As money and politics scandals continue to roil the nation’s capital and Congress does little to stop them, states are forging ahead to enact hard-nosed practical policies to clean up politics and stop big money contributions that often influence elected officials. Clean Elections is a practical, proven campaign finance reform that provides full public financing for candidates who qualify by gathering a set amount of small, typically $5, contributions from constituents, who agree not to take private contributions and adhere to strict spending limits. In California, Connecticut, North Carolina, New Jersey, Oregon, and other states, advances are being made to enact public funding of elections or to strengthen systems already in place.

Meanwhile, Congress has taken only the weakest action on lobbying reform, with the House passing a loophole-ridden, weak bill on May 3. Yet on the more crucial reforms, such as changing the way campaigns are funded so that voters, not political donors, call the shots, there is a glimmer of hope. In the House, Reps. John Tierney (D-MA) and Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), are sponsors of H.R. 3099, the Clean Money, Clean Elections Act, which would provide full public financing for House races, and has 39 co-sponsors. A number of senators are also having discussions about introducing a Clean Elections bill.

Here is where the state action has been hottest in recent weeks:

Portland, Oregon. In the first primary elections held under Portland, Oregon’s Voter Owned Elections law on May 17, publicly funded City Council candidate Erik Sten, legal author of Portland’s law, won his race; another publicly funded candidate also ran. In addition, the new law helped make Portland elections fair, open, and accountable with a more level playing field, less campaign spending, reduced influence of special interests, and new options for genuine participation in politics by typical residents from nearly all city neighborhoods, according to the organization Friends of Voter Owned Elections.

Connecticut. With just minutes left in the legislative session on May 3—the same day, ironically, that the U.S. House of Representatives approved its weak lobbying bill—the Connecticut Senate and House approved crucial reforms needed to strengthen and preserve the state’s landmark Clean Elections law, approved in December 2005. The law provides full public funding for legislative and statewide candidates starting in the 2008 elections, as well as banning contributions from lobbyists and state contractors.

The biggest loophole to close was a clause buried in the law that would permanently eliminate the law if a legal challenge were brought and a judge issued a temporary injunction that stopped the public financing system for as little as three days. The legislative fix passed by the legislature allows public financing to be frozen only if a judge were to issue a temporary injunction lasting a week or more after April 15; in addition, the funding would be halted only until December 1 of the same year.

North Carolina. On May 8, the North Carolina House Select Committee on Ethics and Government Reform recommended legislation that will create a pilot program offering full public financing in four legislative districts.

The pilot project is modeled on the state’s successful Voter-Owned, Clean Elections judicial public financing program. In 2003, the North Carolina legislature enacted a public funding option for State Supreme Court and Court of Appeals candidates; 12 out of 16 candidates running for five seats in the 2004 election cycle participated in the system.

New Jersey. On May 8, the New Jersey Citizens’ Clean Election Commission urged that the state’s Clean Elections’ program be tripled to six legislative districts next year, while the number of contributions required to qualify should be nearly halved.
The Commission’s report examined the experience of last year’s elections, when one out of five pairs of candidates running in two districts qualified for public funding. While candidates were enthusiastic about the program, the number of qualifying contributions required—1,000 $5 contributions and 500 $30 contributions—proved to be a too-tough a barrier, especially given the short time period candidates had to begin their Clean Elections campaigns. The Commission’s other recommendations include expanding the program to primary races and providing equal funding for independent or third-party candidates.

California. The Senate is expected to take up AB 583, which would provide full public financing for statewide and legislative candidates, some time in June. In January, the California House approved the bill by a vote of 47 to 31. In addition, the California Nurses Association is pursuing the possibility of putting a Clean Elections initiative on the ballot in 2006. Meanwhile, in Los Angeles, the city is moving forward to study the system as a step toward adopting it for city-wide races.

In addition to the examples above, there has been action in recent state legislative sessions in many other states, including Florida, New York, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Washington, and Wyoming. Meanwhile, Clean Elections systems already in place in several states continue to operate successfully.

Arizona and Maine have offered full public financing of statewide and legislative races, or Clean Elections, since the 2000 election cycle. In both states, there is strong participation by candidates—currently 58% of Arizona House and 23% of the Arizona Senate ran using the system, as did 78% of the Maine legislature. Both states have seen increased candidate participation and competition as well as a more diverse group of legislators and officials elected. Both states have approved prescription drug reforms that officials say would have been tough to do under the old pay-to-play system.

New Mexico and Vermont have Clean Elections systems for some races. In New Mexico, this year, for the first time, three candidates are running with full public funding for the Public Regulatory Commission, which regulates public utilities, telecommunications companies, and insurance companies. In addition, last year, the citizens in the city of Albuquerque approved, by a vote of 69 to 31 percent, an initiative establishing public financing for city-wide races. In Vermont, the system that provides public funding for gubernatorial and lieutenant gubernatorial candidates is not in wide use because of legal attacks. However, the Supreme Court has agreed to review the constitutionality of Vermont’s limits on campaign spending, and a decision is expected to be announced this summer.

The record is clear: while members of Congress remain reluctant to stand up to the special interests that fund their campaigns, states are making crucial advances to strengthen our democracy. It truly is the case that “states are the laboratory of democracy,” as Supreme Court Judge Louis Brandeis so aptly described them. Congress seems more likely to follow the creed – don’t bite the corporate hand that feeds you.