Scandals and corruption were the major reasons for the political upset we witnessed in elections last November. The resignation of Majority Leader Rep. Tom
DeLay (R-TX) and the convictions of Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH) and lobbyist Jack Abramoff dominated the headlines and provided us with an inside look on how our policies and elected officials are bought in sold with massive sums of campaign cash. The American electorate was so fed up with “politics as usual,” that the party in power lost control of both halls of Congress. But this change does not necessarily mean a more responsive government.

The ugly truth is that all lawmakers, except for those with vast amounts of personal wealth, must rely on private campaign cash—and lots of it— to fund their campaigns. Inevitably, this dependence can lead to the kind of corruption that is demonstrated by the likes of DeLay, Ney, and Abramoff. Yet there’s a practical, proven alternative system of financing campaigns that Congress is considering right now. It puts the people first by making elections about voters and volunteers instead of big campaign donors.

Bipartisan legislation, called the Fair Elections Now Act (FENA) was introduced last March in the Senate and would provide full public financing of elections for Congressional elections. FENA is based on the successful programs in Maine, Arizona, and North Carolina. Rather than turning to well-heeled interests to fund their campaigns, candidates in these states have the opportunity to qualify for the program by collecting a set number of small contributions —generally on the order of $5 each. Once qualified, they receive a public grant large enough to run a competitive campaign while agreeing to adhere to strict spending limits and forgoing all private contributions.

This common sense solution has proven successful year after year. In November 2006, more than 200 officials were elected under publicly financed elections systems. Similar laws are also in place for all or some offices in Connecticut, New Jersey, New Mexico, Vermont, Albuquerque, NM, and Portland, OR, and a number of other states are considering similar legislation.

Introduced by Senators Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Arlen Specter (R-Penn.), FENA would bring the successful state program to our federal races. Assistant Majority Leader Sen. Dick Durbin said that while he had been opposed to public financing of campaigns in the past, the high cost of campaigning and growing political scandals have inspired him to tackle this issue head on.

I applaud these members of Congress for taking on an issue that is supported by more than 70 percent of the public. It’s time for your senators to stand up as support a bill that serves our democracy instead of the interest of the mighty campaign dollar.

• The rising costs of Senate campaigns are unsustainable. Over the last three election cycles, the average cost of the 10 most expensive Senate races has more than doubled, from $16.9 million in 2002 to $34.9 million in 2006. There is no end in sight to these escalating costs, and candidates will have to spend more and more time trying to raise enough money—and less time with voters-- to remain competitive.

• The Fair Elections Now Act, S. 1285, would change the way Senate campaigns are financed and allow Senators to spend more time focusing on the people they represent and addressing our nation’s challenges, rather than raising money.

• The Fair Elections Now Act, S. 1285, is a bipartisan bill introduced by Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D- IL) and Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA).
• Fair Elections levels the playing field by giving well qualified people a chance to run for office regardless of wealth or political connections. Grassroots candidates are on equal footing with seasoned incumbents and prolific fundraisers.

• The Fair Elections Now Act would provide a grant for candidates to run their primary and general election campaigns after collecting a set number of small dollar qualifying contributions.

• Participating candidates agree to strict spending limits and can no longer accept any private money after qualifying.

• A Fair Fight fund is available for participating candidates to keep pace with spending by an outside group or an opponent who chooses not to use the system and raises more money than the amount of the grant.

• Once in office, Fair Elections candidates are free to legislate without regard to who helped pay for their campaign. They work for their constituents, not big money campaign contributors.

• Fair Elections severs the link between candidates and insider lobbyists who provide the money they need to get elected.

• Campaigns should be about voters and not donors. Under Fair Elections, candidates spend all of their time talking to people in their community about issues that matter to them and zero time dialing for dollars.

• No longer do parties have to seek out candidates based on their ability to fundraise, but rather their ability to lead, their status in their community, and know how on how to create and craft important public policies.

Fair Elections Action Week

• Organizations like Common Cause, Democracy Matters, Public Campaign, Public Citizen, and U.S. PIRG are organizing events in over 25 states to show support for Fair Elections during the Fair Elections Action Week from November 12 to the 16.

• Thousands of supporters have signed, and are continuing to sign, petitions in support of Fair Elections.

• Fair Elections is supported by voters across the country. In recent polling, 74 percent of likely voters nationwide support public funding for campaigns (Lake Research and Bellwether Research, June 8 to 15 2006).

• Moreover, support for public financing of elections crosses party lines and demographics. Eighty percent of Democrats, 78 percent of Independents, and 65 percent of Republicans support this reform.

• Across gender lines, age groups, and regionally, publicly financed elections are supported by no less than 60 percent, and in most cases around three-quarters of voters polled.

• Voters believe positive changes would come from publicly financed elections. Eighty-two percent of voters believe it is likely, as a result of publicly financed elections, that candidates will win on their ideas, not because of the money they raise, and 81 percent believe it is likely politicians will be more accountable to voters instead of large contributors.

Polling numbers based on a telephone survey of 1,000 likely 2006 voters nationwide, conducted June 8-15, 2006 by Lake Research and Bellwether Research. The margin ofsampling error is +/-3.1 percent. The survey wasconducted for Public Campaign Action Fund and Common Cause.

State Victories

• The bill is modeled on successful efforts to reduce the impact of money in politics in Arizona, Maine, and North Carolina, often called “Clean Elections” or “Voter-Owned Elections” in the states, and “Fair Elections” at the federal level.

• The Clean Elections programs have been successful. More people from diverse backgrounds are running—and winning. In the 2006 elections, more than 200 Clean Elections candidates in three states—Arizona, Maine, and North Carolina—were elected to serve in legislative, judicial, and statewide offices.

• In Maine, 83 percent of the state senate and 84 percent of the house ran and won under the Clean Elections system.

• In Arizona, nine out of 11 elected statewide officials ran under Clean Elections including Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano, who won her second race as a publicly funded candidate. In addition, 42 percent of the candidates serving in the Arizona legislature are Clean Elections elected officials.

• North Carolina has a public financing system for its judicial races. In the 2006 election, three of the four seats up for election on the seven-member Supreme Court and both of the seats filled on the 15-member Court of Appeals are held by judges who ran with public funding.

• Fair Elections-style campaign reform systems have been passed in seven states— Arizona, Connecticut, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Vermont—and two cities--Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Portland, Oregon.

• Other state legislatures across the country are considering similar legislation.

For more information, read Breaking Free with Fair Elections: A New Declaration of Independence for Congress