Revitalizing Democracy: Clean Election

REVITALIZING DEMOCRACY Clean Election Reform Shows the Way Forward

JANUARY 2002

MARC BRESLOW, PH.D. JANET GROAT PAUL SABA

A publication of the Money & Politics Implementation Project THE MONEY AND POLITICS IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT AND ITS SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS

The Money and Politics Implementation Project is a joint effort of Northeast Action, Public Campaign, and the state organizations most responsible for passing and implement- ing Clean Election reform in their states. Project partners at the state level are Maine Citizen 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 states are fully and fairly implemented and that the lessons learned there are shared with campaign finance reformers across the nation. • Northeast Action is the regional hub and support center for a dynamic network of citizen 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 reform 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 promoting far-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 dedicated to advancing Maine’s progressive movement for social and economic justice. For most of its history, it has focused on organizing for campaign finance reform, defending Maine’s Clean Election law, and educating candidates and the public on how the new system 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 organization, 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 of Vermont’s Clean Election law. Vermont Public Interest Research Group. 141 Main Street, Suite 6, Montpelier, VT 05602. 802.223.5221. www.vpirg.org. • Mass Voters for Clean Elections is a nonpartisan citizen effort to reduce the influence 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, 5th Floor, 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 democratic institutions. Clean Elections Institute. 2001 North Third Street, Suite 210, Phoe- nix, AZ 85004. 620.840.6633. www.azclean.org.

CLEAN ELECTION REFORM SHOWS THE WAY FORWARD 2 Clean Election Reform Shows the Way Forward

ince 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 Ssystems, candidates forego large private contributions and agree to strict spending limits with fixed and equal financing 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 electoral 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.

MONEY AND POLITICS IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT 617-541-0500 3 Acknowledgements This report would not have been possible without the expert assistance of a host of campaign finance reform leaders and activists from across the nation. We want to especially thank the following people: Andrea West of the National Institute on Money and State Politics (NIMSP), Cecilia Martinez and Monica Perez of the Arizona Clean Elections 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 efforts on behalf of Clean Election reform are responsible for the tremendous achievements detailed in this report. These include MCLF, the Dirigo Alliance, ACEI, the Vermont Public Interest Research Group and Vermont Citizen’s Coalition for Clean Elections, Mass Voters for Clean Elections, Public Campaign, DemocracyWorks, the Brennan Center, and NIMSP. This report also made extensive use of previous studies and reports issued by a number of these organizations (see the references in Section IX for more details). Finally, we are also very grateful to the following foundations whose financial support has 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 Charitable Trusts, The Educational Foundation of America, the Solidago Foundation, the Or- chard Foundation, and the Unitarian Universalist Veatch Program.

Methodology The 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 combined its data on primary and general election races into one database that provides unified information on the election for each available office. Tables in this report that present unified data are from the NIMSP. The two state-based organizations, MCLF and ACEI, provided data separately on primaries and general elections, and tables in this report that appear in this fashion utilize their data. In some cases, the information from the NIMSP does not precisely match that from MCLF and ACEI, and this accounts 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.

CLEAN ELECTION REFORM SHOWS THE WAY FORWARD 4 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 numbers of candidates remained limited 24 B. FREEING CANDIDATES FROM THE MONEY CHASE AND INCREASING THEIR TIME WITH THE VOTERS 26 C. ACHIEVING GREATER FINANCIAL PARITY FOR CANDIDATES WHO LACK SPECIAL-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

MONEY AND POLITICS IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT 617-541-0500 5 CLEAN ELECTION REFORM SHOWS THE WAY FORWARD 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction The harmful role of “big money” in politics — campaign systems. This report looks at how the new systems operate contributions by wealthy donors and special interests — in each state and analyzes the election results from Maine is widely documented and recognized as a critical problem and Arizona — the two states where the most races under of American democracy. No legislation to effectively ad- the new systems were run (in Vermont only races for gov- dress this problem has yet been passed by Congress, and ernor and lieutenant governor were covered in 2000). the federal bills under active consideration are limited in The new Clean Election systems in Maine and Arizona were scope.* Instead, it is at the state level that ambitious efforts a clear success in their first year of operation, based on four to stem the flow of money in politics have emerged and goals that reformers had set for these laws. Clean Election been successful. Prodded by citizen activists, four states — reform has: Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts and Arizona — have passed Clean Election laws that are revolutionizing the way ✔ Increased competition and voter choice; political campaigns are financed, providing the option of ✔ Freed participating candidates from the “money chase” comprehensive public funding for participating candidates. and allowed them to spend more time with voters; These Clean Election laws vary slightly from state to state, ✔ Achieved greater parity in financial resources among but have one common element: they offer a fixed and candidates; equal amount of public funding to candidates who qualify by collecting a prescribed number of small contributions ✔ Reduced the influence of wealthy special interests in from voters in their districts. The system turns modern-day legislative decision making and in the electoral process. political fundraising on its head: candidates must collect The 2000 elections were a trial run for Clean Election re- small donations from many people instead of collecting form. Even before going into effect, the new systems were large donations from a few. Because participation in a being challenged in court, and there was a great deal of Clean Election system is voluntary, other candidates may uncertainty among candidates as to how well the systems choose to run in the traditional way, relying on private would serve those who participated. In the end, these Clean donors. But in some states these candidates are now sub- Election systems worked, and their successes were achieved ject to stricter limits on the size of the donations they may at a modest expense to taxpayers. It cost less than $1 per receive and to additional reporting requirements. Maine or Arizona resident to run the systems, including Last year, three of the four states (Maine, Arizona and Ver- both the funding of participating candidates and associated mont) conducted elections under their new Clean Election administrative costs. We expect that many more candidates will participate in these Clean Election systems in 2002 and 2004, making them even more effective. * The McCain-Feingold proposal, the most ambitious reform proposal currently under debate in Congress, deals mainly with do- This report presents highlights of the first year of Clean nations to and from political parties. It does nothing to curb the flow of money directly to candidates from wealthy individuals Election reform and assesses the new systems according to connected to special interests. how well they met four key goals.

MONEY AND POLITICS IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT 617-541-0500 7 How Clean Election Reform Achieved Its Goals in the 2000 Elections in Maine and Arizona

GOAL #1: Increasing Electoral Competition people of color as decisive in their decisions to run for and Voter Choice office in 2000. 87% of the women who ran in Arizona said that they would not have run without the availabil- Under traditional electoral systems in which private money ity of public funds, as did many of the women who ran prevails, the number and variety of candidates running for in Maine. 80% of the Latinos who ran in Arizona in office has declined over time. This decline in competition 2000 also said that public funding was a decisive factor and voter choice has contributed to a decrease in voter in their decision to run. turnout and in political participation in general. One goal of Clean Election reform is to foster a more vigorous democracy by reversing these trends. The results from Maine GOAL #2: Freeing Candidates from the Money and Arizona show that reform has been successful in meet- Chase and Increasing Their Time with Voters ing the goal of increasing competition and voter choice. As the costs of campaigning have risen dramatically in re- ✔ Number of candidates for public office increased. In cent years, candidates have been forced to spend more and both Maine and Arizona, Clean Election systems con- more time in pursuit of dollars, and less with voters. An- tributed to a rise in the number of candidates running other goal of Clean Election reform is to reverse this trend. for state legislative seats in 2000 compared to the pre- Here, too, the results from Maine and Arizona show the vious election in 1998. The number of candidates run- extent to which the new systems succeeded in meeting this ning for office in primary and general elections com- goal. bined rose by 12% in Arizona and by 5% in Maine. ✔ Qualifying processes facilitate voter contact. In order ✔ Rates of participation in Clean Election systems high. to qualify for public funding under the new Clean Elec- In both states, substantial numbers of candidates chose tion systems, candidates must collect a fixed number of to participate in Clean Election systems in both the pri- small donations from a set number of registered voters. mary and general elections, and in races for both legis- This process requires candidates to reach out to voters lative houses, giving many voters the option of choos- early in the campaign season, rather than to big-money ing a candidate who did not accept large private dona- donors. tions. The percentages ranged from 27% in Arizona’s ✔ Grassroots campaigning increased. Interviews with primary to 33% in Maine’s general election. candidates who ran with public financing in Maine and ✔ Number of contested races rose, Clean Election candi- Arizona in 2000 demonstrated that Clean Election re- dates an important factor. The number of contested form allowed them to concentrate on meeting voters primary races in the 2000 elections rose by 40% and 33% rather than soliciting campaign contributions. Largely in Maine’s House and Senate, respectively, while falling because of this shift, participating candidates expressed 2% and rising 40% in Arizona’s House and Senate. In a high degree of satisfaction with the new systems. Ari- Maine, Clean Election candidates helped boost these to- zona Senator David Peterson described his experience tals, as they were involved in contested primaries at with Clean Election reform this way, “The previous cam- much higher rates than non-participating candidates. paigns, I would say at least a half or a third of the campaign time was spent raising the dollars… [Clean Election reform] ✔ Clean Election Reform encouraged more women and gave me the opportunity to work more with my constituents people of color to run for office. The availability of and let them see me and talk to me about some of the issues... Clean Election funds was cited by many women and It made me be more of a grassroots candidate.”

CLEAN ELECTION REFORM SHOWS THE WAY FORWARD 8 GOAL #3: Achieving Greater Financial to be competitive with traditionally funded candidates. Parity for Candidates Who Lack Special In the 2000 general elections, Clean Election candidates Interest Funding won 53% of their races in Maine and 36% of their races in Arizona. Under traditional electoral systems, it often takes a great deal of money to run a successful campaign for state of- ✔ Clean Election reform narrowed the spending gap fice. As a result many candidates without access to corpo- between winning and losing candidates. In both rate contributions or special interest money are unable to states, the difference between the amount spent on cam- compete, or even contemplate running for office. A third paigns by winning and losing candidates was reduced goal of Clean Election reform is to enable many more can- significantly, indicating that races were more competi- didates to run and win elections by ensuring greater par- tive and voters had more balanced information on the ity in financial resources among all candidates for a given candidates. In Maine, losing candidates were able to office. The 2000 results show that the public financing pro- raise and spend more than three-quarters of the amount visions of the new systems met this goal. spent by winners (78%), compared to just over half as much (53%) in the previous election cycle, held under ✔ Participating candidates matched non-participating the old rules. In Arizona, losing candidates raised and opponents in campaign spending. Participating can- spent 69% of the amount spent by winners, compared didates on average matched non-participants in cam- to 46% in 1998. paign spending, indicating that the new systems are working to reduce financial disparities among candi- ✔ Clean Election reform narrowed the spending gap dates. Clean Election systems provided participating between challengers and incumbents. In 2000, can- candidates with a base amount of public funds to en- didates who challenged incumbent legislators in Maine able them to be competitive, and a “matching funds” raised 78 cents for every dollar raised by their incum- provision in the laws provided additional funds if their bent opponents, compared to 54 cents to every dollar opponents spent more. in 1998. In Arizona, challengers were able to spend three quarters as much money as incumbents, com- ✔ Participating candidates competitive. Participating pared to only 37% as much in 1998 — a dramatic gain candidates won a notable proportion of their races, in their competitiveness. These numbers are significant showing that running with public funds allowed them because challengers traditionally have a much harder time raising money than incumbents. ✔ Overall competitiveness of races increased. Maine vot- Ratio of Spending, Challengers to Incumbents, ers also benefited from a jump in the number of com- 2000 and 1998 petitive elections in 2000 compared to 1998.* These races — where the losing candidate won at least 40% 90% of the vote — prompted a greater amount of debate and 78% 80% 76% discussion during the campaign season. 70% ✔ Incumbency remains a powerful factor. Incumbency 60% 54% was still a powerful force in the 2000 elections in Maine 50% and Arizona. In both states they dominated the general 40% 37% elections, winning more than 90% of their races. 30% 20% 10% 0% Maine Maine Arizona Arizona * This competitiveness analysis was performed for Maine only, 1998 2000 1998 2000 due to the availability of data and the larger number of legislative races available to examine.

MONEY AND POLITICS IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT 617-541-0500 9 GOAL #4: Reducing the Influence of sion, whose duties include regulating public utilities and Special Interests the securities industry, participated in the Clean Election system. These new commissioners, two out of a total of Special interests pour millions of dollars into electoral three on the Commission, are the first elected without politics, using their financial power to influence the pub- contributions from the businesses they regulate, people lic policy agenda and legislators’ votes. The resulting wide- associated with them, or any other private source. spread public perception that special interests have a disproportionate voice in governmental decision-making ✔ Private funding cut dramatically. On a per-candidate discourages voter participation and political engagement. basis, private funding in the 2000 elections fell by 17% A fourth goal of Clean Election reform is to reduce the in Arizona and by 51% in Maine, greatly reducing the influence of special interest money in politics. The results reliance of candidates on private donors. from Maine and Arizona in 2000 show that the new sys- ✔ Reduced role of special interests in government deci- tems also met this goal. sion making. The results of Clean Election reform are ✔ Substantial portions of new legislatures not tied to already beginning to show in the way state legislatures private funding. Almost half of Maine’s current state operate. In Maine, for example, the state overcame cor- Senate (17 out of 35 members) and 30% of the House porate opposition to pass a successful universal health (45 of 151) ran under Clean Election rules. In Arizona, care plan bill in 2001. According to Rep. Paul Volenik, 20% of House members and 7% of Senate members ran the bill’s Democratic sponsor, the insurance industry’s as Clean Election candidates. influence in the legislature was diminished, and “a portion of that is due to Clean Elections.” ✔ Arizona Corporation Commission more independent. Both newly elected members of this important commis-

Conclusions: Challenges and Achievements

The analyses of Clean Election systems contained in this approach to campaign finance reform. Our findings report are, by their nature, limited, given that they are based show that public funding of state elections has fostered on the first and only year of data available. Much more re- a healthier democracy by increasing electoral competi- mains to be learned from the operation of Clean Election tion and voter choices. Public funding frees participat- reform in 2002 and 2004. At the same time, we are aware ing candidates from endless fundraising and enables of the extent to which our electoral systems, even the Clean them to devote their campaigns to meeting with and Election ones, are still beset by a host of problems and talking to the voters. This, too, promotes a more vigor- barriers to full democratic participation. The advantages of ous democracy. Clean Election reform addresses the incumbency are still powerful factors in determining the imbalances in financial resources in traditional electoral outcome of many elections. Our political process is still systems by fostering greater parity in campaign funds awash in a sea of special interest money, and wealth con- available to incumbents and challengers, financially well tinues to play a disproportionate role in elections, if not connected individuals and average citizens. Finally, in the financing of races, then in the way that issues and Clean Election reform reduces the role of special inter- policy solutions are framed, publicized and publicly de- ests in the electoral process, and in government decision bated. Women and people of color still face additional ob- making, by creating a system where candidates can be stacles to running for and winning public office. elected without having to rely on a single dollar of special interest money. In short, our findings reveal that re- Nevertheless, we believe that this report documents a forming the electoral system is possible. number of major achievements for the public funding

CLEAN ELECTION REFORM SHOWS THE WAY FORWARD 10 I. Introduction: The Problem of Money in Politics

or a long time now, the United States has been expe- In 1997, the Vermont Legislature adopted a similar law, riencing a crisis in the way we choose our elected of instituting new campaign spending limits and the option Fficials. A critical aspect of this crisis is the dispropor- of public funding for qualified candidates for governor and tionate role of money in politics in general and in elections lieutenant governor. Then, on November 3, 1998 Arizona in particular. Today, there are more dollars in politics than voters passed Proposition 200 — the Citizens Clean Elec- ever before. As big money throws its weight behind candi- tions Act — with similar provisions to those in Maine. In date after candidate, many voters search in vain for mean- all three states, the new laws went into effect in 2000, cov- ingful alternatives at the ballot box. ering legislative races in Maine and Arizona, as well as races for seats on the Arizona Corporation Commission. A simi- In most states, virtually all candidates are forced to put lar law was scheduled to become operational for legisla- much of their time and energy into asking for funds from tive and statewide offices in Massachusetts in 2002, but is wealthy individuals and organizations instead of meeting being held up by the legislature’s refusal to adequately fund with voters. No matter what the candidate’s qualifications the new system. or how cogent the campaign platform, without the money to make one’s voice heard, a candidate has little chance of Clean Election systems are designed to drastically reduce being elected. Since making oneself heard — via literature, the role of large private funders in political campaigns, paid staff, media advertising, and other means — often while not interfering with constitutionally protected speech takes large amounts of funds, those who have the most as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court.1 Candidates who access to money have a major advantage in running. choose to run for office by participating in a Clean Elec- tion system are provided with a limited and equal amount As a result of this situation, big donors and special inter- of public funds in exchange for a pledge to abide by strict ests receive more access to candidates — both before and spending limits. Those who choose not to participate may after elections. This means more opportunities to talk to, continue to raise and spend private funds, although they and influence, public officials about issues that affect them. are subject to new limits on the amount that any single The system has an inherent bias. The voices of ordinary contributor may give them, and to new reporting require- citizens get drowned out. ments. But politics does not have to be this way. On November 5, Clean Election candidates become eligible to participate at 1996, Maine voters changed the rules of the game dramati- the beginning of an election cycle by collecting a large cally. They passed a Clean Election Act by a margin of 56% number of small private contributions — $5 per contribu- to 44% — a resounding victory for democracy. This vote tor in Arizona and Maine. A state “Clean Election Fund” made Maine the first state in the nation to provide the then provides participating candidates with a pre-deter- option of full public financing for political campaigns. The mined amount of funding to allow them to compete with reform effort was spearheaded by the Dirigo Alliance, a their non-participating opponents. The systems offer state-based nonprofit coalition, together with Northeast supplemental funds, dollar for dollar, throughout the cam- Action, a regional center for citizen action.

MONEY AND POLITICS IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT 617-541-0500 11 paign to help participating candidates keep pace with their • Reducing the influence of special interests in legislatures privately financed opponents. These “matching funds” are and other public bodies. also available when candidates are targeted by independent The statistical evidence documented in the sections below, expenditures, but they are subject to limits on the dollar and the anecdotal reports from candidates (summarized amount that any one candidate may receive. in quotes throughout), demonstrate convincingly that elec- This report examines Clean Election reform in the election tions conducted under these new public financing systems results from Maine and Arizona in 2000. (There is also a were a resounding success in their first year of operation. much more limited look at the Clean Election system and The problem of money in politics is, of course, greater than the 2000 elections in Vermont.) We have organized our the problems associated with campaign fundraising and analysis of these results and the impact of the new systems spending. As more than one commentator has noted, the according to four goals that clean election reformers hoped campaign finance system is deeply embedded in a complex to achieve with these laws: world of political practices, all or most of which are heavily dependent on money for their continued operation. There • Increasing competition and voter choice; are the problems of “soft money” contributions to politi- • Freeing candidates from the money chase and increas- cal parties, self-funded candidates, campaign issue ads and ing their time with the voters; independent expenditures that indirectly boost campaigns. These serious problems all need to be addressed. But Clean • Fostering greater parity in financial resources among Election reform is a critical first step in this direction. candidates; and

CLEAN ELECTION REFORM SHOWS THE WAY FORWARD 12 II. How Clean Election Reform Operates in Maine, Arizona, and Vermont

A. MAINE’S CLEAN Overcoming a Legal Challenge The new law was immediately challenged in Federal court, ELECTION SYSTEM and reformers set to work helping the legal team that was prepared to defend its constitutionality. It was a long pro- The Reform’s Beginnings cess, but ultimately the Federal Court decisively ruled that Maine’s Clean Election system, and its incentives for can- In November 1996 Maine voters passed an historic refer- didates who accept public financing, is constitutional. In endum to become the first state in the nation with a Clean addition, the court upheld the law’s new limits on cam- Election system. Work for the Maine Clean Election Act paign contributions to privately funded candidates. These began in the early 1990s, when the Maine Citizen Lead- decisions created a binding precedent on these issues for ership Fund (MCLF) began tracing the source of campaign the states in the First Circuit, and persuasive legal author- contributions and documenting the overwhelming influ- ity for states in all other Circuits. They were major victo- ence of private interests on public policy. MCLF and its ries for finance reform advocates nationwide. sister organization, the Dirigo Alliance, organized a broad coalition of organizations to lay the basis for fundamen- tal reform: Maine Voters for Clean Elections. The coali- How the Maine Clean Election System tion (later renamed Maine Citizens for Clean Elections) Operates included the Maine League of Women Voters, the Maine AFL-CIO, the AARP, Maine Common Cause, the Natural How Candidates Qualify for Public Funding Resource Council of Maine, the Maine People’s Alliance, Candidates who want to participate in the Clean Election the Dirigo Alliance, and the Reform Party of Maine. system begin the process by filing a “declaration of intent.” In it they agree to forego all private contributions (includ- The coalition spent several years building a solid base of ing self-financing) except for limited “seed money,” and to support, preparing a carefully crafted ballot referendum, expanding grassroots organizing and conducting public limit their spending to the amounts they receive from the fund. They must then demonstrate citizen support by col- education. In a single day more than 1,000 coalition vol- lecting a set number of $5 qualifying contributions from unteers were able to collect the necessary 65,000 signatures to put the referendum on the ballot. All this hard work paid registered voters (50 contributions for a State house race, 150 for the State senate, and 2,500 for a gubernatorial race). off in 1996 when the measure passed, by a 56%-44% The number of qualifying contributions required was set margin, inaugurating the most comprehensive overhaul of campaign financing achieved anywhere in the nation up by law and is based on the relatively small populations of house districts (8,000 people) and senate districts (34,000 to that time. It has since become a model for reform across people) in Maine. These qualifying contributions are not the country. available for the candidates to spend but go into the Maine The first elections under the Maine Clean Election system Clean Election Fund. took place in 2000, covering all state House and Senate seats. In 2002 it will apply to the gubernatorial race as well (all other statewide offices are filled by appointment or through elections in the Legislature).

MONEY AND POLITICS IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT 617-541-0500 13 Permissible Seed Money Table #2: Candidates seeking to qualify may raise and spend limited What Qualified Candidates Received in Maine in 2000 amounts of “seed money” from individuals only to help Primary Election General Election them with the qualifying process. Gubernatorial candidates are limited to $50,000 of “seed money”, senate candidates Initial Maximum Initial Maximum distribution Grant with distribution Grant with to $1,500 and house candidates to $500. No single con- Matching Funds Matching Funds tribution to a candidate’s seed money may exceed $100. State Senate Table #1: Contested Races $4,334 $13,002 $12,910 $38,730 Maine Seed Money and Qualifying Contributions Uncontested Races $1,785 $1,785 $0 $0

Individual Number of State House Seed Seed Qualifying Amount of Money Contribution Contributions Qualifying Contested Races $1,141 $3,423 $3,252 $9,756 Caps Limit Required Contribution Uncontested Races $511 $511 $0 $0

Governor $50,000 $100 2,500 $5 State Senate $1,500 $100 150 $5 Contribution Limits on Non-Participating Candidates State House $500 $100 50 $5 Candidates who reject the option of public financing or who fail to qualify are still free to collect and spend private money. However, traditionally funded legislative candi- What Qualified Candidates Receive dates are now limited to receiving contributions of $250 Predetermined amounts of campaign funds are given to all or less per donor and gubernatorial candidates are limited qualified candidates for primary and general election races to contributions of $500 or less. In the past they could have based on the average amount spent in similar races in the collected up to $1,000 from individuals and $5,000 from previous two election cycles. Participating Clean Election political action committees and corporations. Of course, candidates are also eligible for additional matching funds privately funded candidates may spend as much of their on a dollar-for-dollar basis if they are outspent by privately own money as they want on their races. funded opponents or are the target of independent expen- Sources of Money in the Clean Election Fund ditures (such as ads that benefit an opponent’s campaign The funds for the Clean Election system come from a vari- but are produced by a group not associated with that op- ety of sources. The system receives $2 million annually in ponent). The total amount of matching funds available to tax revenues from the state’s general fund. The Fund has a candidate is capped at double the initial distribution the also garnered approximately $250,000 a year from a vol- candidate received for that race. untary check off program on state tax returns. All qualifying contributions raised by candidates also go into the Fund. Cost of the System to Maine Taxpayers The cost of running the Clean Election system for the year 2000 legislative elections was minimal, at 69 cents per resident of the state. In relation to the state budget, it was only three one hundredths of one percent of total state spending.

CLEAN ELECTION REFORM SHOWS THE WAY FORWARD 14 Table #3: 42, 21 and 12 days before each election. Also, the Maine Clean Election Spending in 2000 Relative to amendment requires more monitoring of the reports by Population and State Government Budget2 the state Ethics Commission and more frequent meet- ings of the Ethics Commission in the final weeks before an election. Expenditures per resident of state 69 cents Expenditures per voting age resident 92 cents 2. Membership communications. The issue of membership communications came up during the campaign Expenditures as a % of all state government spending 0.03% season, when several candidates cried foul because their opponents had received help from a union, which had activated its members. The law was amended to clarify How the Maine System is Administered that membership communications will not be consid- The Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Elec- ered independent expenditures under the Clean Elec- tion Practices is responsible for administering the Clean tion law. In fact, it was the intention of the law’s draft- Election system. It reviews candidate disclosure reports, ers to encourage this type of grassroots campaigning, decides on the payment of matching funds, and has the rather than large-scale media buys. power to penalize candidates who fail to comply with the 3. Other Issues. The law was also amended to extend the requirements of the law. time period in which candidates may qualify for public funds, and to provide a modest distribution of funds Modifications to the Maine Clean Election Law to uncontested general election candidates. in 2001 Looking Toward 2002 In 2001, Maine Citizens for Clean Elections successfully recommended a number of modest changes to improve Based on the overwhelmingly positive responses to the new the law, based on surveys and other feedback from candi- system from participating candidates in 2000 — many in dates. Among the changes approved by the legislature were telephone interviews with Maine Citizens for Clean Elec- the following: tions — advocates expect that more legislative candidates will use the system in 2002. Already, 1 of 2 Republican 1. Improvements in the “matching funds” system. There candidates and 1 of 2 Independent candidates for gover- will be more checks and balances on privately financed nor in 2002 have pledged to run with public financing. The candidates in the future, to ensure the immediate pro- independent is the former mayor of Lewiston, and the first vision of supplemental “matching funds” to publicly African American to run for statewide office in Maine. The funded candidates when their opponent spends beyond Republican is a former 4-term lawmaker and a credible a certain limit. While most candidates surveyed said the contender. Two Green Party candidates also intend to use matching funds system worked well, officials discovered the Clean Election system. As for legislative seats, Maine post-election that 10 privately financed candidates had Citizens for Clean Elections anticipates that more candi- neglected to file timely reports that would have triggered dates will use the system in 2002 as well. 87% of Maine supplemental funding to their opponents. Administra- candidates who ran with public financing in 2000 said that tors concluded that the violations were not intentional, they would definitely or very likely participate in the sys- but resulted from unfamiliarity with the new reporting tem if they ran again for state office. requirements. However, the law was amended to require additional reports from privately financed candidates at

MONEY AND POLITICS IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT 617-541-0500 15 How the Arizona Clean Election System B. ARIZONA’S CLEAN Operates

ELECTION SYSTEM How Candidates Qualify for Public Funding Persons who desire to run as Clean Election candidates in How Arizona Passed Clean Election Reform Arizona must first file with the state an “Application for Arizona voted to adopt the Clean Election model of cam- Certification as a Participating Candidate.” Next, prospec- paign finance reform by a 51-49% majority in a 1998 bal- tive candidates must collect $5 qualifying contributions lot initiative. This victory was the result of a carefully from a set number of registered voters in their districts (or planned statewide educational and political campaign statewide if they are running for a statewide office), with organized by a coalition that had broad popular support. the number required varying according to the office being Coalition members included the Arizona League of sought. Gubernatorial candidates must collect contribu- Women Voters, the Arizona Women’s Political Caucus, tions from 4,000 voters; house and senate candidates from the Reform Party, the Arizona AFL-CIO, the AARP, the 200 registered voters. As in Maine, all qualifying contribu- Southwest Center for Bio-Diversity, Arizona Citizen Ac- tions go into the state Clean Election Fund. tion, Arizona Common Cause, and the Arizona Sierra Permissible Seed Money Club. In spite of a determined opposition, led by the Ari- zona Chamber of Commerce, nearly one million Arizo- Candidates seeking to qualify may raise and spend limited amounts of seed money to help them with the qualifying nans voted for campaign finance reform. process. Gubernatorial candidates may collect $40,000; The Arizona law applies to all legislative and statewide candidates for the Corporation Commission, $10,000; and offices. In 2000, it covered races for the legislature and for senate and house candidates, $2,500. No single contribu- two seats on the State Corporation Commission, an ad- tion to a candidate’s seed money may exceed $100. ministrative body that has broad power to regulate utilities, securities dealers, and other businesses. In 2002 it will Table #4: cover a host of additional statewide races as well. Arizona Seed Money and Qualifying Contributions After Passage: Facing a Legal Challenge The constitutionality of the new law was immediately chal- Individual Number of lenged in state court, and, while the case was ultimately Seed Seed Qualifying Amount of Money Contribution Contributions Qualifying dismissed by the Arizona Supreme Court, the decision Caps Limit Required Contribution came so close to the primary election and the nominating petition deadline that it discouraged some candidates from Governor $40,000 $100 4,000 $5 running under the new system. A subsequent action chal- Attorney General & lenging the funding mechanism of the Arizona Clean Elec- Secretary of State $20,000 $100 2,500 $5 tion Law, brought by a lobbyist and a legislator, is currently Corporation pending in state court. The suit challenges two of the fund- Commission $10,000 $100 1,500 $5 ing provisions of the law. The first, an annual fee on lob- State Senate byists, does not generate significant income, and is not or House $2,500 $100 200 $5 much 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 the way the law is written, and are looking forward to prevail- ing in court.

CLEAN ELECTION REFORM SHOWS THE WAY FORWARD 16 What a Qualified Candidate Receives campaigns in the conventional way. However, now they Once the state certifies that candidates have met the quali- must abide by new limits on the size of contributions they fying requirements, they receive a set and equal “base accept. These new limits are 20% less than those that ex- amount” of public funding for their primary and general isted prior to the passage of the Clean Election law. Con- election campaigns. Once qualified, candidates may not tributions from individuals and political committees are use any of their own money in their races, nor may they now limited to $270 for candidates for legislative office and accept contributions from any private sources. $700 for candidates for statewide office. The “base amount” of money the Clean Election candidate receives is that candidate’s spending limit. If, however, Table #6: during the primary or the general election a Clean Election Arizona Contribution Limits for Non-Participating candidate is outspent by a privately funded opponent, this Candidates or Authorized Candidate Committees limit may be exceeded. In such situations, Clean Election Legislative Statewide candidates quickly become eligible for supplemental, dol- Offices Offices lar for dollar matching funds so that they can keep pace with their opponents’ spending. Individual’s contribution to a candidate $270 $700 Political Committee’s contribution to a candidate $270 $700 Table #5: Committees certified to give at the upper limit What Qualified Candidates Received in Arizona in 2000 (“Super PAC”) $1,380 $3,460 Combined total from all Political Committees Primary Election General Election other than political Parties $6,910 $69,120 Initial Maximum Initial Maximum Nominee’s total from political party and all distribution Grant with distribution Grant with political organizations combined $6,910 $69,120 Matching Funds Matching Funds Total contributed in a calendar year by an Corporation individual to candidates and committees Commission $40,000 $120,000 $60,000 $180,000 who give to candidates $3,230 $3,230 State Senate & House $10,000 $30,000 $15,000 $45,000

Sources of Money for the Clean Election Fund Note: Amounts shown are for contested races. Unopposed candidates received an amount equal to $5 times the number of qualifying signatures a candidate In Arizona, the funds for the Clean Election system come gathered. from fees from lobbyists, a 10% surcharge on civil and criminal fines and penalties, the $5 qualifying contributions candidates collect, a $5 check off on state tax returns Independent expenditures by other groups or organiza- and a number of other smaller sources. In 2000, the Clean tions that benefit a candidate’s campaign may also trigger Election Fund received over $4.6 million from surcharges the allocation of matching funds. The total amount of on fines and penalties, and approximately $1.8 million matching funds a candidate may collect is three times the from the tax check off. Another $1.4 million was raised by base amount the candidate originally received. these methods from January through April 2001. In the Contribution Limits on Non-Participating Candidates 2000 elections, over $1.9 million in Clean Election funds was distributed to the 59 candidates who ran under the Candidates who choose not to participate in the Clean system. Election system may continue to raise and spend money from individuals, PACs and corporations and run their

MONEY AND POLITICS IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT 617-541-0500 17 The Cost of the System to Arizona Taxpayers lished an earlier qualifying deadline and strengthened the The cost of running the Arizona Clean Election system for enforcement provisions of the law. The bill was defeated the 2000 legislative and Corporation Commission elec- in a floor vote because, reformers believe, it had too many tions was minimal, at less than $1 per resident or voting different provisions. age resident of the state. In relation to the state budget, it On the opposing side, several bills were submitted to un- was a meager one twentieth of one percent of total state dermine Clean Election reform in the state house. One spending. called for a repeal of the law through a re-vote on the ballot initiative. Two others, authored by the same represen- Table #7: tative, would have raided the Clean Election Fund by reas- Arizona Clean Election Spending in 2000 Relative to signing the monies to the state Traffic Safety Fund, and Population and State Government Budget3 reduced the effectiveness of the voluntary state tax check off funding mechanism. This legislation re-energized the public, and the response in support of the law was so over- Expenditures per resident of state 66 cents whelming that none of the bills made it out of commit- Expenditures per voting age resident 94 cents tee. Expenditures as a % of all state government spending 0.05%

Looking Toward 2002 The next elections to be held in Arizona under the Clean How the Arizona System is Administered Election system will be in the fall of 2002. Already, a wide The Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission is re- range of candidates has indicated an interest in participat- sponsible for administering the Clean Election system. It ing in the Clean Election system, if they decide to run. The reviews candidate disclosure reports, decides on the pay- group includes six of seven prospective gubernatorial can- ment of matching funds, and has the power to penalize didates, Democrats and Republicans. Given that Arizona candidates who fail to comply with the requirements of the is in the middle of a redistricting process, some legislative law. The Arizona Secretary of State is responsible for moni- candidates are waiting to see what the new districts will toring candidates’ spending reports. A nonpartisan watch- look like before making their decision. Nonetheless, based dog group, the Arizona Clean Elections Institute, also on phone calls and contacts with the Arizona Clean Elec- oversees implementation and has played a substantial role tions Institute, the majority of Democrats, Republicans in educating candidates about the law. and independents currently considering running are sug- gesting that they will seek to qualify for public funding. Reasons for increased participation include the successful The Arizona Clean Election Law in the resolution of the lawsuit that, in 2000, kept many candi- 2001 Legislature dates from opting in, and the positive experiences of those In 2001 Arizona reformers worked with supportive sena- who did run with public financing that year. tors on a proposal to make the Clean Election system work more smoothly. Among other things, it would have estab-

CLEAN ELECTION REFORM SHOWS THE WAY FORWARD 18 didates must collect a set number of qualifying contribu- C. VERMONT’S CLEAN tions from registered voters to be eligible for public fund- ELECTION SYSTEM ing. A gubernatorial candidate must collect no less than $35,000 from no fewer than 1,500 qualified individual contributors, making a contribution of no more than $50 Vermont — First Legislative Victory for each. A candidate running for lieutenant governor must Clean Elections collect no less than $17,500 from no fewer than 750 quali- In 1997, Vermont’s Citizens’ Coalition for Clean Elec- fied individual contributors, contributing no more than tions (CCCE) spearheaded a successful drive for campaign $50 each. No more than 25% of the total number of quali- finance reform legislation. The Vermont bill represents the fied individual contributors may be residents of the same first legislative victory for Clean Election reform in the coun- county. try. Among several other provisions, Vermont’s law, as ori- Use of Qualifying Contributions as Seed Money ginally passed, featured public funding for qualifying A candidate may use the qualifying contributions for the candidates for the offices of Lieutenant Governor and Gov- purpose of obtaining additional qualifying contributions ernor and strict limits on political party, PAC, corporate and and may expend the remaining qualifying contributions individual giving. Unlike the Clean Election laws in Maine during the primary and general election periods. Amounts and Arizona, the Vermont law also imposed strict spend- expended to obtain qualifying contributions are expendi- ing limits on privately funded candidates. Proponents of tures of the candidate and count toward the candidate’s these latter provisions were well aware that they would be spending limits. subject to judicial attack on constitutional grounds. The Funding Qualified Candidates Receive In fact, the law was almost immediately challenged in Fed- Candidates who qualify for public financing receive the fol- eral Court by the Vermont Right to Life PAC and other lowing amounts from the Vermont campaign fund for their parties. A District Court decision, issued on August 10, races, except for incumbents, who receive 85% of these 2000, affirmed the constitutionality of the law’s lowest-in- amounts. Candidates for Governor receive $75,000 for use the-nation limits on individual, corporate and PAC con- during the primary election and $225,000 for use during tributions (which ranged from $200 to $400 depending the general election. Candidates for Lt. Governor receive on the office sought), but declared its limits on contribu- $25,000 for the primary election and $75,000 for the gen- tions from political parties to candidates unconstitution- eral election. The primary election grant to all candidates ally low. Judge Sessions also declared that the law’s spend- is reduced by the amount of qualifying contributions re- ing caps — ranging from $300,000 for gubernatorial ceived. Candidates may use grants awarded but not spent candidates down to $2,000 for a House candidate — were in a primary election in their general election campaigns. unconstitutional. The case is currently on appeal before the Second Circuit Federal Court of Appeals. 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 among How the Vermont Clean Election System Works candidates by restricting the amount that all candidates could spend, thereby rendering a matching funds provision How Candidates Qualify for Public Funding unnecessary. However, this spending restriction was sub- Persons who desire to run as Clean Election candidates sequently declared unconstitutional by a federal court (see must meet certain qualifications. They cannot have raised above). or spent more than $500 on their campaigns prior to Feb- Sources of Money in the Clean Election Fund ruary 15th of the election year. Thereafter, they may not accept or expend any monies on their campaigns except The funds for the Clean Election system come from annual qualifying contributions and any public funds they receive report fees paid by corporations registering to do business after qualifying. As in Maine and Arizona, prospective can- in Vermont, and a number of smaller sources.

MONEY AND POLITICS IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT 617-541-0500 19 How the Vermont System is Administered als, shutting the Vermont Yankee nuclear reactor, and stop- The Vermont Secretary of State is responsible for adminis- ping a proposed sprawl-inducing highway. tering the Vermont Clean Election system, with enforce- Public funding also gave Pollina legitimacy in the politi- ment being the responsibility of the Vermont Attorney cal process: he was quoted consistently along with the General. Democratic and Republican candidates in the press, and included with them in all major debates. In the end, he garnered nearly 10% of the vote, a respectable showing for The 2000 Elections in Vermont a first-time candidate in a heated three-way race. The first elections were conducted under the Vermont Clean Election law in 2000. Two candidates ran with public Looking Toward 2002 financing. One was Douglas Racine, a long time supporter of campaign finance reform, who campaigned successfully Vermont reformers are currently supporting a number of and won re-election for a third term as the state’s Lieuten- amendments to the state Clean Election law to expand and ant Governor. Although the race garnered only limited improve its provisions in light of the Federal Court deci- publicity, the fact that Racine insisted upon conducting his sion. The three most important proposals would: campaign with public financing was an important vote of • Close the political party contribution loophole. The confidence in the new law. The other candidate who ran Court ruling indicated that limited political party con- with public funding was Anthony Pollina, the Progressive tributions may not be unconstitutional per se, and a Party’s gubernatorial candidate. proposal is under consideration to establish limits rang- The Vermont gubernatorial election was a hotly contested ing from $2,000 for a house seat to $50,000 for guber- three-way race, particularly given the bitter dispute between natorial candidates. Republicans and Democrats over the governor’s support for • Extend public funding. A bill has been introduced to a recently passed “civil union” law granting legal rights to extend public funding for senate candidates in addition partners in gay couples. Over $2 million was spent in the to the two highest statewide posts. Another proposal election (with most coming from political parties), com- submitted by the Secretary of State suggests that the pared to approximately $900,000 two years previously. current public funding be used for house races, instead Because the federal court removed the law’s spending limits of statewide offices, an idea that has sparked some con- on privately funded candidates part way through the cam- troversy among reformers. paign, Governor Howard Dean, who had begun campaign- • Add a matching funds provision to the law. The sen- ing under the Clean Election system, changed his mind and ate bill would also create a matching funds mechanism, returned his public funds to the state. He cited concerns whereby a participating candidate would be entitled to that his Republican opponent was receiving enormous matching funds in the event an opponent who chooses amounts of money, much of it from out-of-state groups, not to participate in the system spends more than the and that the recent court ruling left him no way to keep up. maximum allowed by the Clean Election law for that of- While Dean’s decision was a blow to Clean Election advo- fice. This reform is important, because the federal court cates, the gubernatorial race in Vermont nonetheless dem- ruling in August 2000 left Vermont with no mechanism onstrated how a Clean Election law can broaden and to keep candidates financially competitive. . deepen the democratic process by offering new visibility The next elections to be held in Vermont under the Clean for third-party candidates. Progressive Party candidate Election system will be in the fall of 2002. At this point it Anthony Pollina — a well-respected grassroots organizer appears that none of the Democrats or Republicans who with over 20 years experience — raised issues in the cam- intend to run for governor or lieutenant governor in 2002 paign that no other candidate was addressing. These will seek to do so with public funding. The Progressive included issues of rural development and sustainable ag- Party has declared its intention of running candidates for riculture, and environmental issues, including dam remov- both offices using the Clean Election system.

CLEAN ELECTION REFORM SHOWS THE WAY FORWARD 20 III. Year One in Maine and Arizona: How Well Did the New Systems Perform?

system at relatively high rates during its first year. Many of A. INCREASING COMPETITION these candidates indicated that the existence of a Clean AND VOTER CHOICE Election public funding system was a decisive factor in their decisions to run for public office. In particular, a significant In most states operating under traditional electoral systems, percentage of the women and people of color who were there is often little competition for state legislative offices. candidates in Maine and Arizona said that they would not In November 2000, a third or more of the elections went have run without the public financing option. uncontested in 26 of the 50 states — meaning that voters in those races had no choice about whom their elected officials would be. The percentage of uncontested elections 1. Number of Candidates Rose, High ranged from a high of 73% in Arkansas to a low of 3% in Participation in Clean Election Systems North Dakota. While there are many reasons for this situ- The number of candidates running for office in primary ation, among them is the difficulty that challengers face in and general elections combined in 2000 rose in Arizona raising the necessary money to conduct a credible cam- by 12% and in Maine by 5%. While a variety of factors paign. contributed to enhanced competition, including term lim- The lack of competition is particularly dramatic in primary its and changes in the political climate, Clean Election re- elections. The absence of competition in these races means form also contributed to this result, as many of the candi- that fewer issues are raised and debated and, because un- dates ran with public funding. In fact, candidates who challenged candidates don’t have to fight to stay in office, participated in Clean Election systems represented a size- they are less accountable to voters. For all these reasons, a able portion of the total number of candidates in each state. key goal of Clean Election reform is to increase electoral (See Table #8) competition and thereby expand the range of choices avail- These participation levels were achieved even though there able to voters. were legal challenges to the Clean Election laws in each Our analysis of the 2000 elections in Maine and Arizona state, creating an air of uncertainty about the laws’ actual found that the number of candidates for the legislature rose implementation. These court challenges were defeated, but in both states with the introduction of Clean Election sys- in Arizona the decision came down so close to the primary tems. We also found a substantial increase in the number election that it made it more difficult for candidates to of contested primary races for seats in both houses of the choose to participate. Given such adverse conditions, the Maine legislature, and for seats in the Arizona senate. participation results obtained in each state are especially Moreover, candidates participated in the Clean Elections impressive.

MONEY AND POLITICS IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT 617-541-0500 21 Table #8: In Maine, about one-third of all candidates in both the Number of Candidates Running for primary and general elections in 2000 participated in the State Legislative Seats4 new system, while in Arizona between one-quarter and one-third of candidates participated. Given that this was Maine Arizona the first test of these systems, it was a substantial achieve- All candidates ment that such a large percentage of all candidates volun- tarily chose to limit their total fundraising options and rely 1998 407 188 on public funds. 2000 426 211 Change 19 24 Figure #1: Percent change 5% 12% Percent Participating Candidates

Participating candidates 134 54 Participating as % of total 31% 26% Maine general

Maine primary Arizona has a history of noncompetitive legislative

races. Not only did we see a significant increase in Arizona general competitive races, we also saw Clean Election candidates running against incumbents who had not had Arizona primary an opponent in years. Cecilia Martinez, Executive Director, Arizona Clean Elections Institute. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Equally impressive were some of the things that elected officials themselves had to say about the experience of Here is how Professor Anthony Corrado, a recognized ex- participating in the Clean Election process: I wouldn’t have pert on campaign finance reform at Colby College, assesses run for public office if it hadn’t been for Maine Clean Elections. the impact of this degree of participation for the future of I wouldn’t have asked my family to have sacrificed thousands Clean Election reform: The fact that we had incumbents, chal- of dollars for a campaign. Linda Clark Howard, a retired lengers and open seat candidates participate to the extent that school teacher who ran for the legislature for the first time we did has to be regarded as successful. And given the outcome in 2000. of this election where we had a significant percentage of the [Maine] senate and of the house elected as clean candidates, We were able to field some really ter- one would have to think that that will only encourage others to rific people in seats that frankly would run under the public funding option.5 have been difficult to find good candidates in the past. And in fact some seats where we had no candidates two The following charts provide more detailed information on years ago, people are running because participation levels in both states. Looking first at Arizona, the Clean Elections Act allowed them when the figures for candidates using public funding in the to be competitive. Sen. Rick Bennett is primary and general elections are broken out separately, Senate President and part of the Re- participation in the Clean Election system in the general publican leadership team that recruited candidates election was slightly higher than in the primary. to run in 2000. As a candidate in 2000, he also participated in the Clean Election system.

CLEAN ELECTION REFORM SHOWS THE WAY FORWARD 22 Table #9: Table #11: Arizona: Number and Percent of Participating Contested Legislative Primary Races in 1998 and 2000 Candidates in 2000 Primary and General Elections 6 Maine Arizona Primary General House Senate House Senate

Total number of candidates 221 151 1998 15 3 39 10 Number of participating candidates 59 44 2000 21 4 38 14 % of all candidates who participated 27% 29% % change 1998 to 2000 40% 33% -2% 40%

For Maine, participation in the system was also slightly Clean Election reform does appear to have played a signifi- higher in the general election than in the primaries. Almost cant role in increased electoral competition in both states half of all candidates for the State senate participated, while for two reasons. First, because a sizable number of Clean more than one quarter of house candidates did so. Election candidates participated in contested races. In Maine, Clean Election participants ran in half of the contested house primaries and three-quarters of the senate Table #10: ones. In Arizona, participating candidates ran in two-fifths Maine: Number and Percent of Participating Candidates in 2000 Primary and General Elections 7 of the contested house primaries and one-fifth of the contested senate ones. Second, because many of these Clean Primary General Election participants have stated that, but for public financing, they would not have run for office in 2000. Number of participating candidates 134 116 House 94 81 Figure #2: Senate 40 35 Participating Candidates in Contested Races 2000

% of all candidates who participated 31% 33% Arizona Senate

House 27% 29% Arizona House Senate 47% 49% Maine Senate

Maine House

0 10203040 2. Number of Contested Primary Races

Rose in Both Maine Houses, Arizona Senate races without a participating candidate

In Maine, the number of contested primary races has been races with a participating candidate small and decreasing in recent elections. But in 2000, the number rose significantly for seats in both houses of the legislature.8 In Arizona, the number of contested primaries rose substantially in the senate, on a percentage basis, while declining slightly in the house.9

MONEY AND POLITICS IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT 617-541-0500 23 3. Many Women and People of Color sions from campaign donations—look at what the Ran Due to Clean Election Reform, But pharmaceutical companies have done in this state. Numbers of Candidates Remained Limited Clean Elections takes what people are unhappy with out of public service—and that’s what government Women and people of color have historically been under- is. Linda Clark Howard. represented in public office and as candidates, relative to their percentages in the population. While the problem of In fact, the testimony of the women and people of color the under-representation of people of color has not im- who did run for public office in Maine and Arizona in 2000 proved significantly in recent years, the number of women confirms that the presence of the Clean Election reform elected officials has increased. In 2000, women were 22.5% option was decisive in their decisions to become candi- of all state legislators in the United States. The figures for dates. Many of the women candidates in Maine credited Arizona and Maine in 2000 were slightly better in this the existence of the new Clean Election system as a major regard, at 35.6% and 28.0%, respectively, — although nei- factor in their decision to run. ther state came close to providing women with representation proportional to their share of the voting popula- I never thought to run without Clean Elections. I’m tion.10 a single mom with two kids, working full time with no time to raise money. I like the whole concept of For years a friend of mine who was a it. Kelly Ann Staples, a social worker and first time former representative used to come into candidate for the Maine House of Representatives the restaurant where I worked... ’You in 2000. should run for office, you should run for office. ‘No, no, no. I can’t do that, The Clean Election system was also an attractive option for I’m a single mother.’ And then I Arizona women candidates in 2000, 26% of whom par- thought maybe that’s the reason I ticipated in the system. In a telephone survey conducted should. Rep. Deborah Simpson, who ran as a in Arizona of those candidates who participated in the pub- Clean Election candidate in Maine in 2000. lic financing system, the vast majority of women (87%) said that they would not have run without the availability The low representation of women and people of color in of public funds. 11 American government is due to a variety of factors, many connected to the history of discrimination and disenfran- Without the Clean Elections option, I chisement that both groups have experienced. At the more would not have run for office and sub- immediate level, another factor is their relative lack of ac- sequently defeated a powerful incum- cess to the money needed to run political campaigns. Thus, bent and the future Speaker of the the availability of Clean Election funding enables more House. Representative Meg Burton women and people of color to run for office and compete Cahill, a first-time Arizona legislative on a more equitable basis. candidate in 2000. For me, personally and financially, it just made The role of Clean Election reform in the decisions of the sense. I’m retired from teaching and we just put a more limited numbers of candidates of color who ran for daughter through college and are helping her pay office in 2000 was similar. A telephone survey of the Latino back her loans. The idea of starting a political cam- candidates who ran with public funding in Arizona in 2000 paign, providing public service, and still taking revealed that 80% of them said that they would not have money from private interests felt uncomfortable and run without the availability of public funds.12 a little offensive to me. We’re seeing the repercus-

CLEAN ELECTION REFORM SHOWS THE WAY FORWARD 24 However, while positive, the results of the first election cycle in the clean elections system at a greater rate than did men, of Clean Election reform in Maine and Arizona do not in both primary and general elections. The difference was provide sufficient data to draw firm conclusions about how slight in Arizona, but more substantial in Maine, where a public financing will ultimately affect political representa- much higher rate of women were participants in the gen- tion of people of color and women. This is particularly true eral election (45%) than were men (28%). (See Table #31 with regard to the former. In Maine (with a minority popu- for further details.) 39% of the women who ran for the state lation of 2%), no candidates of color ran in 1998 and only legislature in Maine chose to run with public financing. one ran in 2000. In Arizona, there were 26 candidates of Notwithstanding these participation rates, it is not clear color in the 1998 general election and 23 in 2000, so no whether participation in Clean Election systems helped the upward trend during the first year of Clean Election reform women who did run. Changes in electoral success by was apparent.13 women were small in both states. The number who won There is more data available on women in the 2000 elec- the general election to the legislature in Maine rose by four, tions in these states. Compared to 1998, the number of or 8%, from 1998 to 2000, while falling by the same per- women running for legislative seats in the 2000 primary cent in Arizona. In Maine, about half the winning women and/or general elections rose in both states, growing by a were participating candidates, while in Arizona only a fifth in Arizona. For general elections alone, however, the small percentage of the winners participated in Clean Elec- number of women candidates in both states in 2000 was tions. only slightly above the average for elections from 1988 through the present.14 Conclusions

Table #12: In both Maine and Arizona, Clean Election reform suc- Women Running in 2000 Legislative Elections15 ceeded in increasing the total number of candidates running for office. It also increased the total number of con- Number of women candidates Maine Arizona tested primary races in the 2000 elections in both houses of the Maine legislature and in the Arizona senate. Clean 1998 113 61 Election reform attracted numerous candidates to partici- 2000 121 73 pate in the new systems, and the presence of so many can- Change 8 12 didates not beholden to wealthy contributors was an im- % change 7% 20% portant new factor in these races. Interviews with participating candidates in Maine, and survey data from Note: data is for the primary and general elections combined. Arizona indicate that high percentages of participating women and Latinos chose to become candidates in 2000 because Clean Election funding was available. All of these Perhaps more telling than the statistics on the number of factors enabled Clean Election reform to contribute to an women candidates running in 2000 is the fact that a sig- increase in electoral competition and enhanced voter nificant number of these candidates participated in the choice in the 2000 elections. Clean Election systems. In both states, women participated

MONEY AND POLITICS IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT 617-541-0500 25 Regardless of the office being sought, candidates seeking B. FREEING CANDIDATES FROM to qualify must collect a set number of $5 contributions THE MONEY CHASE AND from voters. In Arizona, candidates need 200 contributions if running for a house or senate seat. In Maine, where dis- INCREASING THEIR TIME WITH tricts have much smaller populations, candidates need 150 contributions to run for senate seats and 50 to run for a seat THE VOTERS in the state house. Candidates for statewide offices are required to obtain a larger number of contributions. Clean Election reform addresses the seemingly unavoid- able requirement of American politics that candidates for This qualifying process forces candidates to spend their elective office devote a large portion of their efforts to rais- time interacting with potential voters early in the campaign ing money. Its goal is to enable candidates to spend their season, rather than with big-money donors. While solicit- time with the voters, without regard to the individual voting a signature on a petition might be relatively easy, ob- ers’ financial status. The evidence from their first test run taining a $5 contribution from a registered voter frequently in 2000 is that the availability of public funds frees partici- requires a candidate to spend time with that voter in pating candidates from the money chase, and that the can- thoughtful conversation and discussion. As a result, par- didates who ran “clean” enjoyed their newfound freedom. ticipating candidates in both states reported that the system caused them to modify significantly the way they cam- In previous campaigns I have spent enormous paigned — and that they preferred the new way of running amounts of time raising money, and it takes money for office. to make money, so it’s costly. Clean Elections gave me more time to talk with my constituents. Rep. The previous campaigns, I would say at least a half Elizabeth Watson, a Democrat who won her or a third of the campaign time was spent raising fourth term in the Maine House in 2000.16 the dollars. In this campaign, the time I spent raising the dollars was actually in front of my constitu- Here in Arizona, we have been very ents, because as I went door to door...it gave me the successful with this process... It gave a opportunity to work more with my constituents and good opportunity for individuals to get let them see me and talk to me about some of the is- out there, talk to more of their con- sues... It made me be more of a grassroots candi- stituents, do more of an effort to reach date. Senator David Peterson, an Arizona Republi- more individuals... I would definitely can incumbent who ran with public financing in run again as a Clean Election candi- 2000. date... The response was phenomenal. Arizona Rep. Leah Landrum, D-Phoenix, and Maine Citizens for Clean Elections conducted a compre- House Minority Whip. hensive survey of candidates who ran with public financing in the 2000 elections. 72% of candidates said that par- Clean Election systems turn modern-day political ticipating had a significant impact on the way they fundraising on its head: candidates must raise a little bit campaigned. of money from a lot of people instead of a lot of money from a few. I spent 90 percent of my time knocking on doors. This is where a candidate belongs, standing on porches. Don Gean, a former House member and current Executive Director of the York County Homeless Shelter, who lost a state senate race in 2000.

CLEAN ELECTION REFORM SHOWS THE WAY FORWARD 26 Among those candidates who said that participating in the Clean Election system had a significant impact on the way C. ACHIEVING GREATER they campaigned, the single most important change they FINANCIAL PARITY FOR identified was its effect on how they spent their time. Clean Election reform allowed them to devote “more time for CANDIDATES WHO LACK voters, less time for soliciting.”17 SPECIAL-INTEREST FUNDING It absolutely changed the way I campaigned. I spent more time on issues Another critical goal of clean election reform is to reduce and I budgeted better as well, since I the financial disparities between candidates who have ex- knew how much I could count on. It tensive access to private funding and those who do not. totally changed the focus — it was no Clean Election laws attempt to address this problem by longer on money. I did a lot of door-to- offering public funding to qualified candidates. This allows door and phone banking. Rep. Boyd candidates who have significant public support (as dem- Marley, newly elected Democratic onstrated by their ability to obtain qualifying contribu- House member and Clean Election candidate from tions) to afford a full-fledged electoral campaign. Limita- Portland, Maine.18 tions on the size of individual donations to privately funded candidates may also contribute to greater financial parity. Conclusions There are a number of criteria that can be used to measure Clean Election reform in Maine and Arizona showed its the success of Clean Election reform in relation to achiev- strength in the 2000 elections. Every potential voter had an ing this goal of greater financial parity: equal claim to the attention of the participating candidates • The degree to which participating candidates were able — a far cry from most elections in the United States. It’s to keep pace financially with their privately funded not surprising that voters appreciated this change, but equally important is that candidates strongly preferred opponents; focusing on the voters rather than being forced to concen- • The extent of spending by losing candidates as com- trate on those with the potential to be big donors. pared to the spending of winners; • The extent to which publicly financed candidates won their races; • The degree to which challengers were able to raise money and win their races against well-financed incumbents; • The closeness of electoral outcomes, and the degree to which Clean Election systems had an impact on competitiveness. These criteria and the relevant data from the 2000 elections in Maine and Arizona are discussed in greater detail in the sections below.

MONEY AND POLITICS IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT 617-541-0500 27 1. Spending by Candidates In Maine in 2000, there were 42 such house races, and participating candidates were able to outspend their oppo- Participating Candidates Matched the Spending of nents by 17%, on average. In elections for the Maine sen- Non-Participants ate, there were 14 such races, and participants in the Clean On average, participating candidates in Maine and Arizona Election system spent 18% more than those candidates were able to match non-participating candidates in their who relied on private funds. campaign spending, indicating the success of the system in Some participating candidates in each state were challeng- providing greater financial parity among all candidates ers; others were incumbents, and still others ran for open without restricting the spending of privately funded can- seats. Of particular interest are those races where a partici- didates. (See Table #13) pating challenger ran against an incumbent non-partici- In Maine house races, participating candidates spent pant. Could Clean Election reform achieve financial par- slightly more money on average than other candidates, ity in such cases, where the incumbent would presumably while in Arizona house races they spent substantially more. have the ability to raise substantial private funds? The an- In senate races in Maine, non-participating candidates were swer in Maine appears to be “yes.” In 2000 there were 13 able to outspend participating candidates by about 15%, such races, and the participating challengers obtained 12% while in Arizona non-participating candidates for senate more funding, on average, than their incumbent oppo- seats slightly outspent participating candidates. nents spent. Participants running for open seats in Maine spent 20% more than their privately funded opponents. These results were due, in part, to a “matching funds” pro- Thus, the Clean Election systems in both states provided vision in both laws that supplements the initial amount of candidates with adequate funding to make their voices money provided to publicly funded candidates. A partici- heard and engage in meaningful campaigns. pating candidate receives additional funds, dollar-for-dollar, when his or her privately funded opponent files papers The Spending Gap between Winners and Losers revealing spending beyond the initial threshold amount. Was Narrowed Significantly Candidates may receive up to two times their original al- As a result of Clean Election reform in Maine and Arizona, lotment in this manner in Maine and up to three times the spending gap between winning and losing candidates their original allotment in Arizona. narrowed in 2000, compared to 1998. In Maine, in 1998, losing candidates succeeded in raising and spending only Table #13: 53 cents for every dollar raised by winners. In Arizona, they Spending By Participating and were able to raise and spend only 46 cents for every dollar Non-Participating Candidates in 2000 Elections spent by winners. After the Clean Election system was (Primary and General Combined) implemented, these proportions changed to 78 cents and 69 cents, respectively. Maine Arizona

Partici- Nonpartici- Partici- Nonpartici- Figure #3: pating pating pating pating Ratio of Spending, Losing to Winning Candidates House $ 3,972 $ 3,350 $31,699 $23,360

Senate $15,135 $17,338 $29,718 $30,674 Arizona 2000

Arizona 1998 The figures above are for all legislative races, including those involving two participating candidates running against Maine 2000 each other and those where only privately funded candidates ran. It is also important to look at spending in only Maine 1998 those races involving participating and a non-participating candidates running against each other. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CLEAN ELECTION REFORM SHOWS THE WAY FORWARD 28 As a result of Clean Election reform it also cost less to win In Arizona, where Clean Election candidates were quite a race for legislative office in Maine, and for a seat in the successful in the primaries, in the general election they won state senate in Arizona in 2000, as compared to 1998. In a substantially smaller share of their races than did non- the past, strong candidates often did not need to seriously participants, largely because they were challengers facing engage their poorly funded opponents. Clean Election re- established incumbents. form is helping to create real contests in which strong candidates must work for votes and become involved with Table #15: their constituents. Percentage of All and Participating Candidates Who Won Their Races in 2000 Table #14: Spending By Winning and Losing Candidates, Maine Arizona 1998 and 2000 Elections Primary Election Maine Arizona All candidates 57% 69% 1998 2000 1998 2000 Participating candidates 43% 75%

House General Election Winners $7,203 $4,500 $29,615 $33,652 All candidates 53% 60% Losers $3,345 $3,500 $14,989 $20,330 Participating candidates 53% 36%

Senate Winners $24,812 $20,803 $39,992 $32,529 Losers $15,620 $13,597 $16,047 $38,920 3. Challengers Were More Competitive in Terms of Spending, but Won Few Races

Spending by Challengers and Incumbents Compared 2. Publicly Financed Candidates In both Maine and Arizona, the spending differential be- Were Competitive tween challengers and incumbents narrowed sharply with the introduction of Clean Election reform. This result re- Candidates who ran with public funding in both states flects two processes: an increase in the amount of money won a significant percentage of their races — an indication available to challengers, if they participated in the Clean that the system allowed them to be competitive. In the Election systems, and a decline in the amount spent by general elections in Maine, participating candidates did as incumbents. In 1998, challengers in Maine raised slightly well as non-participants. If only those races where a Clean over half as much money as did incumbents, but in 2000 Election candidate ran against a traditionally funded op- their funding, from both public and private sources, was ponent are considered, the results are similar. In Maine’s almost four-fifths as much, on average, as those raised by general election in 2000, there were 56 such races, and the incumbents. In Arizona, during 2000, challengers were able participants won 29 of them, for a 52% win ratio, virtu- to spend three quarters as much money as incumbents, ally the same as for all legislative races. Looking at the sepa- compared to only 37% as much in 1998 — a dramatic gain rate legislative chambers, the ratio was 55% in the House in their competitiveness. and 43% in the Senate. Thus, participating candidates in Maine were fully competitive with privately funded opponents.

MONEY AND POLITICS IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT 617-541-0500 29 Figure #4: Clean Election reform. As George Christie, director of the Ratio of Spending, Challengers to Incumbents, Dirigo Alliance in Maine, explains, “Clean Elections were 2000 and 1998 never intended to, like term limits, sweep out incumbents. They were intended to make it a fairer contest.” Christie adds, “Clean 90% Elections moved running against an incumbent from being 78% nearly impossible to damn hard. It is a step in the right 80% 76% 20 70% direction.” 60% 54% A few of the most hotly contested races in Maine and Ari- 50% zona in 2000 provide limited evidence that, while fund- 40% 37% ing alone is not enough to overcome the power of incum- 30% bency, a well-organized Clean Election candidate can beat a long-time office holder. Once such race in Arizona pit- 20% ted Jay Blanchard, a professor of education at Arizona State 10% University, against the departing Speaker of the Arizona 0% House Jeff Groscot. While a scandal involving Groscot was Maine Maine Arizona Arizona a prominent factor in Blanchard’s win, without the Clean 1998 2000 1998 2000 Election system, Blanchard would not have been running in the first place. Blanchard provides this assessment of the Equally dramatic are the figures showing the decline in impact of Clean Election reform on a challenger’s ability campaign spending of incumbents in 2000 as compared to take on an incumbent. “Clean Elections helped get me on to the 1998 election. the playing field. It didn’t necessarily give me the win, but it put me on the playing field so at least I could participate against the Arizona Speaker of the House.”21 Table #16: Spending By Incumbents and Challengers, Another challenger success story is that of Senator Ed 1998 and 2000 Elections19 Youngblood of Maine. A first-time candidate, Youngblood ran against a three-term incumbent and chair of the pow- Maine Arizona erful Senate Taxation Committee, who had previously 1998 2000 1998 2000 served five terms in the House. Youngblood says that the Clean Election option made his decision to run “a whole Challengers $ 5,606 $4,868 $13,541 $24,643 lot easier.” In fact, he says he wouldn’t have run without Incumbents $10,345 $6,265 $35,916 $32,376 it. Youngblood’s willingness to take on a powerful incumbent — and to do so without private funds — turned this race into a surprise battleground contest, and the upset victory of election 2000 in Maine. Rate of Election Victories by Challengers The 2000 election results from Maine and Arizona confirm Of those Maine and Arizona challengers who were success- that incumbency remains an enormous advantage for can- ful in defeating incumbents, a relatively high proportion didates. Incumbents, including the substantial number of of them ran with public funding. Four out of 10 in Maine incumbents who participated in the new public financing were participating candidates, while 4 out of 14 in Arizona systems, continued to win 90% or more of their races. (See were participants. Maine challengers who used the new Appendix, Tables #24 and #25.) It would be a mistake, system in the general election were more successful than however, to conclude that this illustrates the limitations of those who did not.

CLEAN ELECTION REFORM SHOWS THE WAY FORWARD 30 Figure #5: Table #17: Percent of Challengers Winning General Election Races Maine: Increase in Competitive General Election Races From 1998 to 200024

20% 1998 2000 17% 17% 16% Number of competitive races 13% 12% 11% House 54 64 9% Senate 14 17 8% 7% % of all races that were competitive 4% House 37% 40% 0% Senate 37% 45% Maine Maine Maine Arizona Arizona Arizona 2000 participating 1998 2000 participating 1998 2000 2000

Conclusions 4. Competitiveness in Maine General Election Races Increased The Clean Election laws in Maine and Arizona were carefully structured to provide both fixed initial distributions While winning an election is obviously the crucial criterion of funds to participating candidates, and matching funds of a candidate’s success, for purposes of evaluating the ef- to those who were outspent beyond that initial distribu- fectiveness of Clean Election reform it is also relevant to tion by their privately financed opponents. As a result, the consider whether races became closer in states that imple- new systems succeeded admirably in achieving the goal of mented public financing systems. A close or truly competi- ensuring greater financial parity among candidates overall, tive race has inherent value in generating more vigorous and between incumbents and challengers, and winners and public debate, and in increasing the accountability of vic- losers. In terms of the results of the 2000 elections in both torious candidates to the electorate. states, participating candidates proved themselves competi- One definition of a competitive race is where the losing tive, winning more than half their general election races in candidate obtains at least 40 percent of the vote, or — in a Maine and more than a third of those in Arizona. Yet, while three-way race — where the runner-up comes in no more Clean Election systems increased financial parity, in this than 20 percentage points behind the winner. This is the first electoral cycle, public financing by itself did not enable definition we have used for this analysis.22 To determine participating candidates to overcome the advantages of in- if there was an increase in competitiveness in Maine, we cumbency, as incumbents continued to dominate the elec- reviewed all general election results from 2000 and 1998 tion results. Nonetheless, elections in both states were to see how many races met this criterion.23 We found that made more competitive, campaigns were made more rig- the number of competitive races rose by 21% in Maine orous, and strong candidates were forced to engage their Senate elections and by 17% in elections for the House. opponents and connect with their constituents. (See table #17)

MONEY AND POLITICS IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT 617-541-0500 31 The results of the 2000 legislative elections in these states D. REDUCING THE INFLUENCE indicate that the influence of wealthy contributors on leg- OF SPECIAL INTERESTS islators and policy making may be weakening. In Maine, 17 members of the newly elected state senate, almost half Campaign contributions — especially large ones — are of- (49%) of that body, ran and won without accepting con- ten given in anticipation that they will produce results once tributions from business interests. Forty-five members of the election is over and the process of governance begins. the newly elected state house, or 30% of the total, ran as Generally, the more money wealthy donors give to success- Clean Election candidates. ful candidates, the more access to the office holders, and influence over their decisions, they hope to have. Clean “It was refreshing not to have to raise Election reform aims to put an end to this system. By sig- money, or in some cases spend my nificantly restricting the size of individual donations to par- own... I feel a certain independence ticipating candidates to small amounts, and by offering from certain special interest groups. It public funds as an alternative, clean election reform can was nice to be able to say, ‘Thanks for contribute to greatly restricting the influence of special in- the thought, but I’m running clean’.” terests on our legislative institutions. Sen. Peter Mills, a Maine Republican and 2000 Clean Election candidate The campaign was different because I who is serving his fourth term26 didn’t have to fund-raise. I feel the real difference will be in serving, though, In Arizona, the percentage of the new legislature elected simply by having no encumbrance from with public funding was smaller in this first year, but still private money. Sen. Lynn Bromley, a significant. Twelve members of the House (20% of the Maine Democrat who won her first total) and two members of the Senate (7%) were elected term in office in 2000, after an un- without contributions from special interests. Also in Ari- successful bid in 1998. zona, both newly elected members of the Corporation Commission ran as Clean Election candidates.

1. New Legislatures and the Arizona Table #18: Corporation Commission Less Tied to Percentages of Maine and Arizona Legislatures Special Interests Elected in 2000 Who Participated in Historically, well-heeled special interests seeking influence Clean Elections System have given generously to legislators in Maine and Arizona. Maine Arizona In 1998, in Arizona, 52% of total campaign contributions House Senate House Senate (or $5.9 million) came from business interests. These included $1.4 million from lawyers and lobbyists and $1.4 Participated and won 45 17 12 2 million from the finance, insurance and real estate indus- Total winning 151 35 60 30 tries. In Maine, more than a third of all contributions ($1.5 million) came from business sources. The largest contrib- Participating as % of winners 30% 49% 20% 7% uting business sectors were finance, insurance and real estate, lawyers, and the health care industry. In each state, only 2% of all contributions came from labor union sources.25

CLEAN ELECTION REFORM SHOWS THE WAY FORWARD 32 “I remember the first time I decided to Arizona Corporation Commission go to talk to the spokesperson of a The Corporation Commission is a three-member body large employer in the district. And I with extensive regulatory authority. Its Utilities Division thought, this person will want to give has responsibility for regulating the rates and the quality me money. And I’ll be able to tell him of service provided by public utilities, including those fur- no, that we would have a different nishing electric, gas, and water service. Its Securities Divi- kind of relationship. And that feeling sion has authority over the issuance of stock and bond was very reassuring.” Sen. Beth offerings, and oversees securities dealers and brokers. Fi- Edmonds, a Maine Democratic and 2000 Clean nally, the Commission’s Corporations Division approves Election candidate serving her first term in the all filings for business incorporation, collects and main- legislature27 tains annual reports from corporations, and has the power to revoke corporate charters. It is too early to assess the impact of candidates’ running with public financing on their actual voting and Six candidates ran for two available seats on the Arizona policymaking in Arizona and Maine. However, we have Corporation Commission in 2000. In a rejection of busi- every reason to believe that these dramatic shifts in the ness as usual, all five of the leading candidates participated source of campaign funds will cause corresponding shifts in the Clean Election system, and both new Commission- in how members of the legislatures and other elected bod- ers were participants. Clean Election funds made up the ies choose to govern. overwhelming bulk of monies spent in the Corporation Commission races, constituting approximately 88% of 29 It is important to me that decisions total spending by the five contending candidates. For the regarding legislation are based on first time ever, two of the three members of this body were thoughtful reasoning, and not on the elected without accepting contributions from businesses or influence of special interest contribu- utilities in the state — or from individuals connected to tions. Arizona State House Minority them. Leader, Ken Cheuvront, an incumbent Democrat who ran as a Clean I am not a novice campaigner, having Election candidate in 2000. run for office successfully four times under traditional private financing and in 2000 under Arizona’s Clean Already, there are some very positive signs. In the spring of Elections law. The comparison is stark. 2001, Maine’s legislature took a major step toward creat- Clean Elections empowers the constitu- ing a single-payer health care system, an important reform ency, gives voices to thousands of vot- that had not been achievable in earlier years. But in 2001, ers, expands opportunities and en- “The insurance industry’s influence has been diminished, and hances democracy. Clean Elections is about bringing a portion of that is due to Clean Elections,” says Rep. Paul back grassroots, one-to-one politics, the way it used Volenik, the Democratic sponsor of the legislation. “The to be, instead of high-dollar media campaigns fi- business lobbyists left me alone,” confirms Rep. Glenn nanced by huge contributions from the well-heeled. Cummings.”28 Clean Elections is about the restoration of democracy.” Marc Spitzer, a Republican, Corporation Commissioner and 2000 Clean Election candidate.30

MONEY AND POLITICS IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT 617-541-0500 33 Table # 19: Arizona Corporation Commission Elections, 1998 and 200031

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

1998 1 5 — 0 $139,000 — $139,000 2000 2653$ 10,000 $76,000 $ 86,000

As a quasi-judicial body, it is unconscionable to me Arizona’s Clean Election law also reduced individual and how a member of the Corporation Commission PAC contributions by 20% from the previous limits (for could accept campaign funds from the same indus- an individual that meant a drop from $320 to $270). But tries he or she is directly regulating and then at- apparently this was not enough to offset a trend toward tempt to render impartial decisions about those in- rising campaign spending in that state. Average spending dustries. Democrat Barbara Lubin, a community by non-participating candidates (which included all can- and consumer activist, who ran for the Corpora- didates in 1998) in Arizona actually rose by 8% from 1998 tion Commission as a Clean Election candidate, to 2000. This result held for both state house and senate winning the primary but losing in the general races.33 election. Table # 20: Private Funds in Legislative Campaigns, 1998 and 2000 2. Role of Private Funds in Campaigns Greatly Reduced Maine Arizona In the 2000 legislative elections total funds from private Total private funds ($ millions) donors were cut almost in half in Maine and by 6% in Arizona, compared to 1998. Because the number of can- 1998 $3.13 $4.46 didates rose in each state, the drop in private funds per 2000 $1.60 $4.21 legislative candidate was actually more substantial — fall- % change 1998 to 2000 -49% -6% ing by an average of 51% in Maine and 17% in Arizona.32 Average private funds per person — all candidates Why was the drop in private funding so much greater in Maine than in Arizona? Primarily because Maine’s Clean 1998 $7,681 $23,962 Election law not only created a system of public funding 2000 $3,755 $19,963 for participating candidates, but also greatly reduced the % change 1998 to 2000 -51% -17% size of contributions that individual and organizational donors could make to privately funded candidates. The Average private funds per person — non-participating candidates limit was cut from $1,000 to $250 for individuals, and 1998 $7,681 $23,962 from $5,000 to $250 for PACs and corporations. As a re- 2000 $5,460 $25,985 sult, average spending by privately funded candidates fell % change 1998 to 2000 -29% 8% in Maine from $7,681 in 1998 to $5,460 in 2000, a drop of 29%.

CLEAN ELECTION REFORM SHOWS THE WAY FORWARD 34 Clean Election funding in 2000 constituted 38% of total spending in Maine and 30% in Arizona — tending to indicate that the role of private, special interest campaign financing was curtailed somewhat more in Maine than in Arizona. Total spending, including both private and Clean Election funds, fell substantially in Maine but rose in Ari- zona, due to the increase in average private spending and the number of candidates in Arizona.34

Conclusions A large proportion of the Maine legislature was elected in 2000 without reliance on private money. In Arizona, the percentage of newly elected legislators who ran without private funds is smaller, but still significant. In addition, two out of three members of the Arizona Corporation Commission are now financially independent of the companies and individuals they regulate. While, it is still too early to say with certainty, it appears that the decreased role of private money in the electoral process is positively in- fluencing the way public officials operate. Already, a number of successful Clean Election candidates have remarked that running without any special interest money has made them feel more independent of special interests.

MONEY AND POLITICS IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT 617-541-0500 35 IV. Surveys of Participating Candidates’ Satisfaction with Clean Election Reform

ssential to the success of Clean Election reform is en- • Large majorities said that the amount of funds distrib- suring that the candidates who participate in the sys- uted for the primary elections was “just about right” Etems find them satisfactory — so that they are will- (78% Arizona, 71% Maine), and that funds were distrib- ing to participate again in the future themselves, and to uted in a timely way (79% Arizona, 92% Maine). communicate their satisfaction to other officeholders and potential candidates. If many participating candidates per- ceive a system to be overly burdensome, or determine that Table # 21: accepting public funding places them at a disadvantage, the Percentage of Participating Candidates Giving system would be doomed to failure, or would require sig- Each Answer to the Question, nificant legislative changes. “Overall, how satisfied are you with Clean Elections?” In order to evaluate this issue of candidate satisfaction, Very Reasonably Not very Not at all both Maine Citizens for Clean Elections and the Arizona Clean Elections Institute conducted surveys of participat- Maine 50% 49% 1% 0% ing candidates.35 In Maine, repeated attempts were made Arizona 65% 35% 0% 0% to reach every participant, and phone interviews were conducted with 78 candidates, or 67% of all Clean Election candidates in the general election. In Arizona, a similar Smaller majorities responded positively to other questions. phone survey reached all five candidates for seats on the About three-fifths of candidates in each state felt the fund Corporation Commission and 42 candidates for the state distributions in the general elections were “just about legislature, or 83% of the total. right,” with 39% in Arizona feeling they were too low and The surveys in both states found overwhelming support for 35% in Maine feeling they were either “much too low” or Clean Election reform: “a little too low.” • 98% of responding candidates in Maine and 100% of Of those candidates who received matching funds, 70% in those in Arizona said that they were either very or rea- Maine and 58% of those in Arizona felt that these were sonably satisfied with their Clean Election system. received “in a timely way,” Of those who said the release of funds was less than timely, the reasons differed in Maine • In Maine, 97% said they are likely to participate if they and Arizona. In Maine, candidates were generally pleased run for state office again (87% said they would “defi- with the state’s speedy distribution of funds through direct nitely” or “very likely” participate), and 93% said that deposits to their bank accounts. However, candidates who they are likely to recommend the Clean Election system had not planned ahead for matching funds said they found to other candidates. it difficult to put the money to good use with only three • Large majorities in both states said that the period of to five days left in their campaigns. In Arizona, funding was time allowed to qualify for public funding was adequate not available through direct deposit, so candidates had to (93% Arizona, 83% Maine) wait longer to access their matching funds.

CLEAN ELECTION REFORM SHOWS THE WAY FORWARD 36 In Maine 84% of participants felt that the cap on seed through issue advocacy that is targeted to benefit one can- money contributions was “about right.” In Arizona only didate. Two other concerns that participants raised were 60% felt the same way, while 40% thought that the cap was candidates who also have PACs, and “privately funded op- too low. ponents who front-load their expenditures in uncontested primaries to avoid triggering matching funds in the general The Maine survey asked, “What changes do you think are election.”36 essential or helpful to the success of Clean Elections?” By far the largest response, from 35% of candidates, was that Despite these problems, the predominant message of the there was a need to “close loopholes.” Among the most im- survey results is that participating in Clean Election systems portant of these that candidates identified were indepen- was neither overly burdensome nor disadvantageous to dent spending by organizations or individuals other than candidates. As a result, the candidates themselves said they the candidates themselves. Such spending can occur are likely to participate again in the future, and to recom- through political parties or other independent groups and mend the system to others.

MONEY AND POLITICS IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT 617-541-0500 37 V. Who Qualified for Clean Election Funds and Who Did Not

ome concerns have been raised that a Clean Election senate. His opponent filed a complaint, which the Citizens system could lend itself to a variety of abuses. De- Clean Elections Commission considered. Ultimately, the Smocracy could be harmed by allowing candidates to Commission decided that it did not need to rule on the qualify for public funding through fraudulent means, or complaint, because it found that the Republican candidate by obtaining illegal assistance, or because inappropriate, did not qualify for public financing anyway, due to the late “marginal” candidates would be able to qualify and run submission of many of his contributions.38 campaigns that would draw attention away from the “se- Another concern was that the number of fringe candidates rious” candidates. On the other end of the scale, some would increase. The fear was that such persons, who would observers were concerned that many worthy candidates not be able to obtain large contributions from knowledge- would be unable to obtain the required number of quali- able donors, could obtain the $5 qualifying contributions fying contributions. to qualify for public campaign funds. The result would be There is no evidence from the 2000 elections that these the use of public resources to run campaigns that were not concerns were justified. In most cases the feared problems actually competitive and did not add to the real choices did not occur, and in others where they did occur, the prob- available to the public. lems were caught and dealt with. With regard to the issue A review of the 2000 election results from Maine and Ari- of fraud, the few instances that did arise were not signifi- zona shows that this scenario never materialized. If we re- cant. In Maine, two cases have been reported where cam- gard candidates who run but garner less than 15% of the paign funds were spent for non-campaign related purposes. popular vote to be “fringe” candidates, there were no such The candidates in question were fined and required to re- candidates running with public funding in Maine or Ari- pay the misspent money. In Arizona, several instances of zona in the 2000 elections. On the other hand, the avail- fraud also occurred but were detected, with the candidates able evidence shows that the requirements for obtaining in question being disqualified and, in most cases, pros- qualifying contributions were feasible for the vast major- ecuted. To determine the authenticity of qualifying contri- ity of candidates who were serious about running for elec- butions, the Country Recorder’s office compared signatures toral office. In each state, only a small number of candi- on the contribution slips to those on file in voter registra- dates who filed an intent to participate in the Clean tion records. Six candidates were found to have many Elections system were unable to obtain the required num- “mismatched” signatures. Four of those were prosecuted, ber of $5 contributions. In Arizona, 11 legislative candi- and three admitted forging signatures.37 dates, and one candidate for Corporation Commission, In another case, the Republican Party in Arizona sent out tried but failed to qualify for public funding. This included a mailing to voters in one district asking them to send in two incumbents, and one candidate who then ran as a $5 qualifying contributions to a candidate for the state privately funded candidate and was elected.39

CLEAN ELECTION REFORM SHOWS THE WAY FORWARD 38 VI. Issues Requiring Further Research

ampaigning for public office is a highly sophisti- regarding the expenditure with the state. Since the state cated business. Throughout the U.S., skilled po- cannot forbid independent expenditures, the idea is to re- Clitical consultants assist candidates to raise ever- quire disclosure for the purpose of determining whether larger sums of money and to target it most effectively at a distribution of matching funds is appropriate. Under the the electorate. While these dynamics are less pro- Clean Election systems in Maine and Arizona, if an inde- nounced in small state races, particularly in rural areas, pendent expenditure is made on behalf of an opponent of neither Maine nor Arizona has been immune to the in- a participating candidate, and that expenditure puts the creasing sophistication of politics. opponent over the amount initially distributed to the publicly funded candidate, the state provides the participating Certainly, special interests are not going to surrender their candidate with additional funds, up to the amount spent role in the political process without a fight. Hence, it is im- by the opposing group.40 portant to keep watch for any loopholes in the new campaign finance laws that might undermine their effective- During the 2000 election season, there was speculation that ness. For example, even with Clean Election reform, a the use of independent expenditures had increased in business or organization can create a committee to run Maine and Arizona. In some hotly contested districts, pri- media ads that help or hurt a candidate, and those ads are vately and publicly funded candidates were targets and constitutionally protected forms of speech. While detrac- beneficiaries of such activities. While there has been anec- tors point to the ability to create these committees and run dotal evidence of an increase, no one has yet studied the such ads as “loopholes” in the laws, more research is matter thoroughly. Nor do we know if there is a relation- needed to determine their overall political impact and to ship between any changes in the amount of independent assess their effect on the goals of Clean Election reform. expenditures and the introduction of the new Clean Elec- Areas for further research generally fall into the following tion systems, or if such changes are the result of broader, categories. national trends in campaign practices. More study is needed to determine if there was indeed an increase in these expenditures. Independent Expenditures Independent expenditures are defined as monies spent on behalf of a candidate without the knowledge of the can- Sham “issue ads” didate or his/ her campaign committee. An example would Independent groups also may influence elections by run- be a newspaper advertisement placed by an anti-abortion ning ads or circulating materials about a candidate’s posi- group, urging readers to vote against Candidate X. This is tion on an issue. These forms of campaigning also have a common campaign tactic around the country. Under the been considered by the courts to be a fully protected form law as it now exists, such electoral activity is a form of con- of speech — as long as the ads do not instruct viewers to stitutionally protected speech. vote for or against a particular candidate. Hence, they have not been subject to regulation and there has been no re- The Arizona and Maine Clean Election laws seek to address porting requirement for these expenditures. this issue by requiring a group that targets a candidate with an independent expenditure to file a financial statement

MONEY AND POLITICS IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT 617-541-0500 39 Throughout the country, including Maine and Arizona, or Arizona, and it does not entitle an opposing candidate groups have begun to use such ads to attack candidates, es- to matching funds. pecially during the final heated days of a campaign. For ex- This tactic prompted complaints from several Maine can- ample, an anti-tax group might buy several newspaper ads didates during the 2000 primary, and a closer examination shortly before Election Day, lambasting a candidate’s po- of the practice by the state’s Ethics Commission and Leg- sition on taxes. Even though this benefits one candidate, islature. As noted above, the Maine law was amended in it is unregulated as long as there is no explicit call in the 2001 to clarify that membership communications are not ad to vote for one candidate or against another. treated as independent expenditures. Again, there has been speculation that these activities increased in the year 2000, with the introduction of Clean Election systems. More research is needed to determine Fundraising through “Leadership PACs” whether there was indeed an increase, and whether the While publicly funded candidates are limited to raising $5 patterns in Maine and Arizona were different than in other donations for their own campaigns, technically they still states that have not passed Clean Election reform. are allowed to solicit and raise money for others. This ac- Reformers in Maine are working with legislative leaders and tivity is legal as long as the candidate creates a separate election officials to expand the reporting requirements of political action committee (PAC) for the purpose. The most the state’s Clean Election law to cover additional kinds of likely vehicles to do this are “Leadership PACs,” created by election activities and expenditures. Nationally, reformers high-ranking incumbents, who use the funds to assist other have proposed setting limits on “issue ads” during the fi- candidates and, indirectly, to enhance their campaigns for nal 30 days of a campaign. They take the view that the need legislative leadership positions. for fair elections overshadows concerns about restraining While some Clean Election legislative candidates avoided issue advertising. This matter warrants further study and fundraising through leadership PACs in 2000, others did constitutional analysis. not. Those who avoided them said they did so because it seemed wrong to solicit any donations within the overall context of Clean Election reform. Those who did accept Membership Communications funds for leadership PACs said they did so to advance their Clean Election laws specifically protect the right of orga- party (Democrat or Republican) and pointed out that none nizations to communicate with their own members about of the money raised helped them personally. This practice a candidate or a campaign. Hence, an interest group may needs further monitoring and certainly will continue to be call or write its members, urging them to support Candi- debated. date X. This is not considered a campaign expense in Maine

CLEAN ELECTION REFORM SHOWS THE WAY FORWARD 40 VII. Conclusions

his report is a detailed examination of how publicly than to big-money donors, early in the campaign season. funded campaign finance reform systems operated in Second, once qualified for public funding, candidates were TMaine and Arizona in the 2000 elections. Its conclu- able to devote themselves to meeting and listening to the sions draw on a wealth of data collected in the states, the voters rather than raising funds. Because of this shift in the experience of candidates and legislators who ran under focus of their campaigns, participating candidates ex- these systems, and activists and experts in the field. Based pressed a high degree of satisfaction with the new systems. on all these materials, the report concludes that Clean Elec- tion reform in Maine and Arizona was a success in its first election cycle when measured against four goals: Help Challengers and Candidates Who Lack Wealthy Contributors to be Financially Competitive Increase Electoral Competition and Clean Election reform achieved this goal by providing par- Voter Choice ticipating candidates, on average, with sufficient funds to In their first election cycle, Clean Election systems achieved match their non-participating opponents in campaign spend- this goal by contributing to an increase in both the num- ing. As a result of this increased financial parity, challeng- ber of candidates running for office in Maine and Arizona, ers, newcomers, and other candidates without access to and in the number of contested races. This result contrib- wealthy contributors were able to get their messages out, uted to greater electoral competitiveness and enhanced voter mount viable races, and in a significant number of cases, choice. This achievement was made possible because of the win their races. high participation rates of candidates in these new systems. In both states, a substantial proportion of the candidates chose to participate in Clean Election systems in both the Reduce the Influence of Special Interests on primaries and general elections, and for both legislative the Political Process houses. During the 2000 elections Clean Election reform contributed to a decline in private funding of electoral campaigns in both Maine and Arizona. As a result, substantial num- Free Candidates from the Money Chase and bers of legislators now serving in both states were elected Increase Their Time with the Voters without reliance on large private campaign donations. Maine Clean Election reform achieved this goal in two principal legislators and other observers report that the presence of ways. First, by requiring candidates who wanted to partici- large numbers of victorious Clean Election candidates has pate in Clean Election systems to initially collect a fixed already influenced the way policy making is being con- number of small donations from a set number of registered ducted in that state. voters, it required candidates to reach out to voters, rather

MONEY AND POLITICS IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT 617-541-0500 41 Given these results, and the positive reviews of the new The use of “issue advocacy” as an election tactic, for ex- systems by candidates — many of whom are now incum- ample, must be measured. Likewise, legislators’ fundraising bent legislators — we believe that Clean Election reform through “leadership PACs” must be monitored to ensure is on a solid footing in Maine and Arizona. It does not ad- that it does not become a back-door route for special in- dress all the problems of our electoral system, nor all the terests to reassert their influence. problems caused by the presence of big money in elections, A careful review of the results of additional election cycles but it does represent a critical first step in systematically is needed to more fully assess these new systems. Based on attacking them. what we know now, we expect the successes to be even Activists, legislators and election administrators must re- more dramatic in future years, as more candidates opt into main vigilant to ensure that the new laws continue to be the systems, and the benefits to candidates, voters and the fully and fairly implemented, and adequately funded. They democratic process become more widely known. The must also continue to assess any problems that could ad- Clean Election approach is now a proven model for cam- versely impact the effectiveness of Clean Election systems. paign finance reform efforts around the country.

CLEAN ELECTION REFORM SHOWS THE WAY FORWARD 42 VIII. Appendix: Additional Tables

A. INCUMBENTS, CHALLENGERS AND CANDIDATES RUNNING FOR OPEN SEATS

Table # 22: Table # 24: Maine: Participating candidates among challengers, Maine: Challengers, Incumbents, and Open Seat incumbents, and open-seat races (primary and Candidates Winning General Elections general election combined) in 2000 and 1998

Challengers Incumbents Open Seat Challengers Incumbents Open Seats

All candidates 2000 1998 163 151 92 Won 10 124 45 % won 7% 93% 36% 2000 150 134 126 Change -11 -17 34 2000 participating candidates Won 4 35 22 Percent change 1998 to 2000 -8% -11% 37% % won 9% 97% 42%

1998 Participating candidates 2000 44 36 53 Won 18 133 34 Participating as % of total 2000 29% 27% 42% % won 11% 88% 37%

Note: % won is based on all those candidates who ran, including those who lost in the primary election. Table # 23: Arizona: Participating candidates among challengers, incumbents, and open-seat races (primary and Table # 25: general election combined) Arizona: Challengers, Incumbents, and Open Seat Candidates Winning General Elections Challengers Incumbents Open Seat in 2000 and 1998

All candidates Challengers Incumbents Open Seats 1998 69 65 52 2000 2000 81 55 73 Won 145222 Change 12 10 21 % won 17% 95% 30% Percent change 1998 to 2000 17% -15% 40% 2000 participating candidates Won 464 Participating candidates 2000 30 6 18 % won 13% 100% 22%

Participating as % of total 2000 37% 11% 25% 1998 Won 126117 % won 17% 94% 33%

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

MONEY AND POLITICS IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT 617-541-0500 43 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: Table # 29: Arizona: Percentage of Candidates Who Won in 2000, Maine: Percentage of Candidates Who Won in 2000, By Participation and Party Affiliation By Participation and Party Affiliation

Primary General Primary General All Participating All Participating All Participating All Participating candidates candidates candidates candidates candidates candidates candidates candidates

All political parties 69% 75% 60% 36% All political parties 57% 43% 53% 53% Democrats 72% 74% 57% 34% Democrats 54% 56% 61% 63% Republicans 62% 67% 76% 63% Republicans 60% 14% 52% 37% Third parties 100% 100% 0% 0% Other NA NA 7% 20%

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

CLEAN ELECTION REFORM SHOWS THE WAY FORWARD 44 C. WOMEN: PARTICIPANTS, ELECTORAL SUCCESS, AND INCUMBENCY

Table # 30: Table # 33: Women Running in State Legislative Elections41 Percentage of Participating Candidates Who Won, By Gender Maine Arizona Maine Arizona Number of women candidates Primary General Primary General 1998 113 61 2000 121 73 All candidates 43% 53% 75% 36% Change 8 12 Women 60% 58% 75% 20% % change 7% 20% Men 39% 51% 74% 45%

Women as % of total candidates 1998 27% 28% 2000 28% 35% Table #34: Arizona: Women, Clean Election Funding, and Participating women 2000 47 19 Incumbency (primary and general elections combined) Participating women as % of all women 39% 26% Challengers Incumbents Open seats Note: primary and general elections combined. Number of women candidates 1998 17 26 17 2000 27 23 21 Table # 31: Participating 2000 12 3 4 Percentage of Women and Men Candidates Who Ran as Clean Election Candidates in 2000 % of all women running (totals to 100% by rows) 1998 28% 43% 28% Maine Arizona 2000 38% 32% 30% Primary General Primary General Participating 2000 63% 16% 21% Women 35% 45% 28% 30% Men 29% 28% 26% 29% Table # 35: Maine: Women, Clean Election Funding, and Incumbency (primary and general elections Table #32: combined) Number of Women Who Won General Election to State Legislatures Challengers Incumbents Open seats

Maine Arizona Number of women candidates 1998 50 40 21 1998 52 36 2000 40 37 39 2000 56 33 Participating 2000 13 14 20 Participated 2000 26 5 % change 1998 to 2000 8% -8% % of all women running (totals to 100% by rows) 1998 45% 36% 19% 2000 33% 31% 32% Participating 2000 28% 30% 43%

MONEY AND POLITICS IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT 617-541-0500 45 IX. References

The data in this report was extracted primarily from databases Maine Citizens for Clean Elections, The Maine Clean Election Act compiled by the Institute on Money and State Politics in Action: Interim Report, Portland, ME, October 16, 2000. (NIMSP), the Arizona Clean Elections Institute (ACEI), and Maine Citizens for Clean Elections, “Quotes from Candidates Maine Citizens for Clean Elections (MCCE), which is a project After Maine’s First Clean Election Cycle, November 2000,” of the Maine Citizen Leadership Fund (MCLF). Those tables undated. citing comparisons between 1998 and 2000 — involving Maine State Legislature, Office of Fiscal and Program Review, numbers and types of candidates — came from the NIMSP. “General Fund: Total Appropriations FY 1999-00 and FY Those showing breakdowns between the primary and general 2000-01.” elections, for the year 2000 only, came from the ACEI and Mohave Valley Daily News, “Campaign funding allegation is un- MCCE. Data on expenditures from candidates is from the resolved,” 9/6/2000. Motherjones.com website, “Donor-free Democracy,” Micah L. NIMSP. We are very grateful to these leaders in the movement Sifry, 8/16/01. for clean election reform for generously providing data to us Public Campaign, “Arizona Joins the Clean Elections Band- that required many hours of work on their part to compile. wagon,” undated. Public Campaign, “Arizona and Maine Show the Way to Reform,” Arizona Secretary of State’s Office, Summary of receipts and dis- undated. bursements, candidates for Corporation Commission, on Sanchez, Samantha, “First Returns on a Campaign Finance Re- web at www.sosaz.com. form Experiment: Maine, Arizona and Full Public Funding,” Arizona Clean Elections Commission, Citizens Clean Elections Act, Institute on Money and State Politics, Helena, Montana, Arizona statutes, on web at www.ccec.state.az.us. March 26, 2001. Arizona Clean Elections Institute, Inc., Impact of Clean Elections Smith, Alison, Clean Elections at Work: The Successful Debut of in Arizona’s 2000 Election, Phoenix, Arizona, 2001. Maine’s Public Funding System—A Survey of Maine Clean Elec- Arizona Clean Elections Institute, Phone Survey of Clean Elec- tion Act Candidates, Maine Citizens for Clean Elections, June tions Candidates, 2000, data compiled by Northeast Action. 13, 2001. Ballot Access News, “Uncontested Seats: National Rank 2000.” State of Maine, Department of the Secretary of State, Elections Ballot Access News, “Uncontested Seats by State and Party — Division, web site, www.state.me.us (for percentage vote re- 1998.” ceived by each candidate in general elections in 1998 and Boston Globe,” Testing Competition,” editorial, December 6, 2000. 2000). Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of State of Arizona, “Sources and Uses of Funds: General Fund FY Politics, Rutgers University, “Women in State Legislative Elec- 2000 Actual,” from web site. tions: 2000-1988,” 2000, from web site. State of Arizona, “Arizona corporation Commission: Divisions,” Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of from web site, www.cc.state.az.us. Politics, Rutgers University, “Women in State Legislatures United States Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States 2000,” December 2000, from web site. 2000, Tables 20, “Resident Population by State: 1980 to Haddow Communications, “The Road to Clean Elections” 1999,” and 480, “Resident Population of Voting Age and Per- (video), Money & Politics Implementation Project (Northeast cent Casting Votes — States: 1992 to 1998.” Action et al.), 2001.

CLEAN ELECTION REFORM SHOWS THE WAY FORWARD 46 X. Notes

1 The United States Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 45%, indicating that the outcome of the election was truly in 1(1976) declared mandatory campaign expenditure limits to be doubt. Using either criterion, the results in Maine show an in- unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds. This controver- crease in competitive races. sial decision is seen by many as a major obstacle to comprehen- 23 Due to data availability and time constraints, we were only able sive campaign finance reform efforts. to perform this analysis for Maine. 2 Population and voting-age population from Statistical Abstract 24 Note: competitiveness is defined here as the losing candidate of the United States 2000, Tables 20 and 478. Budget data from web getting 40% or more of the total vote, or — in a three-way race— sites of state government agencies. Clean Elections spending from coming in no more than 20 percentage points behind the win- Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices, ner. State of Maine. 25 “Summary of Arizona’s 1998 Elections,” Denise Roth Barber, 3 Population and voting-age population from Statistical Abstract July 22, 1999; and state campaign report for Maine generated of the United States 2000, Tables 20 and 478. Budget data from web from web site, both by NIMSP. sites of state government agencies. Clean Election cost data from 26 “The Road to Clean Elections,” Public Campaign, June, 2001, 2000 Annual Report, Citizens Clean Elections Commission. page 2. 4 National Institute on Money and State Politics (hereafter, 27 “The Road to Clean Elections,” Public Campaign, undated, NIMSP). Numbers are totals for primary and general elections page 3. combined. 28 “Donor-Free Democracy,” Micah L. Sifry, 8/16/01, 5 “The Road to Clean Elections,” video, Money and Politics Imple- motherjones.com website, reprinted in Clean Money Digest, 8/31/ mentation Project, Northeast Action et al, 2001. 01. 6 Arizona Clean Elections Institute (hereafter ACEI) summary 29 Under Arizona’s system, candidates for Corporation Commis- spreadsheet; “2000 Election Results,” 4/10/01. sion could raise up to $10,000 in “seed money” to assist in ob- 7 From database of Maine Citizens for Clean Elections (hereaf- taining qualifying contributions. For those who raised the maxi- ter MCCE). mum, it was 10% of the $100,000 in Clean Election funds that 8 From database of MCCE. they received for the primary and general elections. 9 Calculated from NIMSP data. 30 Personal communication via e-mail, 10/23/01. 10 From web site, www.rci.rutgers.edu/~cawp, Center for Ameri- 31 Note: these figures exclude the lone non-participating candi- can Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers date in 2000, who spent only $5,600, in order to generate a more University. meaningful comparison. 11 Impact of Clean Elections in Arizona’s 2000 Election, ACEI, page 32 From 1996 to 1998, average spending by Arizona Senate can- 4. didates rose 36%, and spending by House candidates rose 31%. 12Impact of Clean Elections in Arizona’s 2000 Election, ACEI, page Source: “Summary of Arizona’s 1998 Elections,” Denis Roth Bar- 4. ber, 7/22/99, NIMSP. 13 Monica Perez, ACEI, 10/19/01. 33 Calculated from databases provided by the NIMSP. 14 “Women in State Legislative Elections: 2000-1998,” Fact Sheet 34 Total spending fell 18% in Maine, from $3.13 to $2.57 mil- from the Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton In- lion, while rising 29% in Arizona, from $4.46 to $5.77 million. stitute of Politics, Rutgers University, January 2001. The average 35 Clean Elections at Work: The Successful Debut of Maine’s Public for Arizona over 1988 to 2000 was 44, versus 47 in 2000, and in Funding System - A Survey of Maine Clean Election Act Candidates,” Maine the average was 92.6, versus 97 in 2000. Alison Smith, MCCE, 6/13/01; Northeast Action analysis of sur- 15 NIMSP data for 1998 and 2000, combining primary and gen- vey responses compiled by ACEI. eral elections. Note that a few candidates could not be classified 36 Clean Elections at Work, page 17. by gender based on their first names, and so are omitted from the 37 “Four campaigns using public funds questioned over invalid figures. donation slips,” 9/8/2000; personal communication from Cecilia 16 “Quotes from Candidates after Maine’s First Clean Election Martinez, ACEI. Cycle,” MCCE, November 2000. 38 “Campaign funding allegation is unresolved,” Mohave Valley 17 Clean Elections at Work: The Successful Debut of Maine’s Public Daily News, 9/6/2000. Funding System - A Survey of Maine Clean Election Act Candidates, 39 Cecilia Martinez, ACEI, personal communication, 10/31/01. Alison Smith, MCCE, June 13, 2001. 40 Limitations on the total amount of matching funds that any 18 MCCE. candidate may receive are set in the state laws. 19 Calculated from NIMSP data. 41 NIMSP data for 1998 and 2000, combining primary and gen- 20 Phone interview, 10/1/01. eral elections. Note that a few candidates could not be classified 21 The Road to Clean Elections, video, Money & Politics Implemen- by gender based on their first names, and so are omitted from the tation Project, Northeast Action et al, 2001. figures. 22 Different analysts use different thresholds to define the “competitiveness” factor, with some favoring a higher threshold of

MONEY AND POLITICS IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT 617-541-0500 47