Publicly funded elections

Last updated

A publicly funded election is an election funded with money collected through income tax donations or taxes as opposed to private or corporate funded campaigns. It is a policy initially instituted after Nixon for candidates to opt into publicly funded presidential campaigns via optional donations from tax returns. It is an attempt to move toward a one voice, one vote democracy, and remove undue corporate and private entity dominance.

Contents

Jurisdictions such as United Kingdom, Norway, India, Russia, Brazil, Nigeria, and Sweden have considered legislation that would create publicly funded elections. [1]

United States

Methods of publicly funded election legislation have been adopted in Colorado, Maine, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Maryland, Michigan, Arizona, North Carolina, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Massachusetts.

Court rulings and legality

Portions of Vermont system for publicly funding elections were found unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in its 2006 decision Randall v. Sorrell . In particular, state supplemental funds for publicly financed candidates whose opponents outspend them were struck down, while full funding of governor and lieutenant governor candidates remained in place.

Portions of Connecticut's statute were held unconstitutional in 2009, on the grounds that it unfairly discriminated against third party and independent candidates, but the core program of full funding of constitutional and legislative candidates remained in place. [2] In July 2010 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld portions of the district court's order but allowed the core program to continue. [3]

In as part of the 2010 Citizens United v. FEC decision, U.S. Supreme Court defined money as a form of speech. A number of jurisdictions reacted by modifying existing laws or trying to pass new laws.

On June 27, 2011, ruling in the consolidated cases Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett and McComish v. Bennett , the Supreme Court deemed unconstitutional the matching-funds provision of the Arizona law. [4]

States

Comprehensive public funding systems have been in effect in Arizona and Maine since 2000. In Maine, since enactment, approximately three quarters of state legislators have run their campaigns with government funds provided by the state program. [5] In Arizona, a majority of the state house[ citation needed ] and both the Republican and Democratic candidates for governor ran publicly financed campaigns in 2006. There has not yet been a statewide election in Maine in which both the Republican and Democratic candidates were financed through the public financing system.[ citation needed ]

In Massachusetts the system was repealed after a 2002 advisory initiative in which voters voted nearly 2 to 1 against using government funds to pay for political campaigns.

In 2008, the California Fair Elections Act (AB583) passed the California Assembly and Senate and was signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Because of the ban on publicly funded elections, the law had to be approved by voters in an initiative in June 2010. On June 8, 2010, California voters decided against the measure by 57% to 43%. [6] An earlier Clean Elections ballot initiative that suggested funding elections with a business tax, Proposition 89 was also defeated in California in 2006, by 74% against to 26% in favor of a corporate tax to fund elections.

A Clean Elections ballot initiative in Alaska failed by a 64% to 35% margin in August 2008. [7]

In 2013, North Carolina repealed its popular "Voter Owned Elections" program of public financing of judicial campaigns. [8]

Wisconsin's 33 year old program was ended by the state legislature in 2011 by Governor Scott Walker and the legislature's joint finance committee. [9]

In 2016, California overturned its ban on publicly funded elections, but charter cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles were already exempt from the ban and already have some form of public financing.

Municipalities

Portland, Oregon's program was narrowly repealed by voters in a 2010 referendum. [10]

Seattle voters approved the democracy voucher program in 2015, which gives city residents four $25 vouchers to donate to participating candidates. [11] Since then, activists have pushed for democracy vouchers in other jurisdictions, arguing that the program would make political donors more reflective of the population, empower candidates to fundraise without relying on big donors, and decrease the influence of special interest groups over government. [12]

Denver votes passed the Fair Elections Act in 2018. [13] The law went into effect on January 1, 2020. [13] The Fair Elections Act, which began as The Democracy For The People Initiative, [14] has a public funding component that provides a 9-to-1 match on contributions up to $50 for candidates who opt-in and don't take any money other than contributions from individuals. [13] It also included a ban on donations from business and unions, [14] and lowered the amounts individuals could donate to candidates. [14]

Federal legislation

In the US, SB 752, the Fair Elections Now Act, calling for publicly funded elections in U.S. Senate campaigns, was sponsored in the 111th Congress (2009–10) by Senators: Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Arlen Specter (D-PA). [15] A companion bill, H.R. 1826, was introduced in the House, sponsored by John Larson (D-CT), Chellie Pingree (D-ME), and Walter Jones (R-NC). Unlike the Clean Elections laws in Maine and Arizona, H.R. 1826 did not include the "rescue funds" provision, perhaps due to concern about constitutionality in the wake of the Davis decision. Neither bill moved out of committee. [16] [17]

Clean elections systems

"Clean elections" is the name supporters have given to some public financing efforts, used most prominently in Maine and Arizona.

Some clean elections laws provide a government grant to candidates who agree to limit their spending and private fundraising. Candidates participating in a clean elections system are required to meet certain qualification criteria, which usually includes collecting a number of signatures and small contributions (generally determined by statute and set at $5 in both Maine and Arizona) before the candidate can receive public support. In most clean elections programs, these qualifying contributions must be given by constituents. To receive the government campaign grant, "Clean Candidates" must agree to forgo all other fundraising and accept no other private or personal funds. Candidates who choose not to participate are subject to limits on their fundraising, typically in the form of limits on the size of contributions they may accept and the sources of those contributions (such as limits on corporate or union contributions), and detailed reporting requirements.[ citation needed ]

In the US, in order to comply with Buckley v. Valeo , participation by candidates is not legally required. Originally, many clean elections programs provided that publicly financed candidates who were outspent by a privately funded candidate could receive additional funds (sometimes called "rescue funds") to match their privately funded opponent, up to a cap, with the intent of assuring that a candidate running with private funding would not outspend his government funded opponent. However, in Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett , the U.S. Supreme Court held that such "rescue fund" provisions unconstitutionally burdened the rights of speakers by intentionally limiting the effectiveness of their own speech. Thus since Bennett clean elections systems in the U.S. have been forced to abandon the "rescue funds" approach.

Clean election systems have been endorsed by individuals including U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), [18] political candidate Andrew Yang, [19] [20] founder of the National Voting Rights Institute John Bonifaz, then-Illinois senator Barack Obama, [21] and former-U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ). [22] [23]

Brazil

In 2015, the Supreme Federal Court declared corporate donations to political parties and campaigns to be unconstitutional. Before the decision, electoral laws allowed companies to donate up to 2% of their previous year's gross revenue to candidates or party campaign funds, which totaled over 76% ($760m) of the donations on the 2014 election. The decision came as a response to corruption scandals and illegal donations, in the wake of the Operation Car Wash. [24] [25]

Since then, to cover the lack of private campaign finance, a public electoral fund was set up, to be divided among the parties based on their representation in the National Congress. [26] Individuals can still make donations as a natural person, limited to 10% of their income in the previous year. [27]

See also

Country-specific (International):

Related Research Articles

Campaign finance laws in the United States have been a contentious political issue since the early days of the union. The most recent major federal law affecting campaign finance was the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002, also known as "McCain-Feingold". Key provisions of the law prohibited unregulated contributions to national political parties and limited the use of corporate and union money to fund ads discussing political issues within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election; However, provisions of BCRA limiting corporate and union expenditures for issue advertising were overturned by the Supreme Court in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life.

In the United States, a political action committee (PAC) is a 527 organization that pools campaign contributions from members and donates those funds to campaigns for or against candidates, ballot initiatives, or legislation. The legal term PAC was created in pursuit of campaign finance reform in the United States. Democracies of other countries use different terms for the units of campaign spending or spending on political competition. At the U.S. federal level, an organization becomes a PAC when it receives or spends more than $1,000 for the purpose of influencing a federal election, and registers with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), according to the Federal Election Campaign Act as amended by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. At the state level, an organization becomes a PAC according to the state's election laws.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Campaign finance</span> Political vote advocacy funding

Campaign finance, also known as election finance or political donations, refers to the funds raised to promote candidates, political parties, or policy initiatives and referendums. Political parties, charitable organizations, and political action committees are vehicles used for fundraising for political purposes. "Political finance" is also popular terminology, and is used internationally for its comprehensiveness. Political donations to funds received by political parties from private sources for general administrative purposes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act</span> 2002 American law regulating political campaigns

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act or BCRA, is a United States federal law that amended the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which regulates the financing of political campaigns. Its chief sponsors were senators Russ Feingold (D-WI) and John McCain (R-AZ). The law became effective on 6 November 2002, and the new legal limits became effective on January 1, 2003.

The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 is the primary United States federal law regulating political campaign fundraising and spending. The law originally focused on creating limits for campaign spending on communication media, adding additional penalties to the criminal code for election law violations, and imposing disclosure requirements for federal political campaigns. The Act was signed into law by President Richard Nixon on February 7, 1972.

McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, 540 U.S. 93 (2003), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of most of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), often referred to as the McCain–Feingold Act.

Matching funds are funds that are set to be paid in proportion to funds available from other sources. Matching fund payments usually arise in situations of charity or public good. The terms cost sharing, in-kind, and matching can be used interchangeably but refer to different types of donations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Campaign finance in the United States</span> Contributions to American election campaign funds

The financing of electoral campaigns in the United States happens at the federal, state, and local levels by contributions from individuals, corporations, political action committees, and sometimes the government. Campaign spending has risen steadily at least since 1990.

The presidential election campaign fund checkoff appears on US income tax return forms as the question Do you want $3 of your federal tax to go to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund?

Clean Elections Rhode Island is a non-profit group dedicated to passing clean elections in the state of Rhode Island.

Electoral reform in the United States refers to efforts to change American elections and the electoral system used in the United States.

Oregon ballot measures 46 and 47 were two ballot measures presented as a single package to voters; 46 would have amended the Constitution to allow limitations on campaign financing ; and 47 detailed specific limitations. While Measure 47 passed, 46 did not, and the Secretary of State and Attorney General now refuse to enforce Measure 47 despite not having made constitutional challenges in court during cases filed against them to compel enforcement.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding campaign finance laws and free speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The court held 5–4 that the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns by corporations, including nonprofit corporations, labor unions, and other associations.

Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, 564 U.S. 721 (2011), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States.

The financing of federal political entities in Canada is regulated under the Canada Elections Act. A combination of public and private funds finances the activities of these entities during and outside of elections.

Political finance covers all funds that are raised and spent for political purposes. Such purposes include all political contests for voting by citizens, especially the election campaigns for various public offices that are run by parties and candidates. Moreover, all modern democracies operate a variety of permanent party organizations, e.g. the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee in the United States or the Conservative Central Office and the Labour headquarters in the United Kingdom. The annual budgets of such organizations will have to be considered as costs of political competition as well. In Europe the allied term "party finance" is frequently used. It refers only to funds that are raised and spent in order to influence the outcome of some sort of party competition. Whether to include other political purposes, e.g. public relation campaigns by lobby groups, is still an unresolved issue. Even a limited range of political purposes indicates that the term "campaign funds" is too narrow to cover all funds that are deployed in the political process.

The term corporate donation refers to any financial contribution made by a corporation to another organization that furthers the contributor's own objectives. Two major kinds of such donations deserve specific consideration, charitable as well as political donations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">American Anti-Corruption Act</span> American model legislation

The American Anti-Corruption Act (AACA), sometimes shortened to Anti-Corruption Act, is a piece of model legislation designed to limit the influence of money in American politics by overhauling lobbying, transparency, and campaign finance laws. It was crafted in 2011 "by former Federal Election Commission chairman Trevor Potter in consultation with dozens of strategists, democracy reform leaders and constitutional attorneys from across the political spectrum," and is supported by reform organizations such as Represent.Us, which advocate for the passage of local, state, and federal laws modeled after the AACA. It is designed to limit or outlaw practices perceived to be major contributors to political corruption.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2015 Maine Question 1</span> 2015 voter referendum

Maine Question 1, "An Act To Strengthen the Maine Clean Election Act, Improve Disclosure and Make Other Changes to the Campaign Finance Laws", was a citizen-initiated referendum measure in Maine, which appeared on the November 3, 2015 statewide ballot. As the Maine Legislature did not exercise its ability to pass the bill on its own, it was placed on the ballot and approved by Maine voters.

A democracy voucher is a method of public financing of political campaigns used in municipal elections in Seattle, Washington, United States. It was approved in 2015 and debuted during the 2017 election cycle. The program provides city residents with four vouchers, each worth $25, that can be pledged to eligible candidates running for municipal offices. It is funded by a property tax and is applied on a first-come, first-served basis.

References

  1. ↑ Nick Thompson (24 January 2012). "International campaign finance: How do countries compare?". CNN. Retrieved 2021-08-07.
  2. ↑ "Connecticut Campaign Finance Law Ruled Unconstitutional". Wall Street Journal. 28 August 2009. Archived from the original on 14 September 2018. Retrieved 8 August 2017.
  3. ↑ Green Party of Connecticut v. Garfield(2d Cir.13 July 2010). Text
  4. ↑ Vogel, Kenneth P. (2011-06-27). "Narrow ruling on campaign finance". Politico.
  5. ↑ "Maine Ethics Commission: Maine Clean Election Act (MCEA)". Maine.gov. Retrieved 2011-01-05.
  6. ↑ Kanalley, Craig (2010-06-09). "Huffington Post". Huffington Post. Retrieved 2011-01-05.
  7. ↑ "2008 Primary Election Results". Anchorage Daily News. 21 October 2008. Archived from the original on 2009-01-02. Retrieved 2011-01-05.
  8. ↑ Smith, Adam (2013-07-26). "North Carolina Legislature Repeals Popular "Voter Owned Elections" Program". Public Campaign. Archived from the original on 2013-10-09.
  9. ↑ Lueders, Bill (2011-06-30). "Campaign financing dead in Wisconsin". WisconsinWatch.org. Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism . Retrieved 2014-01-12.
  10. ↑ "November 2010 General Election - Official Results". The City of Portland Oregon.
  11. ↑ Young, Bob (November 3, 2015). "'Democracy vouchers' win in Seattle; first in country". Seattle Times . Retrieved December 10, 2016.
  12. ↑ "Democracy Policy Network". democracypolicy.network. Retrieved 2020-12-15.
  13. 1 2 3 "Fair Elections Fund". City and County of Denver. Retrieved 2021-11-25.
  14. 1 2 3 Gray, Haley (2018-08-28). "Denver Will Vote on Big Changes to Political Campaign Funding". 5280. Retrieved 2021-11-25.
  15. ↑ "S. 752: Fair Elections Now Act". GovTrack.us. Retrieved 2011-01-05.
  16. ↑ "Actions - H.R.1826 - 111th Congress (2009-2010): Fair Elections Now Act | Congress.gov | Library of Congress". Congress.gov . Retrieved 2023-06-20.
  17. ↑ "Actions - S.752 - 111th Congress (2009-2010): Fair Elections Now Act | Congress.gov | Library of Congress". Congress.gov . Retrieved 2023-06-20.
  18. ↑ "Sanders Proposes Public Funding of Campaigns". Archived from the original on 2015-08-25.
  19. ↑ "Democracy Dollars - Andrew Yang for President". Archived from the original on 2019-03-29.
  20. ↑ "Restoring Democracy, Rebuilding Trust - Andrew Yang for President". Archived from the original on 2019-08-15.
  21. ↑ "April 13, 2009". The Nation. 2009-04-13. Retrieved 2011-01-05.
  22. ↑ "Sen. McCain Embraces Clean Elections In Arizona Big Boost To Public Financing Seen". Publicampaign.org. 12 June 2002. Archived from the original on 2011-05-25.
  23. ↑ "Dialing for Clean Dollars". Thenation.com. Retrieved 2011-01-05.
  24. ↑ Kiernan, Paul (2015-09-18). "Brazil Supreme Court Bans Corporate Donations to Politicians and Parties". Wall Street Journal. ISSN   0099-9660 . Retrieved 2021-08-07.
  25. ↑ "Brazil bans corporations from political donations amid corruption scandal". the Guardian. 2015-09-18. Retrieved 2021-08-07.
  26. ↑ Boadle, Anthony (2017-10-05). "Brazil's congress sets up fund to cover lack of campaign finance". Reuters. Retrieved 2021-08-07.
  27. ↑ "Eleições 2020: conheça as regras e os limites para doações eleitorais" (in Brazilian Portuguese). www.tse.jus.br. Retrieved 2021-08-07.

Legislation

Studies

Press coverage

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.