Difference between revisions of "Public financing of campaigns"

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Text replace - " <ref>[http://w" to "<ref>[http://w")
(7 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{| class="infobox" style="text-align: center; style="width:35%;"
 
{| class="infobox" style="text-align: center; style="width:35%;"
 
|-
 
|-
|[[File:Voting box.svg.png|center|170px|link=Portal:Sunshine on elections]]<center>'''Public Financing of Campaigns'''</center><hr>  
+
|[[File:Voting box.svg.png|center|170px|link=Portal:Sunshine Review]]<center>'''Public Financing of Campaigns'''</center><hr>  
 
|-
 
|-
 
| <center>[[Public financing of campaigns#Arizona|Arizona]] • [[Public financing of campaigns#Arkansas|Arkansas]] •[[Public financing of campaigns#Connecticut|Connecticut]] • [[Public financing of campaigns#Florida|Florida]] • [[Public financing of campaigns#Hawaii|Hawaii]] • [[Public financing of campaigns#Idaho|Idaho]] • [[Public financing of campaigns#Iowa|Iowa]] • [[Public financing of campaigns#Maine|Maine]] • [[Public financing of campaigns#Maryland|Maryland]] • [[Public financing of campaigns#Massachusetts|Massachusetts]] • [[Public financing of campaigns#Michigan|Michigan]] • [[Public financing of campaigns#Minnesota|Minnesota]] • [[Public financing of campaigns#Montana|Montana]] • [[Public financing of campaigns#Nebraska|Nebraska]] • [[Public financing of campaigns#New Jersey|New Jersey]] • [[Public financing of campaigns#New Mexico|New Mexico]] • [[Public financing of campaigns#North Carolina|North Carolina]] • [[Public financing of campaigns#Ohio|Ohio]] • [[Public financing of campaigns#Oklahoma|Oklahoma]] • [[Public financing of campaigns#Oregon|Oregon]] • [[Public financing of campaigns#Rhode Island|Rhode Island]] • [[Public financing of campaigns#Utah|Utah]] • [[Public financing of campaigns#Vermont|Vermont]] • [[Public financing of campaigns#Virginia|Virginia]] • [[Public financing of campaigns#Wisconsin|Wisconsin]] </center>
 
| <center>[[Public financing of campaigns#Arizona|Arizona]] • [[Public financing of campaigns#Arkansas|Arkansas]] •[[Public financing of campaigns#Connecticut|Connecticut]] • [[Public financing of campaigns#Florida|Florida]] • [[Public financing of campaigns#Hawaii|Hawaii]] • [[Public financing of campaigns#Idaho|Idaho]] • [[Public financing of campaigns#Iowa|Iowa]] • [[Public financing of campaigns#Maine|Maine]] • [[Public financing of campaigns#Maryland|Maryland]] • [[Public financing of campaigns#Massachusetts|Massachusetts]] • [[Public financing of campaigns#Michigan|Michigan]] • [[Public financing of campaigns#Minnesota|Minnesota]] • [[Public financing of campaigns#Montana|Montana]] • [[Public financing of campaigns#Nebraska|Nebraska]] • [[Public financing of campaigns#New Jersey|New Jersey]] • [[Public financing of campaigns#New Mexico|New Mexico]] • [[Public financing of campaigns#North Carolina|North Carolina]] • [[Public financing of campaigns#Ohio|Ohio]] • [[Public financing of campaigns#Oklahoma|Oklahoma]] • [[Public financing of campaigns#Oregon|Oregon]] • [[Public financing of campaigns#Rhode Island|Rhode Island]] • [[Public financing of campaigns#Utah|Utah]] • [[Public financing of campaigns#Vermont|Vermont]] • [[Public financing of campaigns#Virginia|Virginia]] • [[Public financing of campaigns#Wisconsin|Wisconsin]] </center>
Line 8: Line 8:
 
Some states allow candidates to use '''public funds''' while campaigning for state offices.  Public campaign funds are generally raised through donations made on tax returns to specific political parties, known as "add-ons" or "check-offs".  Add-ons are donations made by choosing to increase an individual tax return by a small sum, usually between one and ten dollars, and check-offs are earmarks that can be placed on a small sum of money from an individual tax return.  Candidates then have the option of raising campaign funds through private donations or using public funds, provided they meet state requirements and agree to follow certain restrictions and spending limits.  According to a January 2010 review of state campaign finance law, '''25 states''' have or had some form of state-sponsorship for political campaigns, though the method of collecting and distributing funds varies widely.<ref name="NCSL Public Financing">[http://www.ncsl.org/Default.aspx?TabId=16591 ''National Conference of State Legislatures'': "Public Financing of Campaigns: An Overview"]</ref>
 
Some states allow candidates to use '''public funds''' while campaigning for state offices.  Public campaign funds are generally raised through donations made on tax returns to specific political parties, known as "add-ons" or "check-offs".  Add-ons are donations made by choosing to increase an individual tax return by a small sum, usually between one and ten dollars, and check-offs are earmarks that can be placed on a small sum of money from an individual tax return.  Candidates then have the option of raising campaign funds through private donations or using public funds, provided they meet state requirements and agree to follow certain restrictions and spending limits.  According to a January 2010 review of state campaign finance law, '''25 states''' have or had some form of state-sponsorship for political campaigns, though the method of collecting and distributing funds varies widely.<ref name="NCSL Public Financing">[http://www.ncsl.org/Default.aspx?TabId=16591 ''National Conference of State Legislatures'': "Public Financing of Campaigns: An Overview"]</ref>
  
The [[U.S. Supreme Court|Supreme Court]] ruling on the ''[[sunshinereview:Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission|Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission]]'', which stated that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts constitute an exercise of free speech and thus cannot be limited, has sparked a movement in many states to enact '''Clean Elections''' laws to replace private special interest contributions with a [[Public financing of campaigns|public campaign financing]] option.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html ''New York Times'': "Justices, 5-4, Reject Corporate Spending Limit"]</ref>  Conversely, with the June 2011 [[U.S. Supreme Court]] Case of ''Arizona Freedom Enterprise v. Bennett'', [[Arizona]]'s public financing program was ruled unconstitutional.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/us/politics/28campaign.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Arizona%20Free%20Enterprise%20Club%20v.%20Bennett&st=cse ''New York Times'': "Justices Strike Down Arizona Campaign Finance Law"]</ref>  Other states with similar programs must re-examine their campaign finance laws.  Some have already repealed the unconstitutional "triggering" provisions, which grant an equal sum of money to candidates using public funds whenever a non-participating candidates raises funds over the spending limit, while others continue to look for an alternative before repealing their statutes.
+
The [[U.S. Supreme Court|Supreme Court]] ruling on the ''[[Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission|Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission]]'', which stated that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts constitute an exercise of free speech and thus cannot be limited, has sparked a movement in many states to enact '''Clean Elections''' laws to replace private special interest contributions with a [[Public financing of campaigns|public campaign financing]] option.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html ''New York Times'': "Justices, 5-4, Reject Corporate Spending Limit"]</ref>  Conversely, with the June 2011 [[U.S. Supreme Court]] Case of ''Arizona Freedom Enterprise v. Bennett'', [[Arizona]]'s public financing program was ruled unconstitutional.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/us/politics/28campaign.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Arizona%20Free%20Enterprise%20Club%20v.%20Bennett&st=cse ''New York Times'': "Justices Strike Down Arizona Campaign Finance Law"]</ref>  Other states with similar programs must re-examine their campaign finance laws.  Some have already repealed the unconstitutional "triggering" provisions, which grant an equal sum of money to candidates using public funds whenever a non-participating candidates raises funds over the spending limit, while others continue to look for an alternative before repealing their statutes.
  
 
==States==
 
==States==
Line 91: Line 91:
 
===Connecticut===
 
===Connecticut===
 
{{ctflag}}
 
{{ctflag}}
Connecticut's [[Public financing of campaigns|public campaign financing]] program is funded through the '''Citizens' Election Program (CEP)'''.  This program provides grant money to candidates who raise a specified number of low-sum, "qualifying contributions" and who agree to abide by spending limits.<ref>[http://search.cga.state.ct.us/surs/sur/htm/chap157.htm ''Connecticut State Statutes Chapter 157'': "Citizens Election Program"]</ref>  Originally, the CEP was designed similarly to Arizona's laws in that it had a "triggering" provision, granting equivalent funds to participating candidates whenever privately-funded candidates out-spent them.  However, on July 13, 2010, the [[judgepedia:Second Circuit Court of Appeals|Second Circuit Court of Appeals]] upheld a district court ruling on the case of ''Green Party of Connecticut v. Garfield''<ref>''Green Party of Connecticut v. Garfield'' was changed to ''Green Party of Connecticut v. Lenge'' by the time it got to the Supreme Court in recognition of Garfield's retirement</ref> stating that this grant-matching provision was unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated First Amendment rights to free speech.  The court did also reverse a provision of the lower ruling that claimed that the CEP discriminated against minority parties.<ref>[http://www.ctmirror.org/sites/default/files/documents/Green%20Party%20of%20Connecticut%20v.%20Garfield.pdf ''Green Party of Conn. v. Garfield'': "Ruling of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals"]</ref>  On June 28, 2011, one day after Arizona's grant-matching public finance program was deemed unconstitutional by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]], the Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of the Connecticut law, thus affirming the lower court's ruling as well as the idea that [[Public financing of campaigns|public campaign financing]] is not inherently unconstitutional.<ref>[http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1390:june-28-2011-supreme-court-declines-to-hear-challenge-to-connecticut-public-financing-program&catid=63:legal-center-press-releases&Itemid=61 ''The Campaign Legal Center'': "Supreme Court Declines to Hear Challenge to Connecticut Public Financing Program"]</ref>
+
Connecticut's [[Public financing of campaigns|public campaign financing]] program is funded through the '''Citizens' Election Program (CEP)'''.  This program provides grant money to candidates who raise a specified number of low-sum, "qualifying contributions" and who agree to abide by spending limits.<ref>[http://search.cga.state.ct.us/surs/sur/htm/chap157.htm ''Connecticut State Statutes Chapter 157'': "Citizens Election Program"]</ref>  Originally, the CEP was designed similarly to Arizona's laws in that it had a "triggering" provision, granting equivalent funds to participating candidates whenever privately-funded candidates outspent them.  However, on July 13, 2010, the [[judgepedia:Second Circuit Court of Appeals|Second Circuit Court of Appeals]] upheld a district court ruling on the case of ''Green Party of Connecticut v. Garfield''<ref>''Green Party of Connecticut v. Garfield'' was changed to ''Green Party of Connecticut v. Lenge'' by the time it got to the Supreme Court in recognition of Garfield's retirement</ref> stating that this grant-matching provision was unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated First Amendment rights to free speech.  The court did also reverse a provision of the lower ruling that claimed that the CEP discriminated against minority parties.<ref>[http://www.ctmirror.org/sites/default/files/documents/Green%20Party%20of%20Connecticut%20v.%20Garfield.pdf ''Green Party of Conn. v. Garfield'': "Ruling of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals"]</ref>  On June 28, 2011, one day after Arizona's grant-matching public finance program was deemed unconstitutional by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]], the Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of the Connecticut law, thus affirming the lower court's ruling as well as the idea that [[Public financing of campaigns|public campaign financing]] is not inherently unconstitutional.<ref>[http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1390:june-28-2011-supreme-court-declines-to-hear-challenge-to-connecticut-public-financing-program&catid=63:legal-center-press-releases&Itemid=61 ''The Campaign Legal Center'': "Supreme Court Declines to Hear Challenge to Connecticut Public Financing Program"]</ref>
  
 
In 2010, the top 10 recipients of public funds were:<ref>[http://www.followthemoney.org/database/StateGlance/contributor.phtml?d=221011076 ''Follow the Money'': "Public Fund of Connecticut 2010 Campaign Contributions"]</ref>
 
In 2010, the top 10 recipients of public funds were:<ref>[http://www.followthemoney.org/database/StateGlance/contributor.phtml?d=221011076 ''Follow the Money'': "Public Fund of Connecticut 2010 Campaign Contributions"]</ref>
Line 222: Line 222:
 
===Iowa===
 
===Iowa===
 
{{iaflag}}
 
{{iaflag}}
Iowa's form of public financing does not direct funds to individual candidates, but rather political parties.  On an individual's state tax return, any resident with at least $1.50 in taxes may fill out a "Political Checkoff" whereby they designate $1.50 to go to a political party of his or her choice.  Joint tax returns of at least $3.00 may earmark two $1.50 denominations of their taxes to the political party or parties of their choice. <ref>[http://www.iowa.gov/tax/forms/1041119.pdf ''2010 Iowa 1040A Tax Form Instructions'']</ref>
+
Iowa's form of public financing does not direct funds to individual candidates, but rather political parties.  On an individual's state tax return, any resident with at least $1.50 in taxes may fill out a "Political Checkoff" whereby they designate $1.50 to go to a political party of his or her choice.  Joint tax returns of at least $3.00 may earmark two $1.50 denominations of their taxes to the political party or parties of their choice.<ref>[http://www.iowa.gov/tax/forms/1041119.pdf ''2010 Iowa 1040A Tax Form Instructions'']</ref>
  
 
===Maine===
 
===Maine===
Line 275: Line 275:
 
===Maryland===
 
===Maryland===
 
{{mdflag}}
 
{{mdflag}}
The public funding program used in Maryland extends only to candidates running for the offices of governor or lieutenant governor.  It is funded through tax add-ons as well as fines from public finance law infringements.  The program provides qualified candidates who apply for the funds and agree to spending limits with grants to match the private contributions they raise.  However, a major party candidate has not used this option since 1994.<ref name="Common Cause">[http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=4773825 ''Common Cause'': "Public Financing in the States"]</ref>  Despite this fact, there have been efforts in the state legislature to extend the option of [[Public financing of campaigns|public campaign financing]] to state legislative candidates.  Delegate [[John Cardin]] introduced [http://mlis.state.md.us/2011rs/billfile/hb0159.htm House Bill 159] in January of 2011 to extend the public financing option to state legislative candidates.  Although the bill is under consideration, it has been a tradition to introduce such a bill each session since its cause was taken up by former delegate John Adams Hurson, and has yet to make any progress in the general assembly.<ref>[http://marylandreporter.com/2011/02/16/public-financing-of-election-campaigns-makes-another-try/ ''Maryland Reporter'': "Public Financing of Election Campaigns Makes Another Try"]</ref>
+
The public funding program used in Maryland extends only to candidates running for the offices of governor or lieutenant governor.  It is funded through tax add-ons as well as fines from public finance law infringements.  The program provides qualified candidates who apply for the funds and agree to spending limits with grants to match the private contributions they raise.  However, a major party candidate has not used this option since 1994.<ref name="Common Cause">[http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=4773825 ''Common Cause'': "Public Financing in the States"]</ref>  Despite this fact, there have been efforts in the state legislature to extend the option of [[Public financing of campaigns|public campaign financing]] to state legislative candidates.  Delegate [[Jon Cardin]] introduced [http://mlis.state.md.us/2011rs/billfile/hb0159.htm House Bill 159] in January of 2011 to extend the public financing option to state legislative candidates.  Although the bill is under consideration, it has been a tradition to introduce such a bill each session since its cause was taken up by former delegate John Adams Hurson, and has yet to make any progress in the general assembly.<ref>[http://marylandreporter.com/2011/02/16/public-financing-of-election-campaigns-makes-another-try/ ''Maryland Reporter'': "Public Financing of Election Campaigns Makes Another Try"]</ref>
  
 
===Massachusetts===
 
===Massachusetts===
Line 450: Line 450:
 
::(a) The campaign treasurer or deputy campaign treasurer of any qualified candidate for election to the office of Governor in a general election shall promptly receive in behalf of such qualified candidate public moneys in an amount equal to twice the amount of each contribution eligible for match and deposited in such qualified candidate's matching fund account, described in N.J.S.A. 19:44A-32, except that no payment shall be made to any candidate from such fund for general election campaign purposes for the first $109,000 deposited in such candidate's matching fund account.<ref>[http://www.elec.state.nj.us/pdffiles/regulations/regulations.pdf ''New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission'': "Unofficial Text of Title 19 Chapter 25 of New Jersey State Statutes"]</ref></blockquote>
 
::(a) The campaign treasurer or deputy campaign treasurer of any qualified candidate for election to the office of Governor in a general election shall promptly receive in behalf of such qualified candidate public moneys in an amount equal to twice the amount of each contribution eligible for match and deposited in such qualified candidate's matching fund account, described in N.J.S.A. 19:44A-32, except that no payment shall be made to any candidate from such fund for general election campaign purposes for the first $109,000 deposited in such candidate's matching fund account.<ref>[http://www.elec.state.nj.us/pdffiles/regulations/regulations.pdf ''New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission'': "Unofficial Text of Title 19 Chapter 25 of New Jersey State Statutes"]</ref></blockquote>
  
In addition to allowing gubernatorial candidates apply for public funds, New Jersey started a pilot "Clean Elections" program for legislative candidates based off of the Clean Elections programs in Maine and Arizona.  The program went into effect in 2005 and allowed two General Assembly districts' candidates to apply for the program.<ref>[http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2004/Bills/AL04/121_.PDF ''P.L. 2004, Chapter 121'': "Clean Elections 2005 Pilot Program"]</ref> In 2007, the program was extended to three legislative (both General Assembly and State Senate) districts.  Under this program, candidates need to raise a minimum of 400 $10 contributions to qualify for public funds.  They may also raise up to $10,000 in seed money contributions of $500 or less from registered individual citizens.  Candidates that do qualify for public funds may receive a grant of up to $50,000, and additional grants matching campaign contributions up to a maximum public fund limit of $100,000 (certain districts' candidates may be granted up to the average amount spent in the previous two general elections as a part of the pilot program).  Qualified, participating candidates may also request grants to match their non-participating opponent's fund-raising up to the same maximum public fund limit. <ref>[http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2006/Bills/AL07/60_.PDF ''P.L. 2007, Chapter 60'': "Clean Elections 2007 Pilot Program"]</ref>
+
In addition to allowing gubernatorial candidates apply for public funds, New Jersey started a pilot "Clean Elections" program for legislative candidates based off of the Clean Elections programs in Maine and Arizona.  The program went into effect in 2005 and allowed two General Assembly districts' candidates to apply for the program.<ref>[http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2004/Bills/AL04/121_.PDF ''P.L. 2004, Chapter 121'': "Clean Elections 2005 Pilot Program"]</ref> In 2007, the program was extended to three legislative (both General Assembly and State Senate) districts.  Under this program, candidates need to raise a minimum of 400 $10 contributions to qualify for public funds.  They may also raise up to $10,000 in seed money contributions of $500 or less from registered individual citizens.  Candidates that do qualify for public funds may receive a grant of up to $50,000, and additional grants matching campaign contributions up to a maximum public fund limit of $100,000 (certain districts' candidates may be granted up to the average amount spent in the previous two general elections as a part of the pilot program).  Qualified, participating candidates may also request grants to match their non-participating opponent's fund-raising up to the same maximum public fund limit.<ref>[http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2006/Bills/AL07/60_.PDF ''P.L. 2007, Chapter 60'': "Clean Elections 2007 Pilot Program"]</ref>
  
 
::
 
::
Line 714: Line 714:
 
{{State legislatures}}
 
{{State legislatures}}
 
[[Category:Features of state legislatures]]
 
[[Category:Features of state legislatures]]
[[Category:Election law]]
+
[[Category:Elections]]
 
__NOTOC__
 
__NOTOC__

Revision as of 20:23, 10 March 2014

Voting box.svg.png
Public Financing of Campaigns

ArizonaArkansasConnecticutFloridaHawaiiIdahoIowaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMontanaNebraskaNew JerseyNew MexicoNorth CarolinaOhioOklahomaOregonRhode IslandUtahVermontVirginiaWisconsin

Some states allow candidates to use public funds while campaigning for state offices. Public campaign funds are generally raised through donations made on tax returns to specific political parties, known as "add-ons" or "check-offs". Add-ons are donations made by choosing to increase an individual tax return by a small sum, usually between one and ten dollars, and check-offs are earmarks that can be placed on a small sum of money from an individual tax return. Candidates then have the option of raising campaign funds through private donations or using public funds, provided they meet state requirements and agree to follow certain restrictions and spending limits. According to a January 2010 review of state campaign finance law, 25 states have or had some form of state-sponsorship for political campaigns, though the method of collecting and distributing funds varies widely.[1]

The Supreme Court ruling on the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which stated that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts constitute an exercise of free speech and thus cannot be limited, has sparked a movement in many states to enact Clean Elections laws to replace private special interest contributions with a public campaign financing option.[2] Conversely, with the June 2011 U.S. Supreme Court Case of Arizona Freedom Enterprise v. Bennett, Arizona's public financing program was ruled unconstitutional.[3] Other states with similar programs must re-examine their campaign finance laws. Some have already repealed the unconstitutional "triggering" provisions, which grant an equal sum of money to candidates using public funds whenever a non-participating candidates raises funds over the spending limit, while others continue to look for an alternative before repealing their statutes.

States

Arizona

Arizona

Arizona participates in a "Clean Elections" program, whereby those candidates who chose to participate in the public financing option are subject to certain qualifications and spending limits, but are compensated with public funds for any amount in excess of the spending limit that an opponent raises in private contributions.[1] This policy is codified in Title 16 Chapter 6 of the Arizona state statutes governing campaign contributions and expenses:

"Whenever during a general election period a report has been

filed, or other information comes to the attention of the commission, indicating that the amount a nonparticipating candidate who is not unopposed has received in contributions during the election cycle to date less the amount of expenditures the nonparticipating candidate made through the end of the primary election period exceeds the original general election spending limit, including any previous adjustments, the commission shall immediately pay from the fund to the campaign account of any participating candidate qualified for the ballot and seeking the same office as the nonparticipating candidate an amount equal to any excess of the reported difference over the general election spending limit, as previously adjusted, less six per cent for a nonparticipating candidate’s fund-raising expenses. The general election spending limit for all such participating candidates shall be adjusted by increasing it by the amount that the commission is obligated to pay to a

participating candidate."[4]

However, this a "fund matching" or "triggering" program was taken to the U.S. Supreme Court on the grounds that it limits the free speech of private donors. The case of Arizona's Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC et al. v. Bennett, Secretary of State of Arizona, et al. was decided on June 27, 2011. In the 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional.[5] The majority ruled that public "fund matching" programs ultimately discourage non-participating candidates who chose to raise private donations from raising or spending campaign funds, and thus discourage political debate. Several other states have public financing programs similar to Arizona's, and are now facing the issue of being shut down on this precedent.[6]

In 2010, the top 10 recipients of public campaign funds were:[7]

Candidate Amount Result
Republican Party Jan Brewer, Governor $1,768,577 Approveda
Democratic Party Terry Goddard, Governor $1,760,945 Defeatedd
Republican Party Ken Bennett, Secretary of State $458,008 Approveda
Republican Party John Huppenthal, Superintendent of Public Instruction $229,679 Approveda
Republican Party Brenda Burns, Arizona Corporation Commissioner $229,113 Approveda
Republican Party Gary Pierce, Arizona Corporation Commissioner $229,113 Approveda
Democratic Party David Bradley, Arizona Corporation Commissioner $228,711 Defeatedd
Republican Party Dean Martin, Governor $200,501 Defeatedd
Democratic Party David Lujan, Attorney General $183,311 Defeatedd
Republican Party Andrew Thomas, Attorney General $183,311 Defeatedd

Arkansas

Arkansas

Arkansas's government sponsors political campaigns in that it allows a tax credit of up to $50 (up to $100 on a joint tax return) for contributions made to political candidates, parties, or PAC's. It does not currently have a state-sponsored pool of public funds available to candidates.


Connecticut

Connecticut

Connecticut's public campaign financing program is funded through the Citizens' Election Program (CEP). This program provides grant money to candidates who raise a specified number of low-sum, "qualifying contributions" and who agree to abide by spending limits.[8] Originally, the CEP was designed similarly to Arizona's laws in that it had a "triggering" provision, granting equivalent funds to participating candidates whenever privately-funded candidates outspent them. However, on July 13, 2010, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court ruling on the case of Green Party of Connecticut v. Garfield[9] stating that this grant-matching provision was unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated First Amendment rights to free speech. The court did also reverse a provision of the lower ruling that claimed that the CEP discriminated against minority parties.[10] On June 28, 2011, one day after Arizona's grant-matching public finance program was deemed unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of the Connecticut law, thus affirming the lower court's ruling as well as the idea that public campaign financing is not inherently unconstitutional.[11]

In 2010, the top 10 recipients of public funds were:[12]

Candidate Amount Result
Democratic Party Dannel Patrick Malloy, Governor $8,460,089 Approveda
Republican Party Michael Fedele, Governor $2,477,728 Defeatedd
Democratic Party Denise Merrill, Secretary of State $1,121,163 Approveda
Democratic Party Kevin Lembo, Comptroller $1,106,205 Approveda
Republican Party Jeff Wright, State Treasurer $749,950 Defeatedd
Democratic Party Denise Nappier, State Treasurer $749,490 Approveda
Republican Party Jerry Farrell, Secretary of State $744,900 Defeatedd
Democratic Party George Jepsen, Attorney General $740,381 Approveda
Democratic Party Gerry Garcia, Secretary of State $374,950 Defeatedd
Democratic Party Michale Jarjura, Comptroller $374,000 Defeatedd

Florida

Florida

In Florida, only the candidates running for the offices of governor, lieutenant governor, and member of the state cabinet are eligible to apply for public campaign funds. In order to qualify for public funds, candidates for governor or lieutenant governor must first raise $150,000 in private donations, and candidates for state cabinet must raise $100,000 in private donations. Florida exercises a donation matching program. Qualifying donations from private individuals are matched with public funds within certain limitations and spending caps.[13]

The 10 recipients of public campaign funds in 2010 were:[14]

Candidate Amount Result
Republican Party Bill McCollum, Governor $1,802,082 Defeatedd
Republican Party Jeff Atwater, Chief Financial Officer $702,445 Approveda
Republican Party Adam Putnam, Agricultural Commissioner $552,075 Approveda
Democratic Party Dan Gelber, Attorney General $513,568 Defeatedd
Democratic Party Dave Aronberg, Attorney General $426,975 Defeatedd
Democratic Party Lorrane Ausley, Chief Financial Officer $402,556 Defeatedd
Republican Party Pam Bondi, Attorney General $383,169 Approveda
Republican Party Holly Benson, Attorney General $328,172 Defeatedd
Republican Party Jeff Kottkamp, Attorney General $322,495 Defeatedd
Democratic Party Scott Maddox, Agricultural Commissioner $196,262 Defeatedd

Hawaii

Hawaii

Various state candidates may apply for public funds provided they first raise enough individual donations of $100 or less. Gubernatorial candidates must raise $100,000 in qualifying donations. Candidates for lieutenant governor must raise $50,000, those for state senate must raise $2,500, and those for state house must raise $1,500. Those that apply for public funds must agree to the state expenditure limits specific to each office, and may then be granted a percentage of public funds. The governor and lieutenant governor candidates may receive up to 10% of their expenditure limits in public funds, and candidates for state legislature may receive up to 15% of their expenditure limits in public funds.[15]

The 5 recipients of public campaign funds in 2010 were:[16]

Candidate Amount Result
Democratic Party Mike Golojuch, State Senator $5,015 Defeatedd
Democratic Party Clifton Tsuji, State Representative $2,613 Approveda
Democratic Party Fernie Nicolas, State Representative $1,780 Defeatedd
Republican Party Marlene Hapai, State Representative $1,500 Defeatedd
Republican Party John Carrol, Governor $200 Defeatedd

Idaho

Idaho

Idaho formerly had a system of providing public funds not to individual candidates but political parties. Individuals could, on their tax returns, choose to designate $1 on their state tax return to state political parties. This additional dollar did not raise an individual's taxes, but rather earmarked one dollar of tax revenue for distribution to the political party of the individual's choice. In the 2010 legislative session, members of the Idaho House of Representatives introduced House Bill 379, which proposed to repeal the "tax check-off" on the grounds that the revenue should go to state programs and that the state has no place supporting specific parties. The bill passed the House and the Idaho State Senate and was signed into law by the Governor of Idaho on February 16, 2010.[17]

Iowa

Iowa

Iowa's form of public financing does not direct funds to individual candidates, but rather political parties. On an individual's state tax return, any resident with at least $1.50 in taxes may fill out a "Political Checkoff" whereby they designate $1.50 to go to a political party of his or her choice. Joint tax returns of at least $3.00 may earmark two $1.50 denominations of their taxes to the political party or parties of their choice.[18]

Maine

Maine

Prior to the U.S. Supreme Court's Ruling on Freedom Enterprise Club v. Bennett, which deemed "grant-matching" or "triggering" forms of public campaign financing unconstitutional, Maine used method to distribute public funds to candidates who applied and qualified for them. Namely, a candidate who applied and qualified to participate in the grant-matching, public fund program received a stipend of funds to use towards their campaign up to the specified spending limit. However, if a non-participating candidate, or one choosing instead to raise private funds, raised more than the spending limit placed on participating candidates, the participating candidates were compensated to keep total funds raised by all equal. This provision of the Maine statutes was formally stricken by District Court Judge George Singal on July 21, 2011.[19]

The top 10 recipients of public campaign funds in 2010 were:[20]

Candidate Amount Result
Democratic Party Elizabeth Mitchell, Governor $1,573,340 Defeatedd
Democratic Party Patrick McGowan, Governor $599,998 Defeatedd
Republican Party Peter Mills, Governor $599,975 Defeatedd
Republican Party Michael L. Estes, State Senator $62,460 Defeatedd
Republican Party Michael Thibodeau, State Senator $59,161 Approveda
Republican Party Gerald Davis, State Senator $59,150 Defeatedd
Democratic Party Joseph Perry, State Senator $59,138 Defeatedd
Democratic Party Deborah Simpson, State Senator $59,006 Defeatedd
Republican Party Lois Snowe Mello, State Senator $58,870 Approveda
Democratic Party Patsy Crockett, State Senator $58,330 Defeatedd

Maryland

Maryland

The public funding program used in Maryland extends only to candidates running for the offices of governor or lieutenant governor. It is funded through tax add-ons as well as fines from public finance law infringements. The program provides qualified candidates who apply for the funds and agree to spending limits with grants to match the private contributions they raise. However, a major party candidate has not used this option since 1994.[21] Despite this fact, there have been efforts in the state legislature to extend the option of public campaign financing to state legislative candidates. Delegate Jon Cardin introduced House Bill 159 in January of 2011 to extend the public financing option to state legislative candidates. Although the bill is under consideration, it has been a tradition to introduce such a bill each session since its cause was taken up by former delegate John Adams Hurson, and has yet to make any progress in the general assembly.[22]

Massachusetts

Massachusetts

There are six state offices that qualify candidates to apply for public funds: governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, secretary, treasurer and receiver general, and auditor. During the general election, those who applied and qualified for public funds may receive public grants to match every contribution made by an individual citizen of the state whose total contributions (if the individual made multiple contributions) are equal to or less than $250. Governor and lieutenant governor candidates who use public funds are subject to a general election spending limit of $750,000. The attorney general candidates are subject to a limit of $312,500, and the candidates for secretary, treasurer and receiver general, and auditor are subject to a limit of $187,500.[23]

The top 8 recipients of public funds in 2010 were:[24]

Candidate Amount Result
Independent Timothy Cahill, Governor $661,534 Defeatedd
Democratic Party Suzanne Bump, Auditor $215,809 Approveda
Republican Party Mary Z Connaughton, Auditor $209,457 Defeatedd
Democratic Party Stephen Murphy Treasurer $207,647 Defeatedd
Democratic Party Mike Lake Auditor $155,159 Defeatedd
Democratic Party Martha Coakley, Attorney General $72,170 Approveda
Republican Party William C Campbell Secretary of State $28,916 Defeatedd
Republican Party Charles D Baker, Governor $2,627 Defeatedd

Michigan

Michigan

Michigan provides the option of public financing for gubernatorial candidates. These candidates must first qualify by raising $75,000 in contributions from private individuals of $100 or less. Major party candidates who do this are eligible to receive $2 for every $1 of qualifying contributions in primary elections up to a spending limit of $990,000. In the general election, they are eligible to receive a flat grant of $1,125,000 and may raise up to $875,000 in private donations to meet their spending limit of $2,000,000.[25]

In 2010, the 5 recipients of public campaign funds were:[26]

Candidate Amount Result
Democratic Party Virg Bernero, Governor $1,370,362 Defeatedd
Republican Party Pete Hoekstra, Governor $487,289 Defeatedd
Republican Party Mike Bouchard, Governor $172,030 Defeatedd
Republican Party Mike Cox, Governor $78,373 Defeatedd
Republican Party Tom George, Governor $63,559 Defeatedd

Minnesota

Minnesota

Minnesota individual income taxpayers may choose to designate that up to $5 of their taxes (a tax check-off) be put towards the public campaign fund and earmarked for the political party of their choice.[27] As a part of the qualification process, candidates must first raise a certain amount of qualifying contributions from private individuals eligible to vote. This requirement is detailed in Minnesota State Statute 10A.323:

a candidate or the candidate's treasurer must file an affidavit with the board stating that between January 1 of the previous year and the cutoff date for transactions included in the report of receipts and expenditures due before the primary election the candidate has accumulated contributions from persons eligible to vote in this state in at least the amount indicated for the office sought, counting only the first $50 received from each contributor:
  1. candidates for governor and lieutenant governor running together, $35,000;
  2. candidates for attorney general, $15,000;
  3. candidates for secretary of state and state auditor, separately, $6,000;
  4. candidates for the senate, $3,000; and
  5. candidates for the house of representatives, $1,500.[28]

Those candidates who meet all of the qualifying requirements may receive up to 50% of their spending limits in public funds.

The top 10 recipients of public campaign funds in 2010 were:[29]


Candidate Amount Result
Republican Party Tom Emmer & Annette Meeks, Governor & Lieutenant Governor $1,027,988 Defeatedd
Independent Tom Horner & James Mulder, Governor & Lieutenant Governor $346,368 Defeatedd
Democratic Party Lori Swanson, Attorney General $180,410 Approveda
Democratic Party Rebecca Otto, Auditor $67,215 Approveda
Democratic Party Mark Ritchie, Secretary of State $67,215 Approveda
Republican Party Patricia Anderson, Auditor $58,968 Defeatedd
Republican Party Dan Severson, Secretary of State $58,968 Defeatedd
Democratic Party Scott Dibble, State Senator $21,074 Approveda
Democratic Party Patricia Torres Ray, State Senator $20,641 Approveda
Democratic Party Dick Cohen, State Senator $20,265 Approveda

Montana

Montana

Montana formerly had a program to allocate public funds to state campaigns. However, Montana State Statutes Title 13 {"Elections"}, Chapter 37 ("Control of Campaign Practices"} Part 3 ("Public Campaign Finance") was repealed in 1993.[30]


Nebraska

Nebraska

Nebraska allows candidates for the offices of the Unicameral Legislature, Governor, State Treasurer, Secretary of State, Attorney General, Auditor of Public Accounts, Public Service Commission, Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, and State Board of Education to apply to receive public funds. If a candidate does apply for and qualifies to receive public funds, he or she must agree to limit campaign spending to the limits prescribed for each office:

Governor: $2,297,000
State Treasurer: $290,000
Secretary of State: $290,000
Attorney General: $290,000
Auditor of Public Accounts: $290,000
Board of Regents: $100,000
Legislature: $89,000
Public Service Commission: $70,000
State Board of Education: $70,000

These limits are to be adjusted for inflation based on the Consumer Price Index every four years beginning in 2008. To qualify for public funds, candidates must first raise 25% of their respective spending limit. Of these qualifying contributions, at least 65% must be from individuals.

Nebraska's law is unique in that it requires candidates who will not seek public funds to file a "reasonable estimate" of their private funds they will raise. These candidates are then required to file an affidavit when they reach 40% of their estimated campaign expenditures. If the candidates do not reach 40% of their estimated expenditures, then their opponents who qualify for public funds shall not receive public funds. Candidates participating in the public funds program are eligible to receive the greater of either the difference between the spending limit and the highest non-participating opponent's expenditure estimate or the difference between the spending limit and the highest non-participating opponent's pre-election campaign expenditures. The amount of public funds received may never exceed three times the spending limit, however.[31] With the ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court against the "grant matching" provisions of Arizona's public financing laws, some worry that Nebraska's Campaign Finance Limitation Act of 1992 could also be ruled unconstitutional.[32]

There were no reports of candidates choosing to use public funds in 2010. In 2008, two candidates did choose to receive public funds. All figures come from Follow The Money.[33]

Candidate Amount Result
Independent Ken Haar, State Senator $37,430 Approveda
Independent Susan Scott, State Senator $30,500 Defeatedd

New Jersey

New Jersey

New Jersey allows candidates for the governor's office to apply for public campaign funds. As a part of the qualification process, they must first deposit and expend at least $380,000. Those that accept funds may not spend more than $12.2 million on their gubernatorial campaigns. The maximum amount of public funds that any candidate may receive is $8.2 million.[34] New Jersey employs a two-to-one matching program for qualified contributions. It is detailed in Title 19 Chapter 25 Sub Chapter 15 of the New Jersey State Statutes:

19:25-15.21 Receipt of public funds
(a) The campaign treasurer or deputy campaign treasurer of any qualified candidate for election to the office of Governor in a general election shall promptly receive in behalf of such qualified candidate public moneys in an amount equal to twice the amount of each contribution eligible for match and deposited in such qualified candidate's matching fund account, described in N.J.S.A. 19:44A-32, except that no payment shall be made to any candidate from such fund for general election campaign purposes for the first $109,000 deposited in such candidate's matching fund account.[35]

In addition to allowing gubernatorial candidates apply for public funds, New Jersey started a pilot "Clean Elections" program for legislative candidates based off of the Clean Elections programs in Maine and Arizona. The program went into effect in 2005 and allowed two General Assembly districts' candidates to apply for the program.[36] In 2007, the program was extended to three legislative (both General Assembly and State Senate) districts. Under this program, candidates need to raise a minimum of 400 $10 contributions to qualify for public funds. They may also raise up to $10,000 in seed money contributions of $500 or less from registered individual citizens. Candidates that do qualify for public funds may receive a grant of up to $50,000, and additional grants matching campaign contributions up to a maximum public fund limit of $100,000 (certain districts' candidates may be granted up to the average amount spent in the previous two general elections as a part of the pilot program). Qualified, participating candidates may also request grants to match their non-participating opponent's fund-raising up to the same maximum public fund limit.[37]

In the 2009 gubernatorial election, candidate Steven Lonegan was the only candidate to use public funds. He received $652,476 in total from public subsidies, and lost in the primary election.[38]

In the 2007 legislative elections, the top 10 recipients of public funds were:[39]

Candidate Amount Result
Democratic Party Linda Greenstein, Assemblywoman $626,375 Approveda
Democratic Party Wayne DeAngelo, Assemblyman $541,040 Approveda
Republican Party Bill Baroni, State Senator $526,375 Approveda
Republican Party Adam Bushman, Assemblyman $526,375 Defeatedd
Republican Party Thomas Goodwin, Assemblyman $526,375 Defeatedd
Democratic Party Seema Singh, State Senator $526,375 Defeatedd
Republican Party Alison McHose, Assemblywoman $92,000 Approveda
Republican Party Steven Oroho, State Senator $92,000 Approveda
Democratic Party Valerie Vainieri Huttle, Assemblywoman $88,320 Approveda
Republican Party Gary Chiusano, Assemblyman $80,715 Approveda

New Mexico

New Mexico

New Mexico passed a law in 2003 allowing candidates for seats on the Public Regulation Commission, the utility regulatory commission, to apply for public campaign funding.[40] In 2007, the public financing program was extended to candidates for appellate and state supreme court. Candidates who raise a certain amount of qualifying contributions and agree to spending limits may receive full funding from public funds.[21] In addition, there are two municipalities in New Mexico that exercise public campaign financing, Albuquerque and Santa Fe.[41]

The 9 recipients of public campaign funds in the 2010 elections were:[42]

Candidate Amount Result
Independent Ned Fuller, Appellate Court $194,894 Defeatedd
Republican Party Ben Hall, Public Regulation Commission $64,514 Approveda
Democratic Party Bill McCamley, Public Regulation Commission $61,443 Defeatedd
Democratic Party Stephanie Dubois, Public Regulation Commission $53,262 Defeatedd
Democratic Party Hank Hughes, Public Regulation Commission $29,328 Defeatedd
Democratic Party George James Galanis, Public Regulation Commission $29,327 Defeatedd
Republican Party D. Kent Evans, Public Regulation Commission $15,959 Defeatedd
Republican Party Robert Maez, Public Regulation Commission $15,923 Defeatedd
Republican Party Jamie Estrada, Public Regulation Commission $15,835 Defeatedd

North Carolina

North Carolina

North Carolina allows judicial candidates for the Court of Appeals and the State Supreme Court to apply for public financing. As a part of the application process, candidates must first raise a set amount of qualifying contributions. Candidates that qualify for and choose to use public funds may receive grants funded by a tax check-off from individual income taxes and a $50 charge to attorneys' licenses. If non-participating opponents raise more money than the participating candidates, the state issues "rescue funds" to the participating candidates to keep fund raising results equal.[43] With the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Bennett, which stated that the practice of granting candidates using public funds equivalent sums as those raised by candidates raising private contributions was unconstitutional, some in the North Carolina State Legislature have begun preparing to revise or repeal the state statutes. Senator Jim Davis has sponsored Senate Bill 419, which would end public financing of campaigns in the state entirely. Alternatively, Senator Andrew Brock has sponsored Senate Bill 459, which would simply repeal the grant-matching provision of the public financing program.

In 2010, the 8 recipients of public campaign funds were:[44]

Candidate Amount Result
Independent Barbara Jackson, State Supreme Court $247,703 Approveda
Independent Ann Marie Calabria, Appellate Court $169,850 Approveda
Independent Jane Gray, Appellate Court $164,697 Defeatedd
Independent Martha Geer, Appellate Court $164,400 Approveda
Independent John Douglas McCullough, Appellate Court $88,553 Defeatedd
Independent Cressie Thigpen, Appellate Court $58,765 Approveda
Independent Stanley Hammer, Appellate Court $58,765 Defeatedd
Independent Robert Hunter, State Supreme Court $297 Defeatedd


Ohio

Ohio

Ohio residents are able to contribute to the public fund by checking off an option on their income tax returns to donate $1 to the political party of their choice. The public financing system in Ohio is meant to support political parties and their "administrative costs associated with party head-quarters and party fund-raising drives, organization of voter registration and get-out-the vote campaigns", but not individual candidates.[45]

In 2010, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party in Ohio each received $153,584 in public funds.[46]

Oklahoma

Oklahoma

Oklahoma has a state-sponsored campaign program only in that it allows an income tax deduction of up to $100 for contributions to political candidates or parties.Cite error: Closing </ref> missing for <ref> tag As of August 2011, the bill remained in the House and had not been signed into law.

Oregon

Oregon

Oregon's state sponsorship of political campaigns laws are similar to those used in Arkansas and Oklahoma. The laws allow individuals to receive a $50 tax credit ($100 for a joint income tax) for their contributions to political candidates' campaigns. The law is unique, however, in that it counts only contributions made to statewide or legislative candidates who agree to spending limits. This law was created under Ballot Measure 9, and challenged in the State Supreme Court case of VanNatta v. Oregon. The Court upheld the provision as an acceptable form of public financing. However, when the 2000 Ballot Measure 6 was introduced to create a formal public fund for political candidates, it was defeated.[47]

Rhode Island

Rhode Island

According to Title 17 Chapter 25 of Rhode Island State Statutes, candidates for statewide offices that apply for and qualify to use public funds may receive $2 in public funds for every $1 of private contributions when the contribution from any one entity is $500 or less. Aggregate contributions from any one entity are eligible to matched at $1 for every $1 in contributions. The amount of public funds a candidate may receive, as well as the total amount of funds they raise are capped by office:[48]

Governor: $1,500,000 spending limit; $750,000 limit on public funds
Statewide Office: $375,000 spending limit; $187,500 limit on public funds

The 7 candidates that received public funds in 2010 were:[49]

Candidate Amount Result
Republican Party John Robitaille, Governor $395,978 Defeatedd
Democratic Party Peter Kilmartin, Attorney General $264,281 Approveda
Democratic Party Ralph Mollis, Secretary of State $262,750 Approveda
Republican Party Catherine Terry Taylor, Secretary of State $218,088 Defeatedd
Independent Christopher Little, Attorney General $208,502 Defeatedd
Republican Party Kernan King, Treasurer $149,640 Defeatedd
Republican Party Erik Wallin, Attorney General $32,218 Defeatedd

Utah

Utah

Utah allows citizens to designate $2 of their state taxes (a tax check-off) be given to the political party of their choice. Of this, $1 goes to the state branch of the party and $1 goes to the county branch of the party where the individual resides.[50]


Vermont

Vermont

Vermont allows the use of public funds for governor and lieutenant governor candidates. Candidates for governor must collect at least 1,500 individual contributions of $50 or less that reach a minimum total sum of $35,000 to qualify for public funds. Candidates for lieutenant governor must collect at least 750 individual contributions of $50 or less that reach a minimum total sum of $17,500. The candidates that qualify for and choose to use public funds must agree to spending limits, and in return shall have the rest of their funds provided from the public campaign fund. Candidates for governor will receive, in the primary election, enough public funds to bring their combined total of qualifying and public funds to $75,000. I they proceed to the general election, they will receive a grant of $225,000. Candidates for lieutenant governor will receive, in the primary election, enough public funds to bring their combined total of qualifying and public funds to $25,000. If they proceed to the general election, they will receive a grant of $75,000.[51]

The last time a candidate filed and qualified to use public funds was during the 2004 gubernatorial elections. In that year, Steve Hingtgen, a member of the Progressive Party running for lieutenant governor, received a total of $80,259.50[52]

Virginia

Virginia

Virginia's sponsorship of political elections is a tax add-on. It allows individuals to voluntarily donate all or part of their state income tax refund to a political party of their choice. Other, non-political organizations are also listed as options that individuals can donate their refund to. Because the state does not lose funds through this program, but instead merely distributes donations, it is the weakest form of public campaign financing used by a state government.[53]

Wisconsin

Wisconsin

Until June of 2011, under the Wisconsin Election Campaign Fund (WECF), candidates for the offices of Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, State Treasurer, Secretary of State, Superintendent of Public Instruction, State Senator, and Member of the Assembly could apply to use public funds in their campaigns. The program was funded by a voluntary $3 tax check-off. As a part of the qualification process, candidates needed to first raise a set amount of money in individual contributions of $100 or less, and agree to abide by spending limits. The maximum amount of public grant money that a candidate could receive varied by office:[54]

Governor: $485,190
Lieutenant Governor: $145,564
Attorney General: $242,550
State Treasurer: $97,031
Secretary of State: $97,031
Superintendent of Public Instruction: $97,031
State Senator: $15,525
State Assemblyperson: $7,763

Candidates were limited in the amount of money they could collect from various sources. No more than 45% of the total spending limit could be collected from a combination of WECF grants, other candidates' political committees, and political action committees. The money distributed by the WECF was not the only money that the candidate can collect, but rather part a partial-funding system. According to the WECF Manual:

"Each dollar received from the WECF by a candidate replaces a dollar that can be received from a special interest committee. There is no corresponding reduction of funds for contributions received from political parties, unless party contributions exceed 20% of the candidate's spending limit."[55]

However, on June 26th, 2011, the Governor of Wisconsin signed Wisconsin Act 32, the biennial budget bill, which eliminated all public financing for public campaign financing.[56] Included in this was the program for providing public funds to State Supreme Court campaigns, known as the Democracy Trust Fund.[57] This move was made increasingly controversial by suggesting that the remaining balance in the WECF be used to fund a Republican-sponsored "Voter ID" Bill.

The top 6 recipients of public funds in 2010 were:[58]

Candidate Amount Result
Democratic Party Scott Hassett, Attorney General $71,490 Defeatedd
Republican Party David King, Secretary of State $29,409 Defeatedd
Democratic Party Dwane Block, State Senator $15,525 Defeatedd
Republican Party Annette Miller Krznarich, State Senator $15,525 Defeatedd
Democratic Party Jason Borden, State Senator $13,525 Defeatedd
Democratic Party Tim Carpenter, State Senator $9,875 Approveda

External links

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 National Conference of State Legislatures: "Public Financing of Campaigns: An Overview"
  2. New York Times: "Justices, 5-4, Reject Corporate Spending Limit"
  3. New York Times: "Justices Strike Down Arizona Campaign Finance Law"
  4. Arizona Revised Statutes Title 16 Chapter 6: "Campaign Contributions and Expenses §16-952 B"
  5. Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Bennett: Text of the Decision
  6. New York Times: "Supreme Court Rules in Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Bennett"
  7. Follow the Money: "Public Fund of Arizona 2010 Campaign Contributions"
  8. Connecticut State Statutes Chapter 157: "Citizens Election Program"
  9. Green Party of Connecticut v. Garfield was changed to Green Party of Connecticut v. Lenge by the time it got to the Supreme Court in recognition of Garfield's retirement
  10. Green Party of Conn. v. Garfield: "Ruling of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals"
  11. The Campaign Legal Center: "Supreme Court Declines to Hear Challenge to Connecticut Public Financing Program"
  12. Follow the Money: "Public Fund of Connecticut 2010 Campaign Contributions"
  13. Florida Department of State Division of Elections: "2010 Public Campaign Financing Handbook"
  14. Follow the Money: "Public Fund of Florida 2010 Campaign Contributions"
  15. State of Hawaii Campaign Spending Commission: "Partial Public Funding Guidebook"
  16. Follow the Money: "Public Fund of Hawaii 2010 Campaign Contributions"
  17. Idaho State Legislature: 2010 Session Bill History of H0379
  18. 2010 Iowa 1040A Tax Form Instructions
  19. Kennebec Journal: "Effort under way to fix Maine public campaign finance law"
  20. Follow the Money: "Public Fund of Maine 2010 Campaign Contributions"
  21. 21.0 21.1 Common Cause: "Public Financing in the States"
  22. Maryland Reporter: "Public Financing of Election Campaigns Makes Another Try"
  23. Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance: "M.G.L. Chapter 55C: Limited Public Financing of Campaigns for Statewide Elective Office"
  24. Follow the Money: "Massachusetts 2010 Public Subsidy Campaign Contributions"
  25. Brennan Center for Justice Report: "Campaign Finance in Michigan"
  26. Follow the Money: "Public Fund of Michigan 2010 Campaign Contributions"
  27. Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes: "Minnesota State Statuete 10A.31: DESIGNATION OF INCOME TAX PAYMENTS"
  28. Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes: "State Statute 10A.323: Affidavit of Contributions"
  29. Follow the Money: "Public Fund of Michigan 2010 Campaign Contributions"
  30. Montana Code Annotated 2009: "Title 13, Chapter 37, Part 3"
  31. Nebraska Campaign Finance Limitation Act
  32. Journal Star: "Supreme Court ruling could cripple Nebraska campaign finance law"
  33. Follow the Money: "Public Fund of Nebraska 2008 Campaign Contributions"
  34. New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission, "Press Release," June 19, 2012
  35. New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission: "Unofficial Text of Title 19 Chapter 25 of New Jersey State Statutes"
  36. P.L. 2004, Chapter 121: "Clean Elections 2005 Pilot Program"
  37. P.L. 2007, Chapter 60: "Clean Elections 2007 Pilot Program"
  38. Follow the Money: "Public Fund of New Jersey 2009 Campaign Contributions"
  39. Follow the Money: "Public Fund of New Jersey 2007 Campaign Contributions"
  40. 2003 House Bill 0420 Final Version
  41. Democracy for New Mexico: "US Supreme Court Upholds Public Campaign Financing, Strikes Down One Element"
  42. Follow the Money: "Public Fund of New Mexico 2010 Campaign Contributions"
  43. General Assembly of North Carolina: "2002 Senate Bill 1054"
  44. Follow the Money: "Public Fund of North Carolina 2010 Campaign Contributions"
  45. Online Taxes: "Ohio Political Fund"
  46. Follow the Money: "Public Fund of Ohio 2010 Campaign Contributions"
  47. State of Oregon Legislative Committee Services: "Background Brief, Campaign Finance: Contribution & Expenditure Limits"
  48. Rhode Island State Statutes: "Title 17, Chapter 25, Section 19"
  49. Follow the Money: "Public Fund of Rhode Island 2010 Campaign Contributions"
  50. Daily Herald: "Chuck the check-a-buck"
  51. Vermont Secretary of State: "Vermont Public Finance Grants"
  52. Vermont Public Finance Grants: "History of Use Since 2000"
  53. Virginia Department of Taxation: "Voluntary Contributions"
  54. Wisconsin Government Accountability Board: "Wisconsin Election Campaign Fund"
  55. Wisconsin Government Accountability Board: "WECF Manual"
  56. Wisconsin State Journal: "Public Financing of Elections a State Budget Casualty"
  57. State Bar of Wisconsin: "Governor Walker signs state budget bill into law, issues vetoes"
  58. Follow the Money: "Public Fund of Wisconsin 2010 Campaign Contributions"