Several academic papers highlighting Clean Elections systems made their debut at the recent gathering of the American Political Science Association in Chicago (August 29-September 2). While these papers are quite technical, certain key findings will be useful fodder for opinion pieces, editorials, news releases, and the like. In addition, they should be helpful in creating rebuttals for critics of Clean Elections. In the past there have been relatively few academic studies of full public financing systems; the fact that they are now cropping up at official academic events is a sign of Clean Elections coming into its own.

Key excerpts from the papers can found at Public Campaign’s library website, library.publicampaign.org, where it is also possible to download the full papers in pdf format.

Increased Electoral Competitiveness Predicted in Connecticut

Kenneth R Mayer, Timothy Werner, “Electoral Transitions in Connecticut: The Implementation of Clean Elections in 2008,” University of Wisconsin-Madison.

This paper predicts, based on experience with systems in Maine and Arizona, that Connecticut will see greater competitiveness in elections once its new full public financing program is underway. Indeed, the authors believe that the more generous funding provided to candidates in Connecticut will lead to a greater effect in helping challengers than has been seen elsewhere. To back up their predictions, the authors do a detailed technical analysis comparing Connecticut to Maine, which is in the same region and whose legislature has a similar structure. The full version of the report is downloadable in pdf format here: http://library.publicampaign.org/clean-elections-work/2007/09/increased-electoral-competitiveness-predicted-connecticut [1].

Key excerpts follow:

• It is not much of a leap, therefore, to think that legislative elections will become far more competitive [in Connecticut].
• We found a marginal increase in competitiveness – as measured by the percentage of incumbents who face a major party challenger, the percentage of incumbents who run in competitive races, and the incumbent reelection rate – in Arizona and Maine.
• [In Maine post-reform] there are far fewer low spending and high spending challengers…Far more challengers [in post-reform Maine] are able to garner between 40 and 60% of the vote in the public funding system... Second, the relationship between spending and votes flatted out significantly once public funding became available. [C]ritics of public funding programs have little ground to stand on when arguing that they amount to incumbent protection programs.
• As with the house, [in Maine] the introduction of public funding in senate elections flattened the relationship between spending and votes for both challengers and incumbents.

Major Survey to Probe Why Small Donors Give

Michael J Malbin et al, “The CFI Small Donor Project: An Overview of the Project and a Preliminary Report on State Legislative Candidates’ Perspectives on Donors and Volunteers,”

The authors describe the scope of the Campaign Finance Institute (CFI) multi-year, multi-state research effort known as “The CFI Small Donor Project.” CFI is hoping to gather information not just on why small donors give to campaigns, but also whether they are likely to become involved in other ways in campaigns—via grassroots activities—that would enhance democracy. The project is focusing on seven states and one city. Two “Clean Elections” states—Arizona and Connecticut—are among those that will be studied. The authors report on preliminary results from candidate surveys, concluding that the “candidates’ responses are generally consistent with a theory that would see some small donor contributions as being social activities and that also would see contributions for a nontrivial number of small donors as being a gateway form of activity that potentially would increase both financial and nonfinancial participation by less affluent and middle income citizens.” The full version of the report is downloadable in pdf format here: http://library.publicampaign.org/clean-elections-work/2007/09/major-survey-probe-why-small-donors-give [2].

Key excerpts follow:

• [W]e know much less than we should about why small donors give, the similarities and differences between small and large donors, or how giving relates to other forms of their political and civic engagement.
• Perhaps a more interesting approach would be to develop policies that would increase political speech and participation, rather than devoting one's full energy to squeezing the top.
• If contributing to a campaign is linked to other, associational forms of participation, enlarging the pool of donors could yield social capital gains.
• If incentive program gains are proportionally higher among the less affluent, the program would yield the additional benefit of reducing participatory inequality.

High Quality, Low Income Candidates More Likely to Run with Public Financing

Raymond J La Raja, “Candidate Emergence in State Legislative Elections: Does Public Funding Make a Difference?” University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

The author examines whether the availability of public funding increases the likelihood that qualified citizens will decide to be candidates. While findings are tentative, surveys of community leaders in three states—Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island—show that public funding appears to encourage low income candidates and those who dislike fundraising or who are bad at it to try to run. High quality candidates are also more likely to run if offered public funding, as are those who are liberal ideologically. The full version of the report is downloadable in pdf format here: http://library.publicampaign.org/clean-elections-work/2007/09/high-quality-low-income-candidates-more-likely-run-public-financing.

Key excerpts follow:

• Individuals with incomes under $50,000 and nonwhites are more likely to say that the availability of public funds might encourage them to run for state representative.
• The most interesting finding [. . .] is that individuals who claim to have weak skills as fundraisers say that the availability of public funds would make it more likely for them to run.
• At the same time, the model predicts that respondents who are perceived as good candidates by others are likely to view public financing as an inducement to run.
• It seems especially important that the provision of public funding has the potential to help groups that are typically under-represented in the pool of candidates for the state legislature. Such candidates include, for example, those with low family incomes.
• It is noteworthy that the availability of public funds does not appear to increase systematically the motivation of marginal candidates to run for office. [. . .] these respondents are not self-delusional about their prospects; others think they are good candidates too.

Seventy Percent of CT Candidates Say They Will Use Clean Elections

Keith E Hamm and Robert E Hogan, “Candidate Perceptions of Campaign Financing in State Legislative Elections: Preliminary Observations.”

The authors examine candidate attitudes in three states—New Jersey, Virginia, and Connecticut—about how campaign finance laws affect legislative races in their states. Of special interest, they explore candidates’ perceptions of Connecticut’s new Clean Elections law slated to go in effect in 2008 and conclude that 70 percent of state legislative candidates expect to accept public funding if they run again. Support is somewhat lower among incumbents and Republican candidates, but is “reasonably high” across most sub-groups studied. While fewer Republicans support the new law, and fewer say they will use the public funding, ironically overall candidates believe that Republicans, being the minority party in the state, will benefit from it from it more than Democrats, as will challengers in general. Incumbents, Democrats (the majority party in the state), and wealthy candidates are viewed as having fewer advantages under the new system. Candidates also believe that electoral competition will increase. They also think the law will have unintended consequences.

The full version of the report is downloadable in pdf format here: http://library.publicampaign.org/clean-elections-work/2007/09/seventy-percent-ct-candidates-say-they-will-use-clean-elections.

Key excerpts follow [Emphases added]:

• For the most part, challenger and open- seat candidates of both parties are more supportive of public funding than incumbents.
• Overall, approximately 70% of the candidates said they were “likely” or “very likely” to take part.
• Not only are Republicans less supportive of public financing of elections in general, but they are also less inclined to make use of these funds when they are made available.
• Under the new law, only 43% of candidates believe that incumbents will be advantaged, while 30% say challengers will be disadvantaged. In fact, under the new laws, 52% of candidates believe challengers will be advantaged (only 7% who believed challengers were advantaged under the old system.)
• Under the new system, candidates believe Democrats will still have an advantage, although, they also believe that the laws will also increase the advantage of Republicans.
• Under the new rules [. . .] the percentage believing there will be no effects [on minority and female candidates] is reduced, moreover, there is a substantial increase in the percentage of respondents who say that candidates fitting these descriptions are likely to be advantaged.
• However, under the new system, the percentage believing wealthy candidates will have advantages is reduced to 24% while those believing they will have disadvantages increased from 3% to 29%. Similarly, while only 7% of respondents believed candidates with low incomes had advantages under the old system, 57% believe they have advantages under the new system.
• Approximately 74% of respondents indicated that these changes would result in an increase in electoral competition.