TO: Interested Journalists and Editorial Board Writers

FR: Nick Nyhart, Executive Director, Public Campaign

RE: Clean Elections reform supported by voters

After a week like this, the old conventional wisdom among pundits that voters don’t care about money in politics scandals does not sound very wise. Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH) became the latest victim of the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal, announcing that he would not run for reelection after all. In the most watched primary in the nation on Tuesday, Democrats Joe Lieberman and Ned Lamont signed pledges to clean up Congress, as did their Green and Republican opponents.

The headlines are showing that campaign finance reform is a potent political issue, one that is making a big difference in a number of high profile races this year. Meanwhile, recent polling shows that voters are more likely to vote for a candidate who supports a strong reform platform including publicly financed elections, or Clean Elections. Clean Elections is a practical, proven reform that is law in seven states and two municipalities.

Dropping Out, Losing, and Running Tough Campaigns

On Monday, Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH), the infamous “representative #1” from convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s January plea agreement, announced he would not run for re-election after all. Ney allegedly accepted a long list of favors from Abramoff in exchange for helping the lobbyist and his clients. Although Ney had handily won his primary in May, with 68 percent of the vote, he was expected to face a tough race in November against Democrat Zack Space. Ney was immediately declared the latest political casualty of the Abramoff scandal, joining the ranks of former Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX), who resigned last April and former Christian Coalition golden boy Ralph Reed, who lost his Republican primary race for the lieutenant governorship of Georgia. Other lawmakers, among others, caught in the Abramoff net include Reps. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ), Richard Pombo (R-CA), John Doolittle (R-CA), and Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MN). All took contributions from Abramoff or his clients and took actions in their interests.

Standing Up to be Counted for Reform

Meanwhile, in Connecticut on Tuesday, in the most closely watched primary race in the nation, Democrats Joe Lieberman and Ned Lamont both signed the Voters First Pledge to clean up Congress. So did Ralph Ferucci, the Green candidate, and Alan Schlessinger, the Republican.

In signing the pledge, all four candidates agreed to support a federal Clean Elections public financing system that would give candidates the opportunity to run competitive campaigns for office without relying on wealthy donors or well heeled special interests. The pledge also includes promises to support meaningful new restrictions on gifts and travel funding provided by lobbyists and to full internet disclosure of lobbyists’ contributions and fundraising for members of Congress. (The entire pledge is available online at http://campaignmoney.org/votersfirstpledge.)

Clearly the Connecticut candidates all realized that in the wake of nation-wide scandals, it makes good political sense to be on record for a strong set of reforms.

Polling Shows Reform Sways Voters

According to a recent bipartisan poll conducted by Celinda Lake and Lake Research Partners and Bellwether Research, Democrat and Republican candidates who run on a reform platform gain an advantage against opponents who don’t. Respondents were asked whether they supported a typical Democrat or Republican candidate, based on generic party-oriented issue platforms. The Democrats beat the Republicans, 53 percent to 37 percent.

Then half the respondents were told the “Republican” signed a pledge to support the reform and that the “Democrat” refused, and vice versa for the other half of respondents. In both cases the congressional candidate who signed the pledge was able to increase their lead substantially over an opponent who refused to sign it. The “Republican” candidate supporting reform wins 49% to 39% over an anti-reform Democrat. The “Democratic” candidate supporting reform wins 58% to 29% over an anti-reform Republican.

The same polling shows that three out of four voters support publicly funded campaigns. This support crosses party lines and is strong across demographic, gender and regional groups. A full 82 percent of 1,000 likely 2006 voters surveyed said they believe it is likely that, as a result of publicly financed elections, candidates will win on their ideas, not because of the money they raise. Eighty-one percent believe it is likely that politicians will be more accountable to voters instead of large campaign contributors.

Clean Elections is a Practical, Proven Reform

Clean Elections presents an alternative way for candidates to run a competitive campaign who want to run on the issues rather then after special interest group cash. Under this system, candidates for office are required to collect a specified number of small contributions, typically $5, to prove that they have support in their community. They then receive public grants to run a competitive campaign for office. If their opponent is privately funded and outspends them, they are eligible for more money up to a limit. They are also often eligible for more money if faced with outside advertising.

Clean Elections has been in place for statewide and legislative races in Maine and Arizona since 2000 and for judicial races in North Carolina since 2005. Four other states and two cities have adopted Clean Elections for all or some of their races: Connecticut; New Jersey; New Mexico; Vermont; Albuquerque, New Mexico; and Portland, Oregon.

Clean Elections is popular among candidates. In Arizona this year, 60 percent of the candidates are running “Clean.” Ten out of 11 of the lawmakers serving in state-wide office ran using public financing. In Maine, 78 percent of the current legislature ran using public funding. From the voters’ perspective, they are able to choose from a more diverse group of candidates and see more competition for office.

In the House, Reps. John Tierney and Raul Grijalva are lead sponsors of H.R. 3099, which would establish public financing of elections for House races. A similar bill for the Senate is expected to be introduced soon. In California, voters will have the chance in November to vote for Proposition 89, the Clean Money and Fair Elections Initiative, which would establish public financing of elections for all statewide and legislative races in the state.

As the 2006 elections unfold, campaign finance reform will remain a potent issue. Fundraising for Congressional campaigns was up by 12 percent for the first 18 months of the election cycle over the comparable period in 2004, according to the U.S. Federal Election Commission. When there’s that much money coming in, there is bound to be more scandal. At the same time, candidates are recognizing the wisdom of supporting reform. They know that voters care.

# # #