Herb Engstrom

Campaign finance reform has been hot news lately due, primarily, to the controversy surrounding the McCain-Feingold bill. But Dale and I argue that McCain-Feingold does not go nearly far enough.

The need for campaign finance reform can be demonstrated by what has happened with the gun lobby. It has spent $415.5 million between 1991 and 1998 on candidates, parties, and independent expenditures in their largely successful campaign to stop gun control legislation. Primary recipients have been Republican Senators Jim Bunning of Kentucky ($197,195), Fred Thompson of Tennessee ($192,704), and Bill Frist of Tennessee ($186,619). The tobacco, pharmaceutical, agriculture, transportation, insurance, and many other industries are heavy campaign contributors as well as all looking to guard their own interests at the expense of the public interest.

There are a number of problems with the current system of campaign finance, problems that will not be solved by MCain-Feingold. In addition to the influence of special interests, and the expense of campaigns, (the 2000 campaigns are estimated to have cost $3 billion) consider the time spent in fundraising. Leon Panetta, former Monterey Congressman and white House Chief of Staff, had considered a run for governor of California. He declined saying that he would have had to spend 90% of his time fundraising.

The Maine Clean Elections Act of 1996 shows that there is a far better way. This act provides for public funding of elections at the state level and had its first trial in the November elections. The act cuts campaign spending, increases accountability, and eliminates the influence of lobbyists. The first trial showed that public financing works, and most of the Maine elections are positive. Of 352 candidates statewide, 116 ran on public funds. Of these "Clean Money" candidates statewide, 63% were Democrats, 34% Republican, and 3% Green.

Here's how it works. To receive public funding a candidate first must file a Declaration of Intent with the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices. To demonstrate that the candidate is viable, and not just a fringe candidate, he or she must collect a specific number of $5 donations. Those that donate $5 must sign a statement of support. For example, a candidate for governor must find 2,500 such $5 donors. By California standards such a small number sounds trivial, but remember that the population of Maine is only about 1.3 million, less than that of Santa Clara County. To raise these $5 donations, a candidate may use private money limited to $100 each, including his own money. To reduce campaign expenditures, the amounts given to a clean money candidate is limited to 25% less tt1~ the average of the two previous elections. For the Maine State Senate, that worked out to $38,730. Compare that with the $35 million that Michael Huffington spent on his California Senate campaign.

Suppose a clean money candidate runs against a privately financed candidate whose expenditures are not limited? The Maine law allows that clean money candidate to spend up to twice the clean money limit in such cases. There has been an unexpected consequence of this flexible clean money limit. Republican candidate Tom Winsor ran a privately financed campaign against a clean money candidate. Winsor did not exceed the clean money limit reasoning, "Why would I want to give my opponent more money?" Also, under the Clean Money law, donations to private candidates are limited as well--$500 to the gubernatorial candidate and $250 to all others.

Results in Maine are very encouraging. Maine Clean Money candidates found that raising the $5 qualifying funds was easy. There were many enthusiastic contributors and some candidates actually found themselves discouraging contributions after fulfilling the requirement. Of the 166 Clean candidates 62, or 53% of them, won their elections.

Since Maine passed its law in 1996, three other states, Vermont, Arizona, and Massachusetts, have enacted similar legislation, all by statewide initiative. There is a reason for the failure of anything but the initiative process: incumbent legislators, Democrats as well as Republicans, have an interest in preserving the current private money system because incumbency bestows an enormous advantage on a candidate in terms of fundraising.

Clean Money Campaign Finance Reform did experience two setbacks in November. State initiatives failed for the first time in Oregon and Missouri. But public opinion polls continue to indicate that Americans support public financing of elections. Clean Money is coming, and there is serious talk of sponsoring an initiative in California either in 2002 or 2004. We need to get behind this effort.

Herb Engstrom, Treasurer