The Dirty Truth about Clean Elections
Posted November 9, 2007

This year marked the lab test of the redesigned Clean Elections program in New Jersey. The idea behind the program is simple: provide for public financing of elections with the goal of eradicating the financial influence special interest groups hold over candidates.

According to the Clean Elections website of the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission, a 2007 “Fair and Clean Candidate” was one who

• Raised between 400 and 800 $10 contributions from in-district registered voters between April 23, 2007 and September 30, 2007
• Refused contributions from other donors

Those meeting these requirements were eligible to receive public funding according to the following general scale:

• $50,000 for raising 400 contributions of $10 each
• $92,000 for raising 800 contributions of $10 each
• An additional up to $100,000 in “rescue money” for any “clean” candidate if independent expenditures greater than $1,000 were made on behalf of his/her opponent or if an opponent was not a “clean” candidate and was receiving private contributions

Candidates were required to declare themselves to be Clean Elections Candidates and were permitted to launch their campaigns by accepting a limited amount of “seed money,” defined as contributions of $500 or less, from New Jersey registered voters. Additionally, within five months following the election, “clean” candidates must return all unspent money to the Fair and Clean Elections Fund.

This year’s Clean Elections pilot program was made available to candidates in the 14 th, 24 th, and 37 th legislative districts.

Proponents of the program claim that it eliminates special interest money and the corrupt practice of pay-to-play, in which campaign high donors are rewarded with state contracts.

But while the surface explanation seems well and good, the dirty little truth behind so-called “clean” elections is the astronomical cost to the New Jersey taxpayer.

In this year alone, with only 3 districts participating, the state dished out over $4 million in taxpayer money. If you are curious about the astronomical discrepancy between the amount given to the 14 th district candidates and the amount given to the candidates from the other two districts, you are not alone. We were initially befuddled, too, at how a $92,000 grant could suddenly balloon into $526,375. Come to find out, the pilot program in District 14 operated on a different funding formula based on the average costs of campaigns in that district over the last three election cycles. Using this formula, officials reached the magic number of $535,000, and although the candidates initially indicated that they would be willing to agree on a lower number, the $526,375 that they received is hardly a noticeable decrease.

Looking ahead, with all 40 legislative districts potentially having access to the program in upcoming elections, the price tag could skyrocket as high as an astronomical $120 million or more, with some saying the number could go as high as $300 million.

Even Assembly Speaker Joseph Roberts (D-Camden), a supporter of the program, noted that cost may be reason enough to take an “incremental” approach to a full, statewide implementation.

Additionally, according to the non-partisan Center for Competitive Politics, the pilot program yielded “predictable results,” in which “massive amounts of government funds [were] spent and elections … were not competitive.” This came as no surprise to Center Vice President Steve Hoersting, who stated, “The so-called ‘clean elections’ pilot program proved to be an expensive experiment that resulted in predictable outcomes….The results mirror a previous government study of similar programs in Maine and Arizona. It’s clear that so-called ‘clean elections’ do little to increase competitiveness.”

Noting the one exception – the 14 th district – in which the race proved to be a close one, Hoersting cited the inclusion of independent expenditures as the reason. “The District 14 results indicate that the only way to make government-financed elections competitive is to run independent expenditures,” he stated.

Indeed, we have serious questions as to why the pilot program included two districts that are traditionally non-competitive to begin with: the 24 th being heavily Republican and the 37 th steadily Democrat. If the legislature is intent on spending taxpayer dollars on campaigns, wouldn’t it have been much more logical to invest the money in races in which some level of competition existed rather than throw it into districts in which the results were virtually foregone conclusions?

With a state that is already $33.7 billion in debt, with $3 billion of our annual budget going simply to pay off the debt, the addition of as much as $120 million in election-year spending to provide government welfare for campaigns should strike one not only as alarming but also as a blatant example of fiscal irresponsibility.

This week, New Jersey voters delivered a resounding message to the legislature that we are tired of Trenton’s “spend without restraint” mentality. Having just rejected $650 million in proposed spending, are we now to sit back and watch the legislature spend numerous millions for taxpayer-subsidized campaign welfare?

It’s time for our legislature to heed the message so clearly sent this past Election Day regarding financial restraint and out-of-control spending. While the idea of running “clean elections” without special interest influence and corrupt pay-to-play is a good one, there is something “dirty” about candidates getting half-a-million dollars courtesy of the New Jersey taxpayer. Based on what we see in this pilot program, we would say NO to so-called “clean election” spending. The bottom line is this: Can we afford what may be a $120,000,000 price tag to publicly fund elections? We believe the tried and true system, in which candidates who want to run must raise the dough to do so, might not be such a bad exercise in democracy after all.

 

Archive