While overall campaign costs continue to skyrocket and we approach the first $1 billion presidential race, something quite different is unfolding in the states that have enacted Clean Money/Clean Elections systems: more candidates than ever are running for office on a limited budget of full public financing. And the system is spreading.

Maine and Arizona lead the way
In Maine, 79% of the candidates for the state senate and 77% of the candidates for state house are running “clean.” Participation cuts across party lines, with 87% of all the Democrats and 73% of all the Republicans running “clean.”

In Arizona, six of the seven candidates for Corporation Commission (a powerful statewide body that regulates utilities and corporations) are running “clean,” including all of the Democratic and Republican contenders. Almost 39% of the candidates for state senate and 59% of the candidates for state house are running “clean.” Here too, participation cuts across party lines, with 65% of all the Democrats and 51% of all the Republicans running “clean.”

These participation rates indicate that in both states, and especially Maine, choosing to run “clean,” that is, without raising private money and abiding by spending limits has become the norm. In 2002, 62% of all the candidates (231 out of 372) running for state legislature in Maine ran “clean”; in 2004 that proportion is 77% (304 out of 393). Likewise, in Arizona, in 2002, 48% of all the candidates (86 out of 180) running for state legislature ran “clean”; in 2004 that proportion is 52% (78 out of 150).

On Election Day in Maine, 92% of the house races and 91% of the senate races will include at least one Clean Elections participant. In Arizona, 83% of the house races and 50% of the senate races will include at least one Clean Elections participant.

Both states are reporting other salutary effects. According to Maine Citizens for Clean Elections, the number of contested primaries in 2004 reached 39, up from 31 in 2002 and 25 in 2000. This is quite significant, since with gerrymandering the norm, party primaries are often the most important site for expanding voter choice. All but two of those contested primaries included at least one Clean Elections candidate. The overall number of candidates in Maine’s primaries was up 12%, giving voters many more choices.

In Arizona, the Clean Elections system not only has increased the diversity of the candidate pool, it has expanded public participation in the funding process itself. An analysis done by the Arizona Clean Elections Institute found that the pool of small donors who gave $5 qualifying contributions to gubernatorial candidates was far more diverse geographically, economically, and ethnically than was the case for candidates relying on private contributions for their campaigns.

New Clean Elections states coming on line
While Maine and Arizona lead the rest of the country in their embrace of this alternative way of financing campaigns, they are not alone. In North Carolina, twelve of sixteen candidates for state Supreme Court and Appellate Court are currently running with full public financing, taking advantage of the state’s new Judicial Campaign Reform Act, passed by the legislature in 2002. In addition, nearly 4 million Judicial Voter Guides have been mailed to every residential address in the state, informing voters about each of the candidates and explaining the new system. North Carolina’s new system is especially notable in contrast to the exploding cost of judicial campaigns elsewhere in the country.

In Vermont, where candidates for governor and lieutenant governor can qualify for full public financing, but cannot receive matching funds if they are outspent by a non-participating candidate, the state’s campaign finance provision placing caps on all candidates’ spending was struck down in court. However, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals has said the limits may be constitutional—an issue that will likely ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court. One candidate is currently running “clean”—a Progressive party candidate for Lieutenant Governor.

In New Jersey, the state legislature became the first in the country to enact full public financing for legislative races when it voted, this past June, to create a “Fair and Clean Elections Pilot Program.” The pilot program will be in place in two legislative districts for the November 2005 general election for Assembly. Each major party will be able to choose from a set of three districts in which it currently holds both Assembly seats, but where unaffiliated voter registration is higher than average. The program is slated to expand in 2007 to include at least four districts, primary contests and candidates for both the Senate and the General Assembly.

In New Mexico, candidates for the Public Regulation Commission, a statewide body that oversees corporations and utilities, will be able to seek full public financing for their campaigns starting with the 2005-06 election cycle.

Future state reforms not far off
Clean Money/Clean Elections advocates are working hard in more than 30 states, focused on winning public financing for state-level offices. In the past year, Connecticut and Hawaii made significant gains, setting the stage for potential Clean Elections victories in 2005-06. In the shake-up created by the resignation of scandal-plagued Republican Governor John G. Rowland, Connecticut’s most dedicated Clean Elections foe, more sympathetic advocates moved up to leadership positions in the Connecticut House and Senate. Republican Governor Jodi Rell has demonstrated an openness to work with reformers as the state examines campaign finance and ethics reform issues. The coalition of seasoned reform advocates in Connecticut is poised to take advantage of these new developments in the 2005 session.

For the first time, both chambers of the Hawaii legislature voted in favor of public financing of elections—after three prior sessions when reform advocates saw legislation pass the House only to fail in the Senate. The legislation stalled in the Senate/House committee and the bill never reached the governor’s desk. However, advocates laid critical groundwork, unearthed concerns and formed new relationships that greatly increase the chance of success in the next session.

In Maryland, 2004 saw the release of the Stenberg Study Commission report, which recommends public financing as the best campaign finance reform option for statewide and legislative offices. Blue ribbon study commissions are often a precursor to policy change in Maryland. California and West Virginia took their first steps in new legislative campaigns and advocates there were successful in getting their bills debated and passed out of key committees. In doing so, Clean Money reformers attracted increased media coverage and stepped up public education outreach and awareness.

For more information, contact Public Campaign at 202-293-0222 or visit our website at http://www.publicampaign.org.

------

i--68% of all the Green candidates (16 out of 23) and 67% of all the independents (8 out of 12) are also running “clean.”

ii--Fourteen Libertarians and two independents, however, are not participating in the system. Note also that due to a last-minute court decision overturning new district lines that would have created three newly competitive districts, a large number of primary candidates (46 out of 247) decided to drop out of their races, likely reducing participation levels in Clean Elections.