Clean Elections: Good Politics

We already knew that clean elections were good policy. In fact, we brought together over 100 policymakers and activists in New Hampshire to spread the word on clean elections (see the resulting Resource Sheet). Now, new polling data shows that clean elections are also good politics. Polling undertaken for Public Campaign Action Fund and Common Cause shows that Americans overwhelmingly (74%) support public financing.

The result is bipartisan with 80% of Democrats, 78% of Independents, and 65% of Republicans support this reform.

What's important to emphasize is why voters said things would improve with public financing of elections.

• 82% of voters believe it is likely, as a result of publicly financed elections, that candidates will win on their ideas, not because of the money they raise.
• 79% said it would allow candidates with good ideas rather than just the rich and powerful to have a shot at winning elections.
• 77% said that special interests would not receive as many favors, tax breaks and deals from politicians.

This last point is important. Public financing of elections are NOT a policy that will increase government spending; in fact, it's almost guaranteed to pay for itself many times over with less tax and government contract giveaways and more honest, cheaper services. 77% of the public recognize that our present system of legalized bribery costs the public every day, so replacing it with public financing will be a cost-saver.

Q & A With David Donnelly of Public Campaign Action Fund

Since its founding, Public Campaign and its sister organization Public Campaign Action Fund have been the go-to organizations on issues of public financing of elections. David Donnelly, the National Campaigns Director for Public Campaign Action Fund, agreed to chat about their new polling data and what it takes to get clean elections laws enacted.

Progressive States: What’s the gist of the new polling on public financing?

David Donnelly: There’s overwhelming support for public financing policy that includes spending limits and ends dependence on private money.... Support is at 74 or 75%. It crosses all demographic lines, all party lines. Among Republicans, it’s 65%. It’s just off the charts. Just wide margins, every way you splice the data.

PS: What messages are most effective with the public when discussing public financing?

DD: There’s two kinds of messages that work very well in motivating the public in supporting this. Although, as you can tell they don’t need a whole lot of information about the policy, they need to know that there’s spending limits and that public money is replacing private money for qualified candidates.

The message that works well is what the voters get in exchange. It’s about what’s happened with our values as a result of the big money, it’s about voters getting a voice because the money drowns it out. It’s about being able to run for office without knowing rich friends.

And the other message is about the impact of money on politics. That decisions are made by those in office and the decisions that get made help the people with money instead of the people back home.

Both those messages, about participation about voters wanting control and about the benefits of limiting private money, both of those messages work very well.

PS: A few states already have clean elections systems, what does it take to get public financing passed?

DD: The coalitions are often built with two different things in mind. One is self-interest. Organizations need to see a self-interest in this. And people need to have their values. There’s a lot of membership organizations ”“ labor unions, grassroots organizations ”“ who are advocating for their members and want their members to have more control over the electoral process. So on a self-interest level, it’s an easy argument to make.

In terms of values, we all know that our current system is a complete mess and that it values people who have money over people who don’t. And that doesn’t match up well with one-person, one-vote. It doesn’t match up well with the values of this country....

We want elections to be much more about the candidate’s vision and the voters than about donors and their dollars. That’s where clean elections puts politics on an even playing field.

PS: What can people expect if they see clean elections pass in their own state?

DD: I can give you one example in Arizona. These laws are relatively new. The Governor promised on the campaign trail, running as a clean candidate, said she didn’t have to listen to pharmaceutical companies and that she could lower the cost of prescription drugs. She got into office and one of the first things she did was sign an executive order to let the state buy drugs in bulk for Medicaid, which saved money for the state. There’s a sense that voters have more control in those two states. So there’s other anecdotal stuff, but that’s the clearest example of it.

More Resources