Arizona’s experience with small donors under the Clean Elections system provides intriguing evidence of why it’s important to encourage their participation. Simply put, the demographics of Clean Elections small donors are substantially different from those of big donors to privately funded campaigns. They tend to be more ethnically and geographically diverse. They come from neighborhoods where people have lower incomes and more modest homes. Because Clean Elections candidates “owe” their elections to this more diverse group, many people believe they are more likely to feel free to pursue policies while in office that benefit the general public rather than a small set of big money donors.

Indeed on Gov. Napolitano’s first day in office as governor, she signed an executive order allowing the state to buy prescription drugs in bulk to lower prices. “If I had not run Clean, I would surely have been paid visits by numerous campaign contributors representing pharmaceutical interests and the like, urging me either to shelve that idea or to create it in their image,” she said in a 2003 speech. “All the while, they would be wielding the implied threat to yank their support and shop for an opponent in four years.”

The movement toward Clean Elections is not limited to Arizona. Seven states and two cities nationwide have Clean Elections in place for some or all statewide races. The programs in Arizona and Maine are the oldest and among the most comprehensive, both in operation since 2000. This year, Connecticut will implement a Clean Elections system for all statewide and legislative races. Activists in more than 20 states are working for Clean Elections.

At the federal level, Assistant Senate Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) have introduced the Fair Elections Now Act, legislation that would bring a Clean Elections-modeled system to the U.S. Senate. A companion bill is expected to be introduced soon in the House of Representatives. Proposals are also in the works to strengthen the Watergate-era presidential partial public financing law.

As we gain more experience with Clean Elections, there will be more opportunities to explore how they are changing the nature of political participation. A number of studies are planned to track the Connecticut program as it is implemented. Meanwhile, this analysis of Arizona’s Clean Elections law shows that when candidates rely on small donor qualifying contributions they engage in political participation—by a multitude of demographic measures—a far more diverse group of people than do candidates who choose private financing for their races.