Clean Elections

Clean Elections (also called Clean Money or Voter-Owned Elections) is a system of public financing of political campaigns (a form of campaign finance reform). It is currently (2006) being advocated and implemented on the state level in the United States. Some form of Clean Elections legislation has been adopted, mostly through ballot initiatives, in Maine, Arizona, North Carolina, New Mexico, Vermont, and Massachusetts (though in the latter two it has been weakened or repealed). Clean Elections was passed by the Connecticut state legislature and signed by the Governor in December of 2005. Two municipalities in 2005, Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Portland, Oregon have also passed Clean Elections for municipal elections.

Under a Clean Elections system, candidates hoping to receive public financing must collect a certain number of small "qualifying contributions" (often as little as $5) from registered voters. In return, they are paid a flat sum by the government to run their campaign, and agree not to raise money from private sources. Clean Elections candidates who are outspent by privately-funded opponents may receive additional public matching funds.

Because the system is voluntary, it appears not to run afoul of the United States Supreme Court's Buckley v. Valeo decision, which struck down mandatory spending limits as an unconstitutional restriction on free speech.

Comprehensive Clean Elections systems have been in effect in Arizona and Maine for several years. In Maine, an overwhelming majority (3/4) of state legislators are "Clean." In Arizona, the same is true of a majority of the state house, as well as the current Governor (Janet Napolitano). In 2005 Connecticut also passed a Clean Elections bill.

Clean Elections has received some significant support and media attention at the national level. Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold are supporters.

Differences between Clean Elections and Campaign Finance Reform

Clean Elections can be considered a type of Campaign Finance Reform, though the common understanding of Campaign Finance Reform is different from Clean Elections. Differences between Clean Elections and the commonly understood meaning of Campaign Finance Reform include:

Campaign Finance Reform laws are restrictive, placing campaign donation caps on the donors whereas Clean Elections laws provide qualified candidates a fixed amount of public funding with which to run their campaigns. To receive public funds, "Clean Candidates" voluntarily forgo all fundraising and accept no private or personal funds.
Campaign Finance Reform laws limit the financial effect an individual contributors can have on a politician. High caps, thus can have a minimal perceptual effect on campaigns. Clean Elections or Clean Money allows for traditional fundraising candidates but in addition provides funding for Clean Candidates. Further, Clean Money candidates who are outspent normally receive matching funds up to a cap to remain competitive, thus in effect "leveling the playing field" among all candidates in a particular race.
Clean Elections or Clean Money candidates are required to meet a certain qualification criterion, such as collecting a predetermined amount of signatures along with a small contribution (generally around $5) before the candidate can receive public support. Generally these qualifying contributions must be given by constituents. Campaign Finance Reform, if caps are low enough, can help spread out the donor pool, but does not address the issue of disproportionate warchests or independent expenditures (IEs) which usually come in the form of attack ads.

NBA player Adonal Foyle founded Democracy Matters to involve college students in advocating for Clean Elections.