72 Nat ional Civ ic Review

P O L I T I C A L R E F O R M

Leveling the Playing Field with Public Campaign Financing Systems

Regulating campaign spending

has been compared to squeezing a

balloon. When one part of the bal-

loon is squeezed, the air rushes to

another part. In the case of cam-

paign finance, when one form of

contribution is restricted, the

money rushes to other areas.

The balloon-squeezing problem

was vividly illustrated during the

2004 presidential election. Thanks

to the McCain-Feingold Act, “soft”

money contributions to political

parties were reduced, but hard

money contributions increased, as

did soft spending by the so-called

527s, the independent organiza-

tions that raised huge sums and

spent freely on advertising and

get-out-the-vote efforts.

The bottom line, says Nick Nyhart,

is that “elections got more expen-

sive than ever.” Nyhart is execu-

tive director of Public Campaign, a

nonpartisan reform group with a

mission to reduce the role of big

special-interest money in

American politics.

But the news was not all bad:

“There certainly was an increase

in small money, and on a percent-

age basis that increase was larger

than in other areas. But on an

absolute basis, the increase of big

money was greater. In fact, the

amount of hard money in the sys-

tem exceeded the amount of hard

and soft money combined in previ-

ous years. When you add this new

soft money from 527s, the price

tag goes up even higher.”

Nyhart is an advocate of the “clean

money” public financing systems

that have been adopted in Maine,

Vermont, and Arizona. (In North

Carolina, the system has been

adopted for election of judges to

the state supreme court.) The

clean money model offers full pub-

lic financing for candidates who

agree to voluntary spending limits

and eschew contributions from

special-interest groups. To qualify

for public funding, a candidate

must gather a set number of signa-

tures and raise a set amount of

money from five-dollar donations.

“We think the clean money system

they have in Arizona is a very good

way to give ordinary voters more

power,” says Nyhart. “It is the sin-

gle system that levels the playing

field most for voters. It means that

a group of ordinary citizens can

band together and organize lots of

five-dollar contributions for candi-

dates, and traditionally that’s the

role played by big-money bundlers

or power brokers. It allows more

people to get engaged in the polit-

ical process.”

Before becoming director of Public

Campaign, Nyhart ran a multi-

state, clean money project in New

England, which led to passage of

the first full public financing law

in the country in Maine. After the

success in Maine, Nyhart and

other reformers founded Public

Campaign to promote clean money

systems nationwide.

The comprehensive nature of the

system avoids the problem of bal-

loon squeezing and provides

incentives for candidates to spend

more time with the voters and less

time with fundraisers and party

elites. “The candidates don’t just

have to think about the money

chase all the time. They can think

about building organizations and

mobilizing people, which is what

we have seen in Arizona and

Maine,” Nyhart says. “Ask

[Arizona Governor] Janet Napol-

B Y M I C H A E L M C G R AT H

73Summer 2005

itano. Instead of spending hours in

a dark room asking strangers for

money, she was actually cam-

paigning for votes. She got six

hours a day freed up for meeting

with larger groups of people and

barnstorming tours.”

The clean money system in

Arizona survived a challenge last

year when opponents tried to qual-

ify a ballot initiative to dismantle

the system, but the courts ruled

that the initiative violated the

state’s ban on including more than

one subject in a proposed consti-

tutional amendment. During

November 2004, 58 percent of

members of the Arizona legislature

ran clean, as did all four members

of the state’s corporation commis-

sion. In Maine 83 percent of the

state senate and 77 percent of the

house ran clean, an increase since

2002.

The Los Angeles Times editorial

page recently advocated adopting

a clean money system in

California, touting Arizona and

Maine as success stories. Common

Cause is working with California

Assembly member Loni Hancock

(D-Berkeley) to get a clean money

initiative on the ballot this year.

Supporters of campaign finance

reform continue to hope the courts

reconsider the 1976 Buckley v.

Valeo decision, in which the U.S.

Supreme Court equated free

spending with free speech. The

decision allowed regulation of

campaign contributions to prevent

corruption, but mandatory spend-

ing limits, unlike the voluntary

public financing systems, were

ruled unconstitutional.

“As big money continues to

squeeze out the voices of ordinary

people, I think the case for

mandatory spending limits will get

stronger,” says Nyhart. “It is hard

to imagine a more conservative

court than this one, but over time

we could argue Buckley again

under changed circumstances and

get another outcome, the different

circumstances being that money is

much more important now than it

was in the early 1970s. The factu-

al record will make a new case, so

I think at some point the courts

may intervene.”

Nyhart, however, sees little hope

for meaningful reform at the feder-

al level in the near term, given the

current political climate in

Washington, D.C., but he is far

more sanguine about the possibili-

ty of using localities and states as

“laboratories” of political experi-

mentation and change.

“I think by showing that these

systems can work at the state

level, you can change politics at

the state level and provide mod-

els for federal reform too,” he

says. “In the long run, it’s a strat-

egy for federal reform, and in the

short run it’s a strategy for

changing politics at the state and

local levels.”

Michael McGrath is the editor of theNational Civic Review.

For bulk reprints of this article, please call(201) 748-8789.

“A group of ordinary citizenscan band together and organ-ize lots of five-dollar contribu-tions for candidates, andtraditionally that’s the roleplayed by big-money bundlersor power brokers. It allowsmore people to get engaged inthe political process.”

— N I C K N Y H A R T, E X E C U T I V E

D I R E C T O R , P U B L I C C A M P A I G N