September 18, 2008

Could you afford to run for office?
Campaign financing at issue in NH
By Jeff Mucciarone jmucciarone@hippopress.com

The idea of publicly funded elections isn’t a new one in New Hampshire; it’s been bandied about since the mid-1990s. But depending on what the Public Funding of Elections Commission determines, the effort could be picking up steam for the next legislative session.

Proponents say campaign costs are rising each year and the price tag on running a competitive campaign is excluding potential candidates who may not have access to the same type of cash flow, officials said. Publicly-funded elections would give candidates access to money to use to run reasonable campaigns, without having to spend all their time soliciting private donations, officials said.

“There’s something not entirely democratic about the fact that only people with access to enough money are eligible to run for public office,” said Cathy Silber, New Hampshire Coalition for Public Funding Elections coordinator. Her organization is helping to investigate public funding systems for the state, and expects to act as a resource for the commission.

Officials are looking to develop a public funding option for all candidates for governor, executive council and state senate. With more than 400 state representatives, the coalition wanted to target the campaigns that were costing the most, she said.

If approved, the public funding option would be just that: optional. Candidates who wish to do their own fundraising could still do so, but they wouldn’t have access to the public funds. Likewise, once candidates opt in, they would be allocated a specific pre-determined sum and not allowed to collect private donations beyond that, Silber said. The idea is that candidates can do less fundraising and can spend more time with voters discussing the issues, she said.

“Once you’re elected, you are really accountable to the voters,” Silber said. “Now, you start running for re-election the day after you take office.”

The problem in the Granite State is likely to be funding. Without an income tax, the commission has been charged with figuring out where funding would come from without taking it from the general fund. It could be tricky, officials admit. The commission, which is a bipartisan seven-member team, must make a recommendation by Dec. 1, Silber said.

The coalition is composed of representatives from the New Hampshire Citizens Alliance, the League of Women Voters and Public Action for Clean Elections, Silber said, and the group will meet weekly until December in hopes of getting a piece of legislature through the 2009 legislative session. “Then we can work for passage,” she said.

According to a press release from the coalition, state legislators have suggested a variety of mechanisms for funding the system, including surcharges on political advertising, fees for posting political signs on public lands and fees paid by parties or others seeking to access town voter files. The commission is also considering slapping surcharges on criminal fines, such as speeding or parking tickets.

The idea behind public funding is to give more candidates a chance, and in turn, provide voters with a wider swath of candidates, Silber said. She said it is possible the commission won’t come up with a source other than the general fund, but they aren’t close enough to any system to make predictions on funding sources or dollar amounts, she said.

Silber likened elections to other public goods, such as roads and bridges. “But there needs to be a pot of money,” she said. “We’ve invested in all these other services. Surely we can invest in elections as well.”

In some cases, the cost of New Hampshire campaigns isn’t just rising, it’s skyrocketing. In 2004 the most expensive executive council campaign cost $88,292, and two years later the priciest campaign topped out at $253,366. The average cost to run a state senate campaign in 2004 was $40,478, but that jumped to $54,643 in 2006, according to the release.

Public financing “levels the playing field,” Silber said, while adding that the system would bring a broader range of perspectives to elections. “It really beefs up the pool to the best possible talent.”

It would be new to New Hampshire, but more than 10 states have already had success with at least partially publicly funded elections or voter-owned elections.

Maine and Arizona have had systems in place for several election cycles now, and Connecticut is looking to make it happen as well, Silber said.

In Maine, where more than 80 percent of the state’s 186-person legislature was elected out of the publicly funded election system, the state appropriates $2 million from the general fund to go into the “clean elections fund,” said Paul Lavin, assistant director of the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practice. On top of the $2 million, taxpayers have a $3 optional check-off on their tax returns that goes toward the fund, which amounts to something between $100,000 and $200,000 annually, Lavin said.

Public funding of elections hasn’t seen all that much controversy yet in New Hampshire, Silber said, but it could be coming depending on what the commission decides as far as funding options.

Also, the commission is tinkering with requiring candidates to garner a certain number of “small-dollar donations” before they can opt into the system. In Arizona, candidates need to gather 220 $5 donations, said Mike Becker, Arizona’s voter education manager. Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano has been elected to two terms out of the publicly funded election system, Becker said.

The donations serve two purposes. One, they provide a funding source for the election fund, and two, they make candidates accountable so only serious candidates get onto ballots, Silber said. Becker said the smaller contributions demonstrate grassroots support.

The commission is also trying to determine what it actually costs to run a competitive campaign, which would depend on the office and the location. With that in mind, the commission is trying to determine what is a sufficient amount to run a campaign balanced with what candidates think is a sufficient amount. To do that, the commission is looking at how candidates spend campaign dollars, Silber said.

Before Silber and the commission can accurately develop a funding source, they need to figure out how much the system would cost annually. The commission is also surveying officeholders to see who would be interested in opting in.

Silber said she’s optimistic the state can get a system passed but she also said she’s realistic about the challenges. In surveys the commission has conducted, the public has voted more than 74 percent in favor of public funding.

Officials in Arizona and Maine are pleased with their systems.

“It’s going very well,” Becker said, adding that Arizona has had its system in place for 10 years. “Citizens came forward and created an initiative to take back the political process. It was opening a door to get more voices heard.”

Along with the governor’s office, Arizona uses the public election system for secretary of state, attorney general and state senators and representatives. About 63 percent of candidates in the most recent election used the public system, Becker said.

In the early 1990s, Maine saw an extremely high number of unchallenged incumbents, including 39 uncontested incumbents in 1990. That high number got the ball rolling for public funding. In 2000 Maine held its first election under the new system and saw its uncontested races drop to four in the coming years. The percentages of people using it have risen until this year, when it has leveled off slightly. Lavin said there are 19 uncontested seats this year, but he said most of those candidates were Democrats in heavily Democratic-dominated districts.

In Maine in 1996, the public voted 56 percent to 43 percent for the publicly funded system, and Lavin said that came in a presidential election, making for a substantial turnout.