Frequently Asked Questions about
the WV Public Campaign Financing Act

What is the WV Public Campaign Financing Act? The WV Public Campaign Financing Act is an innovative approach to campaign finance reform that will revitalize democracy by increasing participation in our electoral process.  It is modeled after laws already in Maine, Arizona, Connecticut, and Vermont and establishes a voluntary alternative to the current system of funding campaigns.  Candidates qualify for public funding by agreeing not to accept any private donations and demonstrating public support by collecting a certain number of signatures along with $5 contribution checks from registered voters in their district. 

Why do we need the WV Public Campaign Financing Act?  Under the current system, we're getting less democracy for more money.  The skyrocketing cost of campaigns pushes candidates into a money chase. For example, during West Virginian’s 2004 Election, legislative candidates raised over $6 million for their campaigns.  Sixty-three percent of the contributions came from special interests.  Voters are turned off and many qualified candidates are excluded by lack of funds.  Candidates spend so much time raising money that they have little to talk with voters.

Will a Clean Elections system really work? Maine and Arizona became the first two states to implement this system in the 2000 election. The system won the praise of incumbents and challengers, Democrats and Republicans.  Over 170 candidates opted into this system, and it was a clear success in its first year of operation.  In Maine, 83% of the state Senate and 77% of the state House are composed of legislators who chose public financing in 2004.  In Arizona, 58% of the state House of Representatives and 23% of the state Senate are composed of legislators who chose the public financing option.  Clean Election reform has:

• Freed candidates from fundraising and allowed them to run more issue oriented campaigns.
• Achieved greater financial equality among candidates.
• Helped reduce the influence of special interests in government decision- making
• Freed candidates to vote their conscience and for their constituents best interest.

Who is eligible for Clean Elections funding?  All state legislative candidates.  They must meet certain requirements, among them collecting a certain number of $5 qualifying contributions.

Why should incumbents support a Clean Elections system?  Data collected from states where Clean Elections laws are already in place indicates that incumbents, whether they participate or not in a Clean Elections system, generally win re-election.  Under the Clean Elections system, legislators would be able to spend more time interacting with constituents, including the time spent collecting qualifying contributions. People who provide qualifying contributions may end up as grassroots volunteers for the campaign. Because incumbents already know many of their constituents, they will easily be able to raise the necessary qualifying contributions.  Once a candidate qualifies for public funding, he/she can focus on issues, rather than soliciting campaign contributions. 

Does the Public Campaign Financing Act limit free speech?  No, in fact this Clean Elections option because it is a totally voluntary system, meets free speech requirements.

Is it Constitutional?  Yes.  This Clean Elections option is totally voluntary.

How much public money can candidates get?  Candidates get the equivalent of what is being raised, on average, today for campaigns.  The actual dollar amounts are lower because candidates no longer have fundraising expenses an may actually help hold down the overall cost of campaigns.  Candidates who qualify receive a competitive amount of public money for the primary and general election.  If a privately funded candidate spends more than the amount allocated, a Clean Elections candidate is eligible for up to 200% in additional matching funds.

How much will public financing cost?  According to Public Citizen, a Washington, D.C. public interest group, states that currently have public funding systems for all state wide candidates spend between $2 and $6 a year per voting-age resident.  For example, in Maine, the cost per voting-age resident was $2.05 for the 2004 elections; in Arizona, public funding for the 2004 elections cost only $1.61 per voter per year.  What a bargain for more voter participation and candidates who are more responsive to constituents!
What makes you think that candidates will opt into a “Clean Elections” system? There are strong incentives for candidates to choose a Clean Elections system. No elected official likes having to spend so much time raising money, year in and year out. No challenger looks forward to the task of trying to raise the huge sums of money being spent today. Under a Clean Elections system candidates would be able to focus on issues rather than soliciting campaign contributions and would be able to assure voters that they are beholden only to them.

Where would the money come from? 

• All $5 qualifying and left over seed money contributions.
• Fines levied for violation of election laws.
• Voluntary donations including a dollar per dollar state income tax credit up to $500.
• Revenue from a state tax check-off program.
• Interest generated by the Clean Elections Fund.
• $1 million in seed money from the unclaimed property fund
• Other sources decided by the Legislature.

Isn't this just welfare for politicians? No. Candidates must work hard to gain hundreds of small donations and pass the public-trust test. This is more like "workfare" for politicians, than "welfare." By contrast, the current system costs West Virginia citizens millions of dollars a year in tax breaks and subsidies given to wealthy special interests (sometimes called "corporate welfare"). A Clean Elections system will actually save taxpayers money by eliminating candidates' dependence on special interest donors and putting ownership of the political process back in the hands of voters.

Won't the WV Public Campaign Financing Act enable "fringe candidates" to run for office with public money? The show of public support required to qualify for Clean Elections funds will weed out frivolous candidates. A candidate must gather a large number of small donations from registered voters in their district.

Wouldn't term limits solve the problem? Term limits for elected officials do not address the fundamental problem of the overwhelming and corrupting influence of special interest money in our political system. Term limits will not reduce the dependency of politicians on private contributions, nor the access these contributions “buy”.

Why not just lower contribution limits? Setting contributions limits very low would make candidates spend even more time fundraising. Low contributions also give an advantage to wealthy candidates who can fund their own campaigns. Since it is impossible to effectively limit the flow of private contributions, the best route in to provide and alternative for candidates.

Will this increase my taxes? Funding an election system is a part of good government just like the cost of processing election returns, motor voter, voter education expenses, etc. There is no need to raise taxes to finance the WV Public Campaign Financing Act. It’s an investment in democracy.

Will this take money away from other needed programs, like education? No. In fact many appropriations decisions now are skewed in favor of those who have money to "invest" in campaigns. Unfair tax breaks result in less money being available for programs like education, environment and health care. If we devote a small portion of the state budget to a Clean Elections system, we will improve how the rest is spent.

FOR MORE INFORMATION:  www.wvoter-owned.org