Fact Sheet on Maine Clean Election Act

 

Background on the law

 

·         The Clean Election Act was passed in a citizen initiative in 1996. The vote was 56%-44%.  It won in 15 of 16 counties.

 

·         It is a voluntary system that gives limited, equal funding to candidates who pass a threshold test.  Candidates must demonstrate viability by collecting a set number of $5 contributions from registered voters in their districts (50 contributions for House seats, 150 for Senate).  They also must agree to limit their spending, accept no private money, and refrain from using money out of their own pockets.

 

·         Candidates who qualify receive a modest distribution from the Clean Election Fund.  They are also eligible for additional funds, dollar for dollar, if they are outspent by a privately funded opponent or by independent expenditures.  These "matching funds" may be up to 2 times the size of the original allotment.

 

·         The initial funding allotments, while small, are tied to the average amount spent in similar races in Maine.  They also reflect the small size of Maine's House and Senate districts. 

Þ    Average population in a House district:   8,000

Þ    Average population in a Senate district: 34,000

Þ    Total state population:      1.2 million

 

·         Size of distributions:                    Contested Primary Elections               Contested General Elections

 

House                    Senate                   House                    Senate

            Initial funds                            $1,141                  $4,334                    $3,252                  $12,910

 

            Maximum amount,

            with all possible

            matching funds                       $3,423                 $13,002                   $9,756                  $38,730

 

·         Total cost in 2000 was less than $1 million.  Revenue comes from voluntary $3 checkoff on income tax forms, $2 million annual appropriation, and $5 qualifying contributions raised by candidates.

 

·         Traditional candidates, who chose to campaign with private funds, are subject to new contribution limits and new reporting requirements under the Maine law.

 

·         The law has withstood constitutional challenges on free-speech grounds. In March 2000, it was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.  No appeals are pending.

 

What happened

 

·         By eliminating fund raising, Clean Elections allowed candidates to focus on issues and spend more time with voters in their districts.  Candidates enjoyed the freedom of the new approach.

 

·         Clean Elections gave candidates the means to be competitive.  Sixty-two out of 116 Clean Election candidates won (53 percent), including many who faced privately-funded opponents.  Both parties found they could run strong races even in districts where they historically had not done well.

 

·         Overall, more people ran for office and there was a 40 percent increase in contested primaries compared to 1998. Many new candidates say they would not have run without Clean Elections.

 

·         There was broad participation in the new program. Overall, 116 out of 352 general election candidates opted into the Clean Election program. Sixty-three percent of participants were Democrats; 34 percent were Republicans. Almost half of all races had at least one candidate running donor-free.

 

·         Both incumbents and challengers tried out the new program, but participation was highest in races for open seats. Half of incumbent Senate candidates and 23 percent of House incumbents chose public financing.

 

·         Candidates got serious about budgeting.  They emphasized in-person contacts with voters and relied on fewer, more targeted mailings.

 

·         Mechanically, the system worked  well. Candidates were able to keep up with the technicalities and paper work. Candidates who faced privately-funded opponents received supplemental funds in advance, via direct deposit.  They were notified if their opponent's spending exceeded the basic allotment, and were then given speedy authorization to spend the extra money.  Candidates who had plans in place did well putting late funds to use.  People who did not plan ahead got less value from late funds.

 

·         There was no evidence of marginal candidates abusing the system.  The process of collecting a set number of qualifying contributions appeared to work as a viability test.  There was some concern, but little evidence of, abuse of public funds. One candidate is under investigation for spending an excessive amount on meals for volunteers in high-end restaurants.  The overwhelming majority of participants kept spending within the guidelines.

 

What Candidates are saying about the system

 

·         A survey of candidates shows a high degree of satisfaction with the system. When asked, "How likely are you to use Clean Elections if you run for office again," 92% said either "definitely" or "very likely."  When asked if they would recommend the option to future candidates, the responses were similar.

 

·         Candidates and advocates have ideas to improve the system, including:

 

Ø  Having better explanatory materials as they begin the process,

Ø  Extending the qualifying process so last-minute recruits can use it,

Ø  Giving a modest distribution to uncontested general election candidates, and

Ø  Making sure all independent electioneering expenses are captured in the matching funds system.

 

·         The goal in the 120^th Legislature is to make improvements while keeping the law intact.