Public (Small Donor) Campaign Financing

Back to Other Pages

Newsletter Sign Up

Nonprofit Voting News - Receive monthly updates on new resources, activity ideas and highlights of the role nonprofits are playing in voting and elections. See a recent issue.

Webinar Sign Up

"Nonprofits and the 2010 Census"

Coming in November

NVEN's free online trainings provide 501(c)(3) nonprofits with the information they need to begin to incorporate voter participation activities into their ongoing work.

Learn more about Public Campaign Financing

Campaign Finance Institute

Center for Governmental Studies

Just Six Dollars

Open Secrets

Public Campaign

Funding of Political Parties and Election Campaigns, IDEA

Public (Small Donor) Campaign Financing

| Print |

Public, Small Donor Systems - A Standard for Democracy

Most all advanced democracies publicly fund election campaigns. Public funding combined with small donor contributions has become standard to democracy. The purpose is to allow candidates and parties to run without large donations from donors who are inevitably tied to interests pending before lawmakers. Democracies use public funding and small donor campaign financing to ensure both that qualified candidates and parties have sufficient resources to present their views and that candidates are not forced to divide limited campaign time between voters and large donors.

[back to top]

Public Funding/Small Donor Systems in the U.S.

Public funding in combination with or matching the contributions of small donors is starting to replace private donor systems in many U.S. jurisdictions. Candidates who must abide by agreed upon campaign spending and contribution limits receiving public funds to match and/or supplement the contributions they raise from small donors. The match is done in one of two ways: A ratio of matching funds, 2-to-1 or 3-to-1 for example, for small donations raised during the campaign; Or, a set grant to qualified candidates who have raised funds from a threshold of small donors at the outset of the campaign.

Unlike the limited version of public funding used in the past for presidential campaigns, today’s methods are more comprehensive and are reviewed and adjusted every few years to ensure workability, proper funding and overall fairness.

A partial list of U.S. cities and states that have adopted more comprehensive public funding are:

•    Statewide and state legislatures: Arizona, Connecticut, Maine, Minnesota. New Jersey has a smaller pilot program.
•    Statewide or Judicial Elections: Florida, Kentucky, Vermont, North Carolina
•    Cities: Albuquerque, Los Angeles, New York, Portland OR, San Francisco, Tucson

Links provided of selected states and cities with established public funding programs.

For more information:
United States – Center for Governmental Studies – charts and tables
Other Countries – International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance – charts and tables

[back to top]

Issues of Private Campaign Financing based on Large Donors

Private campaigns rely on large donors. With few exceptions, a candidate for office from city councilor to U.S. Senator raise most of their money from large donors to run a competitive campaign.

Over 80% of campaign funds come from large donors with interests pending before legislative and executive branches.
Less than one-third of one-percent of the population, large donors and Political Action Committees (PACs), contribute most money. (The Big Picture)

The problems most commonly noted of the private large donor system are:

Candidates are forced to rely on large donors from individuals and interests they are elected to regulate.
Large donors get more access and opportunity to influence laws, taxes, regulations, political appointments, government contracts and more.
Money may not always buy influence. But as the courts have often noted, the flow of large donors funds directly to candidates creates a corrosive appearance of quid pro quo when legislators write laws that benefit those same special interests.
Regular citizens, especially the young, question the value of their vote versus the access large donors get during the campaign and after the election.
Qualified candidates choose not to run faced with the daunting task raising large amounts of money from people they don’t know, especially knowing that an incumbent or wealthy opponent have such a head start raising campaign funds.
Candidates spend more and more time calling donors or holding big donor events instead of campaigns focused on small donors and all voters.
Private solutions don’t work. Low contribution limits by themselves force candidates to spend more time fundraising or are found unconstitutional when, set too low, they don’t allow candidates to raise sufficient funds for a competitive campaign. Disclosure, while very important, adds to public cynicism in a system reliant on large donors. It tarnishes elected officials who lack an alternative to large donor contributions accounting for most of their campaign funds.

[back to top]

Benefits of Public Small Donor System

Public funding models vary. Campaigns based on public and small donors funds can create campaigns where -

Candidates do not accept large gifts from individuals and interests impacted by the laws and decisions they are elected to make.
Large donors don’t have special access because of money - vs. their ideas - to candidates at private events, phone calls, meetings
Access is on based more on merit than money
More ordinary citizens can run competitive campaigns - without fear of either have too little money or being outspent at critical times by a well-funded opponent.
Voters have more choices and there is healthy competition – by removing financial barriers for otherwise qualified candidates with a proven base of voter and small donor support.
Public policy is more likely to reflect the concerns of all voters – who, in a public system, are more equally sought after.
Public funding = public elections = democracy. A public way to fund campaigns is a clear message that elections and democracy is owned by voters. It can lead to other positive initiatives to reduce the undue role of large donor money – free or lower cost media, more public debates

Getting large donor money out of campaigns and giving campaigns back to the voters and small donors doesn’t solve all our problems. But it is a good place to start.

[back to top]