Washington, DC – In response to yesterday’s announcement by Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) and Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) that they will push for public financing of federal elections, Nick Nyhart, executive director of Public Campaign, issued the following statement:

“Senators Durbin and Dodd have the right idea. The only way to restore public trust in Congress is to deal with the root of the Abramoff, Cunningham and DeLay scandals, and that is campaign money.

“At the heart of each of these scandals is a core problem: Our public representatives, the holders of our trust, need huge sums of money to finance their campaigns, and today’s campaign finance system puts the interests of elite donors ahead of the interests of the public. Influence peddlers like Jack Abramoff would have no power if elected officials didn’t feel compelled to offer them access and influence.

“Senators Durbin and Dodd are talking about public financing of federal elections because they understand that influence-peddling will continue to plague Washington unless we offer candidates a ‘clean,’ disinterested source of public funding for their campaigns.

“We urge all members of Congress to take a close look at the success of full public financing models—also known as “Clean Elections”—in the states of Arizona, Maine, North Carolina, and Vermont, which have inspired similar systems that are currently being implemented in the states of Connecticut, New Jersey, and New Mexico, as well as the cities of Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Portland, Oregon.

“We anticipate a robust debate in Congress on the merits of public financing for federal elections, and we look forward to working with Members as they take on this vital issue.”

Factsheets on Clean Elections in the states follows. For more information, contact Solange Bitol-Hansen at 202.293.0222 or visit our website at http://www.publicampaign.org

###

Elected Officials and Newspapers Agree:
Clean Elections is an Idea Whose Time Has Come

“The difference between being able to go out and spend your time talking with voters, meeting with groups, doing things like traveling to communities that have been under-represented in the past as opposed to being on the phone selling tickets to a $250 a plate fundraiser – that’s the real, practical difference.”

—Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano (D)
on running successfully as a Clean Elections candidate in 2002

“Yet this is landmark legislation, and not merely because Connecticut is the first state to enact such sweeping reforms through legislative action rather than by referendum, as was the case in Maine and Arizona.

“Equally important is the opportunity this bill lays before citizens who may have thought about public service but lacked the money to run for office or disliked the process of raising it for a campaign.

“I believe this legislation will encourage new voices in our political process, introducing fresh ideas and novel approaches.”

—Connecticut Governor M. Jodi Rell (R)
Op-ed, Hartford Courant, December 8, 2005, upon signing legislation

“The extraordinary reform not only takes aim at the corrosive power of special interest money, but also creates the first statewide system set up by a legislature to provide voluntary public financing of campaigns.”

—New York Times, December 2, 2005

“Congress has taken a fling at reform before. In the mid-1990s, amid much fanfare, it banned travel paid for by private groups, but it left a loophole big enough for fact-finding trips. The House banned gifts from lobbyists, then in 1999 snuck gifts less than $50 back in and failed to enforce the new limit.

“A more obvious route to reform would be public financing of campaigns. That could remove the best excuse for accepting money. It also could draw more candidates who find fundraising distasteful.”

—USA Today, January 18, 2006

“Most of the so-called reforms offered in Congress to date would not change the stark facts that political campaigns are expensive and that, as long as they are privately funded, members will become indebted to donors.

“The answer is simple: public financing of congressional campaigns. If the taxpayers are the donors, then the members' indebtedness runs exactly where it should: to their constituents. Senators and representatives would no longer be under pressure to betray the voters in their districts to satisfy the antithetical interests of their funders. The voters and funders would be one and the same. Anyone with experience in Washington knows that the only long-term solution is public financing.”

—Boston Globe, February 3, 2006

CLEAN ELECTIONS IN PRACTICE:
Full public financing of elections works well in state after state

Clean Elections systems are now the law in seven states: in Arizona, Connecticut, and Maine for all state elections; in North Carolina for judicial elections; in New Mexico for the Public Regulation Commission; in Vermont for governor and lieutenant-governor races; and in New Jersey, where there was a legislative pilot program in effect for 2005 and is up for renewal for the 2007 cycle. “Clean” programs have also passed this year in Portland, Oregon; and Albuquerque, New Mexico. Public Campaign is working with organizations and individuals in more than 30 states to pass publicly financed elections.

These ground-breaking public financing laws offer candidates for office a set amount of public funds if they agree to limit their spending and to take little or no private money. Hundreds of candidates from all backgrounds – Democrats and Republicans, incumbents and challengers, etc. – have run and won under these laws. In these places, there is a new type of politics that puts people ahead of wealthy interests.

Arizona and Maine have offered full public financing of statewide and legislative races since the 2000 election cycle. In both states, voters approved these “Clean” systems via ballot initiative.

• Fifty-eight percent of the current Arizona House and 23% of the current Arizona Senate ran “Clean,” as did ten of the 11 statewide elected officials.
• Seventy-eight percent of the members of the Maine legislature used public financing to gain office.
• Both states have seen increased candidate participation and competition. A more diverse group of legislators and officials are now in office.

In 2005, the Connecticut legislature and Republican governor approved legislation offering public financing to statewide and legislative candidates who agree to spending limits.

• Connecticut is the first state in the nation where the legislature and governor have approved full public financing for their own races.
• The reforms follow scandals that put former Republican Connecticut Governor John Rowland, two big city mayors, and a state treasurer in jail.

Also in 2005, the Portland, OR City Council and voters in Albuquerque, NM approved public funding.

• The vote in Albuquerque was 69% to 31%.
• Some downtown business interests are threatening to repeal the Portland measure via an initiative. However, polling is strongly in favor of the system, and candidates are using it.

North Carolina, New Mexico, Vermont and New Jersey have Clean Elections systems for some races.

• In 2003, North Carolina enacted a public funding option for State Supreme Court and Court of Appeals candidates. Two of the three seats up in last year’s elections were filled by candidates running “clean.”
• In New Mexico, this year, for the first time, candidates running for the Public Regulatory Commission will have the option to qualify for full public funding.
• In Vermont, the system that provides funding for gubernatorial and lieutenant gubernatorial candidates will be reviewed by the United States Supreme Court in February.
• This past year, in New Jersey, a public financing pilot project was implemented for two state House districts. Candidates in one of those districts received public financing and won.