Voting & Democracy

Campaign Finance Reform

Image of a compact disk (CD) with red and white stripes. In large, dark blue, capital letters, it says

About This Principle of Democracy

The Supreme Court upended decades of reform with a 2010 decision inaptly called Citizens United. A 5–4 majority of the Supreme Court ruled that corporations and other outside groups could spend unlimited money on elections. Citizens United, along with related decisions, blocked most avenues to set meaningful limits on the amount and source of campaign donations and spending.

This included opening the door to previously barred corporate spending in elections. Even worse, it sanctified campaign contributions as “free speech,” a form of speech that’s anything but free, giving a larger megaphone to the paid speech of the wealthiest interests to drown out the everyday speech of average citizens.

The decision undid decades of court support for reasonable limits to address the undue access and influence of special interest donors and the potential for corruption. For now, it would take a constitutional amendment or a different court to restore and update previously available limits.

That said, there are actions states and municipalities can take now, ones proven allowable by the courts. These include public funding of elections and greater transparency on where the money is comes from, with the incentives and rules that go along with both of them.

Public Funding of Elections Driven by Small Donors

Public financing has long been a part of our campaign finance system. For over 40 years, it has allowed states others to build upon. Most of these systems recommend public funding that matches small donor contributions made to qualifying candidates.

Over 30 cities and states provide public funding to candidates, in most cases through a matching funds program. This has led to the growing impact of small donations to make more candidates competitive and to build a diverse donor base, lessening their dependence on big donors. It has allowed a whole new strata of voters and donors to participate as stakeholders in the candidates they support.

How It Works

  • Small contributions: Funds up to a certain limit are matched with public funds set aside for this purpose. The match rate can vary from two to six to one, depending on the jurisdiction.
  • Qualifying thresholds: Candidates qualify for the matching funds by showing a base level of support, including a minimum number of small donations from their constituents.
  • Spending limits: Candidates that opt to receive public money, must abide by reasonable spending limits, ones that can be adjusted if necessary to remain competitive against a wealthy opponent running outside the public system.

Benefits of Small Donor Public Financing

  • It amplifies the voices of small donors, more reflective of the community at large.
  • It allows more candidates of all means, backgrounds and experience to run and win public office.
  • It supports grassroots outreach and fundraising where, at every door or event, there are donors whose small donations can help the candidate run a competitive campaign.

Transparency and Disclosure

Transparency requires applying the same kind of disclosure of campaign spending and donations, already required of candidate committees, to the flood of secret money channeled through outside organizations and Super PACs.

States and cities have found innovative ways to add disclosure requirements for large outside and secret money to campaigns. For example, in Alaska voters passed a ballot measure forcing the disclosure of the formerly hidden top donors paying for large amounts of broadcast and digital ads. In Washington state, new disclosure rules exposed Seattle based Amazon pouring money into a slate of candidates for its city council. It Their intervention became a major story that contributed to six of the seven Amazon-backed candidates losing.

Change can be made at the federal level by enforcing existing limits and rules of the Federal Election Commission as well as the Federal Communications Commission, and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

National surveys consistently show broad support for transparency related to who is spending big money on elections at all levels of government, deeming it an essential part of reducing the influence of wealthy special interests and fighting political corruption. Public financing and disclosure both offer versatile and effective tools for cities, counties, and states. These tools can be implemented now to level the playing field for local races, restoring some measure of integrity to elections, and create models for others to build on.

Resources