2. How does public campaign funding work?

3. What's this going to cost?

4. How will a public campaign system be funded in Washington?

5. Will candidates who qualify for Clean Money receive sufficient funds to run a competitive campaign?

6. Won't participating "Clean Money candidates" still get outspent by wealthy, self-financed candidates who can spend as much as they want?

7. Are there any examples that this works?

8. Will the public campaign system open the ballot up to so many people that the reform will "break the bank?"

9. Will Washington Public Campaigns enable "fringe candidates" to run for office with public money?

10. Why should my money pay for campaigns of candidates I don't support?

11. Will candidates be willing to adopt a public campaign system?

12. Won't the "usual suspects" run for and win political office under Washington Public Campaigns?

13. Doesn't McCain-Feingold solve most of the problems with our campaign finance system?

14. How can we justify spending money on politicians when worthy programs like education are not funded adequately?

15. Would I still be able to give money to my favorite candidates?

16. Would a Clean Money system undermine the strength of, and need for, political parties in the electoral process?

17. Do public campaigns suppress first amendment rights to free speech?

18. Aren't campaign contributions protected by the constitution as free speech?

19. Does the public really support taxpayer funding of campaigns?

Answers
1. What are Public Campaigns?
Washington Public Campaigns is a movement to provide qualified candidates who can prove a strong base of support a set amount of public funds to run for office. Candidates who chose to qualify agree to limit their spending and reject contributions from private sources.

2. How would public campaign funding work?
In Washington, our goal is to establish this system for those running for the State House of Representatives, State Senate, state-wide executive offices [Gov., Lt. Gov., Attorney General, Secretary of State, State Treasurer, Insurance Commissioner, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Commissioner of Public Lands, and State Auditor], as well as the Supreme Court. Candidates will qualify as "Clean Money Candidates," or "participating" candidates, and receive a public grant for the primary and general elections, if they are successful raising a required number of $5 contributions and signatures of support from residents within the district they hope to represent. Candidates have a choice NOT to run as "Clean Money candidates" as well, and may run as "non-participating" candidates who commit to the more "traditional" approach of raising only private sources of funds to run for office.

BACK TO TOP

3. What's this going to cost?
Washington could operate a public financing program that would provide funding at the level of total spending on state-level political and appellate judicial races during the four-year period 2003-2006, for $3.58 per state resident per year. Thus for less than the cost of an annual matinee movie per state resident, Washington taxpayers can take back control of their elections.
See Cost Analysis (PDF).

4. How will a public campaign system be funded in Washington?
Washington Public Campaigns is studying public funding bills that passed in other states, researching other funding mechanisms, and working with allies to craft the legislation. Other states have used a combination of the qualifying contributions raised by participating candidates, a surcharge on all civil and criminal fines, and an annual appropriation from the state's general fund.

5. Will candidates who qualify for Clean Money receive sufficient funds to run a competitive campaign?
Candidates who qualify for Clean Money funding will get the average dollar amount spent by those seeking that office in recent elections. One great advantage to the system is that participating candidates will no longer have fundraising expenses. So, Washington Public Campaigns will help hold down the overall cost of campaigns, as the grant given to qualifying candidates can go directly to getting their message to voters.

6. Won't participating "Clean Money candidates" still get outspent by wealthy, self-financed candidates who can spend as much as they want?
If a non-participating opponent spends more than the basic public financing limit, or if said participating candidate is the target of an independent expenditure, then the participating candidate receives matching funds. This won't mean an unlimited amount of money, but non-participating candidates will have to think twice before deciding they want to surpass the Clean Money cap, and be responsible for additional public funds going to their opponent or be open to being attacked as a “special interest” candidate.

BACK TO TOP

7. Are there any examples that this works?
Versions of Clean Money Reform have passed in Arizona, Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont. In Arizona and Maine, who have now experienced full elections cycles using Clean Money Reform, there has been an increase in qualified candidates for office, more competitive elections, and a decrease in private money in the political system.

8. Will the public campaign system open the ballot up to so many people that the reform will "break the bank?"
One of the goals of Washington Public Campaigns is to open up the system to as many qualified people as possible, and to help establish a more level campaign playing field. But, again, the qualifying requirements are stiff enough so that anybody considering a run for office will think long and hard about the seriousness of their efforts before embarking on a campaign to qualify for funds. It is therefore unlikely that "too many" candidates will qualify for Clean Money funds. Moreover, the required number of qualifying contributions can always be raised if experience shows us that it was set too low.

9. Will Washington Public Campaigns enable "fringe candidates" to run for office with public money?
While the public certainly has a right to support whichever candidates it chooses, the qualifying requirements for Clean Money campaign funds will be stiff enough to deter fringe candidates with little or no support from getting public funds. Some form of public financing already exists in 22 states and a number of municipalities. Where these systems are in place, fears about public money spurring fringe candidates have proven to be unfounded.

10. Why should my money pay for campaigns of candidates I don't support?
A democracy requires a robust discussion of issues with all sides represented. Candidates who have proven that they have support deserve to be heard. If they run on public money, their supporters will be paying for your candidate just as you are paying for theirs. Anyone who has supported an underdog candidate should appreciate that they deserve a level playing field with the other candidate(s).

BACK TO TOP

11. Will candidates be willing to adopt a public campaign system?
There are strong incentives for candidates to try and qualify as "Clean Money candidates." No elected official should have to spend the vast amounts of time raising money that the current system demands. No challenger looks forward to the task of trying to raise the huge sums of money required to mount a viable campaign against an incumbent. In fact, these obstacles discourage many good candidates from running for office. Moreover, what candidate or elected official enjoys the public perception that they are compromised by their acceptance of large contributions from big money?

12. Won't the "usual suspects" run for and win political office under Washington Public Campaigns?
Washington Public Campaigns encourages more competitive elections, especially because it provides funding for Party primaries as well as general election campaigns. It empowers candidates with no personal wealth or access to big financial contributors - but who have a proven base of public support - the means to compete for office with the "usual suspects." In their defense, incumbents and the more familiar faces who decide to run as "Clean Money candidates" will be freed of the pressures to grant access to large donors and big money contributors that they have faced in the past, which is, after all, one of the major objectives of Washington Public Campaigns.

13. Doesn't McCain-Feingold solve most of the problems with our campaign finance system?
There is no question this CONGRESSIONAL legislation, which bans "soft money" contributions - unregulated funds spent on behalf of candidates through political parties - is a step in the right direction. However, even the sponsors will tell you it won't solve the crisis in our campaign finance system. First of all, their rules only affect FEDERAL races - for the U.S. House and Senate - NOT for State of Washington offices or Legislature. Second, both bills DOUBLE the amount of "hard money," or direct contributions to candidates allowed. As these limits are "per election," a typical candidate for the House of Representatives can still receive $4,000 from a single individual per election cycle -- $2,000 for the primary election, and $2,000 for the general election. Therefore, the link between big money donors and candidates/elected leaders will not be severed, and ultimately access will still be granted to these larger donors and big money.

BACK TO TOP

14. How can we justify spending money on politicians when worthy programs like education are not funded adequately?
Most people have differing ideas of what parts of society should be in the public sector, or in the private sector - such as energy, communications, and health care. But most people will probably agree that if anything should be in the public sector, it should be the government itself! Is the cost of a matinee movie per person per year too much money to free our politicians from the influence of "big money" and the time spent in raising money? Is it too much to give back to ordinary citizens their power with elected officials? Would not an official elected in a publicly financed election be in a more objective position to provide adequate money for education rather than for other less essental expenditures?

15. Would I still be able to give money to my favorite candidates?
Under Washington Public Campaigns, people can still donate money to candidates they support. During the pre-primary period, they can give not only the small $5 qualifying contribution, but also up to $100 during a short "seed money" period - the total sum of which is capped - to help their favorite candidate get the word out that they are in fact trying to qualify as a participating, publicly financed candidate.

16. Would a Clean Money system undermine the strength of, and need for, political parties in the electoral process?
Washingtonians will still be allowed to make a financial contribution to a political party under the Clean Money system. Further, it is our belief that under a Clean Money system, political parties can and should remain active in the nomination and endorsement of candidates; identifying, researching, and developing the Party's positions on issues; and carrying out non-candidate specific voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives and other "party building activities." Clean Money reform allows political parties to play a vital role within the political process as long as they do not serve as a conduit through which big-money campaign contributors can gain access to elected officials.

BACK TO TOP

17. Do public campaigns suppress first amendment rights to free speech?
If anything, Washington Public Campaigns would finally grant political speech to those who never really feel they've had it. It is a voluntary system designed to give a voice to those potential candidates who do not have personal fortunes or instant access to big money contributions. Our political and policy debate, as well as our democracy itself, will only be revitalized and diversified by this system. Freedom of speech would increase since special interests would have to rely on using speech to validate their positions rather than using money to buy the favor of the legislator.

18. Aren't campaign contributions protected by the constitution as free speech?
According to the U.S. Supreme Court, public financing of election campaigns is constitutional as long as the system is voluntary.

19. Does the public really support taxpayer funding of campaigns?
Clearly, the public distrusts politicians, and taxpayers are wary of new public expenditure. However, Washington Public Campaigns will save Washington taxpayers money in the form of wiser, well thought out public policy decisions. The wealthy individuals and powerful corporations who supply most of the money for political campaigns are the recipients of millions of dollars in "corporate welfare" subsidies, unnecessary tax breaks, and regulatory exemptions. By eliminating the dependence of Clean Money candidates on these big-money donors, public campaigns will give elected leaders more freedom to say "NO" to these kinds of costly giveaways without feeling like they're putting a source of funds for their next election at risk.

BACK TO TOP