissioncould accept campaign funds from the same indus-tries he or she is directly regulating and then at-tempt to render impartial decisions about those in-dustries. Democrat Barbara Lubin, a communityand consumer activist, who ran for the Corpora-tion Commission as a Clean Election candidate,winning the primary but losing in the generalelection.

2. Role of Private Funds in Campaigns GreatlyReduced

In the 2000 legislative elections total funds from privatedonors were cut almost in half in Maine and by 6% inArizona, compared to 1998. Because the number of can-didates rose in each state, the drop in private funds perlegislative candidate was actually more substantial — fall-ing by an average of 51% in Maine and 17% in Arizona.32

Why was the drop in private funding so much greater inMaine than in Arizona? Primarily because Maine’s CleanElection law not only created a system of public fundingfor participating candidates, but also greatly reduced thesize of contributions that individual and organizationaldonors could make to privately funded candidates. Thelimit was cut from $1,000 to $250 for individuals, andfrom $5,000 to $250 for PACs and corporations. As a re-sult, average spending by privately funded candidates fellin Maine from $7,681 in 1998 to $5,460 in 2000, a dropof 29%.

Arizona’s Clean Election law also reduced individual andPAC contributions by 20% from the previous limits (foran individual that meant a drop from $320 to $270). Butapparently this was not enough to offset a trend towardrising campaign spending in that state. Average spendingby non-participating candidates (which included all can-didates in 1998) in Arizona actually rose by 8% from 1998to 2000. This result held for both state house and senateraces.33

Table # 20:Private Funds in Legislative Campaigns, 1998 and 2000

Maine Arizona

Total private funds ($ millions)

1998 $3.13 $4.46

2000 $1.60 $4.21

% change 1998 to 2000 -49% -6%

Average private funds per person — all candidates

1998 $7,681 $23,962

2000 $3,755 $19,963

% change 1998 to 2000 -51% -17%

Average private funds per person — non-participating candidates

1998 $7,681 $23,962

2000 $5,460 $25,985

% change 1998 to 2000 -29% 8%

Table # 19:Arizona Corporation Commission Elections, 1998 and 200031

Available Candidates Clean Elections Women Average private Average Averageseats candidates candidates spending public funds total spending

1998 1 5 — 0 $139,000 — $139,000

2000 2 6 5 3 $ 10,000 $76,000 $ 86,000


35

Clean Election funding in 2000 constituted 38% of totalspending in Maine and 30% in Arizona — tending to in-dicate that the role of private, special interest campaignfinancing was curtailed somewhat more in Maine than inArizona. Total spending, including both private and CleanElection funds, fell substantially in Maine but rose in Ari-zona, due to the increase in average private spending andthe number of candidates in Arizona.34

Conclusions

A large proportion of the Maine legislature was elected in2000 without reliance on private money. In Arizona, thepercentage of newly elected legislators who ran withoutprivate funds is smaller, but still significant. In addition,two out of three members of the Arizona CorporationCommission are now financially independent of the com-panies and individuals they regulate. While, it is still tooearly to say with certainty, it appears that the decreased roleof private money in the electoral process is positively in-fluencing the way public officials operate. Already, a num-ber of successful Clean Election candidates have remarkedthat running without any special interest money has madethem feel more independent of special interests.


36

Essential to the success of Clean Election reform is en-suring that the candidates who participate in the sys-tems find them satisfactory — so that they are will-

ing to participate again in the future themselves, and tocommunicate their satisfaction to other officeholders andpotential candidates. If many participating candidates per-ceive a system to be overly burdensome, or determine thataccepting public funding places them at a disadvantage, thesystem would be doomed to failure, or would require sig-nificant legislative changes.

In order to evaluate this issue of candidate satisfaction,both Maine Citizens for Clean Elections and the ArizonaClean Elections Institute conducted surveys of participat-ing candidates.35 In Maine, repeated attempts were madeto reach every participant, and phone interviews were con-ducted with 78 candidates, or 67% of all Clean Electioncandidates in the general election. In Arizona, a similarphone survey reached all five candidates for seats on theCorporation Commission and 42 candidates for the statelegislature, or 83% of the total.

The surveys in both states found overwhelming support forClean Election reform:

• 98% of responding candidates in Maine and 100% ofthose in Arizona said that they were either very or rea-sonably satisfied with their Clean Election system.

• In Maine, 97% said they are likely to participate if theyrun for state office again (87% said they would “defi-nitely” or “very likely” participate), and 93% said thatthey are likely to recommend the Clean Election systemto other candidates.

• Large majorities in both states said that the period oftime allowed to qualify for public funding was adequate(93% Arizona, 83% Maine)

IV. Surveys of ParticipatingCandidates’ Satisfaction with

Clean Election Reform

• Large majorities said that the amount of funds distrib-uted for the primary elections was “just about right”(78% Arizona, 71% Maine), and that funds were distrib-uted in a timely way (79% Arizona, 92% Maine).

Table # 21:Percentage of Participating Candidates Giving

Each Answer to the Question,“Overall, how satisfied are you with Clean Elections?”

Very Reasonably Not very Not at all

Maine 50% 49% 1% 0%

Arizona 65% 35% 0% 0%

Smaller majorities responded positively to other questions.About three-fifths of candidates in each state felt the funddistributions in the general elections were “just aboutright,” with 39% in Arizona feeling they were too low and35% in Maine feeling they were either “much too low” or“a little too low.”

Of those candidates who received matching funds, 70% inMaine and 58% of those in Arizona felt that these werereceived “in a timely way,” Of those who said the releaseof funds was less than timely, the reasons differed in Maineand Arizona. In Maine, candidates were generally pleasedwith the state’s speedy distribution of funds through directdeposits to their bank accounts. However, candidates whohad not planned ahead for matching funds said they foundit difficult to put the money to good use with only threeto five days left in their campaigns. In Arizona, funding wasnot available through direct deposit, so candidates had towait longer to access their matching funds.


37

In Maine 84% of participants felt that the cap on seedmoney contributions was “about right.” In Arizona only60% felt the same way, while 40% thought that the cap wastoo low.

The Maine survey asked, “What changes do you think areessential or helpful to the success of Clean Elections?” Byfar the largest response, from 35% of candidates, was thatthere was a need to “close loopholes.” Among the most im-portant of these that candidates identified were indepen-dent spending by organizations or individuals other thanthe candidates themselves. Such spending can occurthrough political parties or other independent groups and

through issue advocacy that is targeted to benefit one can-didate. Two other concerns that participants raised werecandidates who also have PACs, and “privately funded op-ponents who front-load their expenditures in uncontestedprimaries to avoid triggering matching funds in the generalelection.”36

Despite these problems, the predominant message of thesurvey results is that participating in Clean Election systemswas neither overly burdensome nor disadvantageous tocandidates. As a result, the candidates themselves said theyare likely to participate again in the future, and to recom-mend the system to others.


38

Some concerns have been raised that a Clean Electionsystem could lend itself to a variety of abuses. De-mocracy could be harmed by allowing candidates to

qualify for public funding through fraudulent means, orby obtaining illegal assistance, or because inappropriate,“marginal” candidates would be able to qualify and runcampaigns that would draw attention away from the “se-rious” candidates. On the other end of the scale, someobservers were concerned that many worthy candidateswould be unable to obtain the required number of quali-fying contributions.

There is no evidence from the 2000 elections that theseconcerns were justified. In most cases the feared problemsdid not occur, and in others where they did occur, the prob-lems were caught and dealt with. With regard to the issueof fraud, the few instances that did arise were not signifi-cant. In Maine, two cases have been reported where cam-paign funds were spent for non-campaign related purposes.The candidates in question were fined and required to re-pay the misspent money. In Arizona, several instances offraud also occurred but were detected, with the candidatesin question being disqualified and, in most cases, pros-ecuted. To determine the authenticity of qualifying contri-butions, the Country Recorder’s office compared signatureson the contribution slips to those on file in voter registra-tion records. Six candidates were found to have many“mismatched” signatures. Four of those were prosecuted,and three admitted forging signatures.37

In another case, the Republican Party in Arizona sent outa mailing to voters in one district asking them to send in$5 qualifying contributions to a candidate for the state

senate. His opponent filed a complaint, which the CitizensClean Elections Commission considered. Ultimately, theCommission decided that it did not need to rule on thecomplaint, because it found that the Republican candidatedid not qualify for public financing anyway, due to the latesubmission of many of his contributions.38

Another concern was that the number of fringe candidateswould increase. The fear was that such persons, who wouldnot be able to obtain large contributions from knowledge-able donors, could obtain the $5 qualifying contributionsto qualify for public campaign funds. The result would bethe use of public resources to run campaigns that were notactually competitive and did not add to the real choicesavailable to the public.

A review of the 2000 election results from Maine and Ari-zona shows that this scenario never materialized. If we re-gard candidates who run but garner less than 15% of thepopular vote to be “fringe” candidates, there were no suchcandidates running with public funding in Maine or Ari-zona in the 2000 elections. On the other hand, the avail-able evidence shows that the requirements for obtainingqualifying contributions were feasible for the vast major-ity of candidates who were serious about running for elec-toral office. In each state, only a small number of candi-dates who filed an intent to participate in the CleanElections system were unable to obtain the required num-ber of $5 contributions. In Arizona, 11 legislative candi-dates, and one candidate for Corporation Commission,tried but failed to qualify for public funding. This includedtwo incumbents, and one candidate who then ran as aprivately funded candidate and was elected.39

V. Who Qualified for Clean Election Fundsand Who Did Not


39

Campaigning for public office is a highly sophisti-cated business. Throughout the U.S., skilled po-litical consultants assist candidates to raise ever-

larger sums of money and to target it most effectively atthe electorate. While these dynamics are less pro-nounced in small state races, particularly in rural areas,neither Maine nor Arizona has been immune to the in-creasing sophistication of politics.

Certainly, special interests are not going to surrender theirrole in the political process without a fight. Hence, it is im-portant to keep watch for any loopholes in the new cam-paign finance laws that might undermine their effective-ness. For example, even with Clean Election reform, abusiness or organization can create a committee to runmedia ads that help or hurt a candidate, and those ads areconstitutionally protected forms of speech. While detrac-tors point to the ability to create these committees and runsuch ads as “loopholes” in the laws, more research isneeded to determine their overall political impact and toassess their effect on the goals of Clean Election reform.Areas for further research generally fall into the followingcategories.

Independent Expenditures

Independent expenditures are defined as monies spent onbehalf of a candidate without the knowledge of the can-didate or his/ her campaign committee. An example wouldbe a newspaper advertisement placed by an anti-abortiongroup, urging readers to vote against Candidate X. This isa common campaign tactic around the country. Under thelaw as it now exists, such electoral activity is a form of con-stitutionally protected speech.

The Arizona and Maine Clean Election laws seek to addressthis issue by requiring a group that targets a candidate withan independent expenditure to file a financial statement

regarding the expenditure with the state. Since the statecannot forbid independent expenditures, the idea is to re-quire disclosure for the purpose of determining whethera distribution of matching funds is appropriate. Under theClean Election systems in Maine and Arizona, if an inde-pendent expenditure is made on behalf of an opponent ofa participating candidate, and that expenditure puts theopponent over the amount initially distributed to the pub-licly funded candidate, the state provides the participatingcandidate with additional funds, up to the amount spentby the opposing group.40

During the 2000 election season, there was speculation thatthe use of independent expenditures had increased inMaine and Arizona. In some hotly contested districts, pri-vately and publicly funded candidates were targets andbeneficiaries of such activities. While there has been anec-dotal evidence of an increase, no one has yet studied thematter thoroughly. Nor do we know if there is a relation-ship between any changes in the amount of independentexpenditures and the introduction of the new Clean Elec-tion systems, or if such changes are the result of broader,national trends in campaign practices. More study isneeded to determine if there was indeed an increase inthese expenditures.

Sham “issue ads”

Independent groups also may influence elections by run-ning ads or circulating materials about a candidate’s posi-tion on an issue. These forms of campaigning also havebeen considered by the courts to be a fully protected formof speech — as long as the ads do not instruct viewers tovote for or against a particular candidate. Hence, they havenot been subject to regulation and there has been no re-porting requirement for these expenditures.

VI. Issues Requiring Further Research


40

Throughout the country, including Maine and Arizona,groups have begun to use such ads to attack candidates, es-pecially during the final heated days of a campaign. For ex-ample, an anti-tax group might buy several newspaper adsshortly before Election Day, lambasting a candidate’s po-sition on taxes. Even though this benefits one candidate,it is unregulated as long as there is no explicit call in thead to vote for one candidate or against another.

Again, there has been speculation that these activities in-creased in the year 2000, with the introduction of CleanElection systems. More research is needed to determinewhether there was indeed an increase, and whether thepatterns in Maine and Arizona were different than in otherstates that have not passed Clean Election reform.

Reformers in Maine are working with legislative leaders andelection officials to expand the reporting requirements ofthe state’s Clean Election law to cover additional kinds ofelection activities and expenditures. Nationally, reformershave proposed setting limits on “issue ads” during the fi-nal 30 days of a campaign. They take the view that the needfor fair elections overshadows concerns about restrainingissue advertising. This matter warrants further study andconstitutional analysis.

Membership Communications

Clean Election laws specifically protect the right of orga-nizations to communicate with their own members abouta candidate or a campaign. Hence, an interest group maycall or write its members, urging them to support Candi-date X. This is not considered a campaign expense in Maine

or Arizona, and it does not entitle an opposing candidateto matching funds.

This tactic prompted complaints from several Maine can-didates during the 2000 primary, and a closer examinationof the practice by the state’s Ethics Commission and Leg-islature. As noted above, the Maine law was amended in2001 to clarify that membership communications are nottreated as independent expenditures.

Fundraising through “Leadership PACs”

While publicly funded candidates are limited to raising $5donations for their own campaigns, technically they stillare allowed to solicit and raise money for others. This ac-tivity is legal as long as the candidate creates a separatepolitical action committee (PAC) for the purpose. The mostlikely vehicles to do this are “Leadership PACs,” created byhigh-ranking incumbents, who use the funds to assist othercandidates and, indirectly, to enhance their campaigns forlegislative leadership positions.

While some Clean Election legislative candidates avoidedfundraising through leadership PACs in 2000, others didnot. Those who avoided them said they did so because itseemed wrong to solicit any donations within the overallcontext of Clean Election reform. Those who did acceptfunds for leadership PACs said they did so to advance theirparty (Democrat or Republican) and pointed out that noneof the money raised helped them personally. This practiceneeds further monitoring and certainly will continue to bedebated.


41

This report is a detailed examination of how publiclyfunded campaign finance reform systems operated inMaine and Arizona in the 2000 elections. Its conclu-

sions draw on a wealth of data collected in the states, theexperience of candidates and legislators who ran underthese systems, and activists and experts in the field. Basedon all these materials, the report concludes that Clean Elec-tion reform in Maine and Arizona was a success in its firstelection cycle when measured against four goals:

Increase Electoral Competition andVoter Choice

In their first election cycle, Clean Election systems achievedthis goal by contributing to an increase in both the num-ber of candidates running for office in Maine and Arizona,and in the number of contested races. This result contrib-uted to greater electoral competitiveness and enhanced voterchoice. This achievement was made possible because of thehigh participation rates of candidates in these new systems.In both states, a substantial proportion of the candidateschose to participate in Clean Election systems in both theprimaries and general elections, and for both legislativehouses.

Free Candidates from the Money Chase andIncrease Their Time with the Voters

Clean Election reform achieved this goal in two principalways. First, by requiring candidates who wanted to partici-pate in Clean Election systems to initially collect a fixednumber of small donations from a set number of registeredvoters, it required candidates to reach out to voters, rather

than to big-money donors, early in the campaign season.Second, once qualified for public funding, candidates wereable to devote themselves to meeting and listening to thevoters rather than raising funds. Because of this shift in thefocus of their campaigns, participating candidates ex-pressed a high degree of satisfaction with the new systems.

Help Challengers and Candidates Who LackWealthy Contributors to be FinanciallyCompetitive

Clean Election reform achieved this goal by providing par-ticipating candidates, on average, with sufficient funds tomatch their non-participating opponents in campaign spend-ing. As a result of this increased financial parity, challeng-ers, newcomers, and other candidates without access towealthy contributors were able to get their messages out,mount viable races, and in a significant number of cases,win their races.

Reduce the Influence of Special Interests onthe Political Process

During the 2000 elections Clean Election reform contrib-uted to a decline in private funding of electoral campaignsin both Maine and Arizona. As a result, substantial num-bers of legislators now serving in both states were electedwithout reliance on large private campaign donations. Mainelegislators and other observers report that the presence oflarge numbers of victorious Clean Election candidates hasalready influenced the way policy making is being con-ducted in that state.

VII. Conclusions


42

Given these results, and the positive reviews of the newsystems by candidates — many of whom are now incum-bent legislators — we believe that Clean Election reformis on a solid footing in Maine and Arizona. It does not ad-dress all the problems of our electoral system, nor all theproblems caused by the presence of big money in elections,but it does represent a critical first step in systematicallyattacking them.

Activists, legislators and election administrators must re-main vigilant to ensure that the new laws continue to befully and fairly implemented, and adequately funded. Theymust also continue to assess any problems that could ad-versely impact the effectiveness of Clean Election systems.

The use of “issue advocacy” as an election tactic, for ex-ample, must be measured. Likewise, legislators’ fundraisingthrough “leadership PACs” must be monitored to ensurethat it does not become a back-door route for special in-terests to reassert their influence.

A careful review of the results of additional election cyclesis needed to more fully assess these new systems. Based onwhat we know now, we expect the successes to be evenmore dramatic in future years, as more candidates opt intothe systems, and the benefits to candidates, voters and thedemocratic process become more widely known. TheClean Election approach is now a proven model for cam-paign finance reform efforts around the country.


43

Table # 22:Maine: Participating candidates among challengers,

incumbents, and open-seat races (primary andgeneral election combined)

Challengers Incumbents Open Seat

All candidates

1998 163 151 92

2000 150 134 126

Change -11 -17 34

Percent change 1998 to 2000 -8% -11% 37%

Participating candidates 2000 44 36 53

Participating as % of total 2000 29% 27% 42%

Table # 23:Arizona: Participating candidates among challengers,

incumbents, and open-seat races (primary andgeneral election combined)

Challengers Incumbents Open Seat

All candidates

1998 69 65 52

2000 81 55 73

Change 12 10 21

Percent change 1998 to 2000 17% -15% 40%

Participating candidates 2000 30 6 18

Participating as % of total 2000 37% 11% 25%

Table # 24:Maine: Challengers, Incumbents, and Open Seat

Candidates Winning General Electionsin 2000 and 1998

Challengers Incumbents Open Seats

2000

Won 10 124 45

% won 7% 93% 36%

2000 participating candidates

Won 4 35 22

% won 9% 97% 42%

1998

Won 18 133 34

% won 11% 88% 37%

Note: % won is based on all those candidates who ran, including those wholost in the primary election.

Table # 25:Arizona: Challengers, Incumbents, and Open Seat

Candidates Winning General Electionsin 2000 and 1998

Challengers Incumbents Open Seats

2000

Won 14 52 22

% won 17% 95% 30%

2000 participating candidates

Won 4 6 4

% won 13% 100% 22%

1998

Won 12 61 17

% won 17% 94% 33%

Note: % won is based on all those candidates who ran, including those wholost in the primary election.

VIII. Appendix: Additional Tables

A. INCUMBENTS, CHALLENGERS AND CANDIDATES RUNNING FOR OPEN SEATS


44

B. CLEAN ELECTION REFORM AND POLITICAL PARTIES

Table # 26:Arizona 2000: Clean Election Candidates By Political Party—Primary and General Elections

Primary General

Candidates Participating Percent participating Candidates Participating Percent participating

Democrat 97 43 44% 70 32 46%

Republican 109 12 11% 68 8 12%

Third party 15 4 27% 15 4 27%

Table # 27:Maine 2000: Clean Election Candidates by Political Party—Primary and General Elections

Primary General

Candidates Participating Percent participating Candidates Participating Percent participating

Democrat 193 73 38% 174 98 56%

Republican 175 38 22% 150 35 23%

Other 4 4 100% 27 5 19%

Note: “other” includes both third party and independent candidates.

Table # 28:Arizona: Percentage of Candidates Who Won in 2000,

By Participation and Party Affiliation

Primary General

All Participating All Participatingcandidates candidates candidates candidates

All political parties 69% 75% 60% 36%

Democrats 72% 74% 57% 34%

Republicans 62% 67% 76% 63%

Third parties 100% 100% 0% 0%

Table # 29:Maine: Percentage of Candidates Who Won in 2000,

By Participation and Party Affiliation

Primary General

All Participating All Participatingcandidates candidates candidates candidates

All political parties 57% 43% 53% 53%

Democrats 54% 56% 61% 63%

Republicans 60% 14% 52% 37%

Other NA NA 7% 20%

Note: “other” refers both to third party and independent candidates inMaine.


45

Table # 30:Women Running in State Legislative Elections41

Maine Arizona

Number of women candidates

1998 113 61

2000 121 73

Change 8 12

% change 7% 20%

Women as % of total candidates

1998 27% 28%

2000 28% 35%

Participating women 2000 47 19

Participating women as % of all women 39% 26%

Note: primary and general elections combined.

Table # 31:Percentage of Women and Men Candidates Who

Ran as Clean Election Candidates in 2000

Maine Arizona

Primary General Primary General

Women 35% 45% 28% 30%

Men 29% 28% 26% 29%

Table #32:Number of Women Who Won General Election

to State Legislatures

Maine Arizona

1998 52 36

2000 56 33

Participated 2000 26 5

% change 1998 to 2000 8% -8%

Table # 33:Percentage of Participating Candidates Who Won,

By Gender

Maine Arizona

Primary General Primary General

All candidates 43% 53% 75% 36%

Women 60% 58% 75% 20%

Men 39% 51% 74% 45%

Table #34:Arizona: Women, Clean Election Funding, and

Incumbency (primary and general elections combined)

Challengers Incumbents Open seats


1998 17 26 17

2000 27 23 21

Participating 2000 12 3 4

% of all women running (totals to 100% by rows)

1998 28% 43% 28%

2000 38% 32% 30%

Participating 2000 63% 16% 21%

Table # 35:Maine: Women, Clean Election Funding, andIncumbency (primary and general elections

combined)

Challengers Incumbents Open seats


1998 50 40 21

2000 40 37 39

Participating 2000 13 14 20

% of all women running (totals to 100% by rows)

1998 45% 36% 19%

2000 33% 31% 32%

Participating 2000 28% 30% 43%

C. WOMEN: PARTICIPANTS, ELECTORAL SUCCESS, AND INCUMBENCY


46

The data in this report was extracted primarily from databasescompiled by the Institute on Money and State Politics(NIMSP), the Arizona Clean Elections Institute (ACEI), andMaine Citizens for Clean Elections (MCCE), which is a projectof the Maine Citizen Leadership Fund (MCLF). Those tablesciting comparisons between 1998 and 2000 — involvingnumbers and types of candidates — came from the NIMSP.Those showing breakdowns between the primary and generalelections, for the year 2000 only, came from the ACEI andMCCE. Data on expenditures from candidates is from theNIMSP. We are very grateful to these leaders in the movementfor clean election reform for generously providing data to usthat required many hours of work on their part to compile.

Arizona Secretary of State’s Office, Summary of receipts and dis-bursements, candidates for Corporation Commission, onweb at www.sosaz.com.

Arizona Clean Elections Commission, Citizens Clean Elections Act,Arizona statutes, on web at www.ccec.state.az.us.

Arizona Clean Elections Institute, Inc., Impact of Clean Electionsin Arizona’s 2000 Election, Phoenix, Arizona, 2001.

Arizona Clean Elections Institute, Phone Survey of Clean Elec-tions Candidates, 2000, data compiled by Northeast Action.

Ballot Access News, “Uncontested Seats: National Rank 2000.”Ballot Access News, “Uncontested Seats by State and Party —

1998.”Boston Globe,” Testing Competition,” editorial, December 6, 2000.Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of

Politics, Rutgers University, “Women in State Legislative Elec-tions: 2000-1988,” 2000, from web site.

Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute ofPolitics, Rutgers University, “Women in State Legislatures2000,” December 2000, from web site.

Haddow Communications, “The Road to Clean Elections”(video), Money & Politics Implementation Project (NortheastAction et al.), 2001.

Maine Citizens for Clean Elections, The Maine Clean Election Actin Action: Interim Report, Portland, ME, October 16, 2000.

Maine Citizens for Clean Elections, “Quotes from CandidatesAfter Maine’s First Clean Election Cycle, November 2000,”undated.

Maine State Legislature, Office of Fiscal and Program Review,“General Fund: Total Appropriations FY 1999-00 and FY2000-01.”

Mohave Valley Daily News, “Campaign funding allegation is un-resolved,” 9/6/2000.

Motherjones.com website, “Donor-free Democracy,” Micah L.Sifry, 8/16/01.

Public Campaign, “Arizona Joins the Clean Elections Band-wagon,” undated.

Public Campaign, “Arizona and Maine Show the Way to Reform,”undated.

Sanchez, Samantha, “First Returns on a Campaign Finance Re-form Experiment: Maine, Arizona and Full Public Funding,”Institute on Money and State Politics, Helena, Montana,March 26, 2001.

Smith, Alison, Clean Elections at Work: The Successful Debut ofMaine’s Public Funding System—A Survey of Maine Clean Elec-tion Act Candidates, Maine Citizens for Clean Elections, June13, 2001.

State of Maine, Department of the Secretary of State, ElectionsDivision, web site, www.state.me.us (for percentage vote re-ceived by each candidate in general elections in 1998 and2000).

State of Arizona, “Sources and Uses of Funds: General Fund FY2000 Actual,” from web site.

State of Arizona, “Arizona corporation Commission: Divisions,”from web site, www.cc.state.az.us.

United States Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States2000, Tables 20, “Resident Population by State: 1980 to1999,” and 480, “Resident Population of Voting Age and Per-cent Casting Votes — States: 1992 to 1998.”

IX. References


47

1 The United States Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S.1(1976) declared mandatory campaign expenditure limits to beunconstitutional on First Amendment grounds. This controver-sial decision is seen by many as a major obstacle to comprehen-sive campaign finance reform efforts.2 Population and voting-age population from Statistical Abstractof the United States 2000, Tables 20 and 478. Budget data from websites of state government agencies. Clean Elections spending fromCommission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices,State of Maine.3 Population and voting-age population from Statistical Abstractof the United States 2000, Tables 20 and 478. Budget data from websites of state government agencies. Clean Election cost data from2000 Annual Report, Citizens Clean Elections Commission.4 National Institute on Money and State Politics (hereafter,NIMSP). Numbers are totals for primary and general electionscombined.5 “The Road to Clean Elections,” video, Money and Politics Imple-mentation Project, Northeast Action et al, 2001.6 Arizona Clean Elections Institute (hereafter ACEI) summaryspreadsheet; “2000 Election Results,” 4/10/01.7 From database of Maine Citizens for Clean Elections (hereaf-ter MCCE).8 From database of MCCE.9 Calculated from NIMSP data.10 From web site, www.rci.rutgers.edu/~cawp, Center for Ameri-can Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, RutgersUniversity.11 Impact of Clean Elections in Arizona’s 2000 Election, ACEI, page4.12Impact of Clean Elections in Arizona’s 2000 Election, ACEI, page4.13 Monica Perez, ACEI, 10/19/01.14 “Women in State Legislative Elections: 2000-1998,” Fact Sheetfrom the Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton In-stitute of Politics, Rutgers University, January 2001. The averagefor Arizona over 1988 to 2000 was 44, versus 47 in 2000, and inMaine the average was 92.6, versus 97 in 2000.15 NIMSP data for 1998 and 2000, combining primary and gen-eral elections. Note that a few candidates could not be classifiedby gender based on their first names, and so are omitted from thefigures.16 “Quotes from Candidates after Maine’s First Clean ElectionCycle,” MCCE, November 2000.17 Clean Elections at Work: The Successful Debut of Maine’s PublicFunding System - A Survey of Maine Clean Election Act Candidates,Alison Smith, MCCE, June 13, 2001.18 MCCE.19 Calculated from NIMSP data.20 Phone interview, 10/1/01.21 The Road to Clean Elections, video, Money & Politics Implemen-tation Project, Northeast Action et al, 2001.22 Different analysts use different thresholds to define the “com-petitiveness” factor, with some favoring a higher threshold of

45%, indicating that the outcome of the election was truly indoubt. Using either criterion, the results in Maine show an in-crease in competitive races.23 Due to data availability and time constraints, we were only ableto perform this analysis for Maine.24 Note: competitiveness is defined here as the losing candidategetting 40% or more of the total vote, or — in a three-way race—coming in no more than 20 percentage points behind the win-ner.25 “Summary of Arizona’s 1998 Elections,” Denise Roth Barber,July 22, 1999; and state campaign report for Maine generatedfrom web site, both by NIMSP.26 “The Road to Clean Elections,” Public Campaign, June, 2001,page 2.27 “The Road to Clean Elections,” Public Campaign, undated,page 3.28 “Donor-Free Democracy,” Micah L. Sifry, 8/16/01,motherjones.com website, reprinted in Clean Money Digest, 8/31/01.29 Under Arizona’s system, candidates for Corporation Commis-sion could raise up to $10,000 in “seed money” to assist in ob-taining qualifying contributions. For those who raised the maxi-mum, it was 10% of the $100,000 in Clean Election funds thatthey received for the primary and general elections.30 Personal communication via e-mail, 10/23/01.31 Note: these figures exclude the lone non-participating candi-date in 2000, who spent only $5,600, in order to generate a moremeaningful comparison.32 From 1996 to 1998, average spending by Arizona Senate can-didates rose 36%, and spending by House candidates rose 31%.Source: “Summary of Arizona’s 1998 Elections,” Denis Roth Bar-ber, 7/22/99, NIMSP.33 Calculated from databases provided by the NIMSP.34 Total spending fell 18% in Maine, from $3.13 to $2.57 mil-lion, while rising 29% in Arizona, from $4.46 to $5.77 million.35 Clean Elections at Work: The Successful Debut of Maine’s PublicFunding System - A Survey of Maine Clean Election Act Candidates,”Alison Smith, MCCE, 6/13/01; Northeast Action analysis of sur-vey responses compiled by ACEI.36 Clean Elections at Work, page 17.37 “Four campaigns using public funds questioned over invaliddonation slips,” 9/8/2000; personal communication from CeciliaMartinez, ACEI.38 “Campaign funding allegation is unresolved,” Mohave ValleyDaily News, 9/6/2000.39 Cecilia Martinez, ACEI, personal communication, 10/31/01.40 Limitations on the total amount of matching funds that anycandidate may receive are set in the state laws.41 NIMSP data for 1998 and 2000, combining primary and gen-eral elections. Note that a few candidates could not be classifiedby gender based on their first names, and so are omitted from thefigures.

X. Notes

Clean Election Reform Shows the Way Forward

Documents

Transcript of Clean Election Reform Shows the Way Forward