Overview
A record-setting $2.7 billion dollars was
spent in the 2006 mid-term federal elections and more than half of that money
came in large contributions from a small group of wealthy donors. And the 2008
presidential candidates are surpassing all previous fundraising records.
Senators Clinton and Obama have each raised and spent more than $100 million as
of December 2007.
While more people are making contributions to
political campaigns and many of these new donors are giving small amounts,
powerful interests continue to dump vast sums of money into local, state, and
federal campaigns. The average House race cost more than $1 million. The oil
and gas industry spent more than $14 million, health care interests spent $72
million and financial services and insurance companies spent more than $190
million all to elect their favored candidates and to line up favors for next year’s
Congress. And as Washingtonians witnessed in the 2006 state supreme court race,
powerful interests are more than willing to donate large sums to sway state
politics. This process shortchanges the rest of us on everything from
environmental quality to tax policy to affordable health care.
Under the current system, powerful interests
decide who will have the money to get on the ballot and run a credible
campaign. Voters are left with fewer choices and candidates more accountable to
their large donors than constituents. Under clean money systems, candidates who
agree to spending limits and to forgo special interest cash, receive public
finding for their campaigns. Several
states such as Arizona, Connecticut
and Maine now
use the clean money system and are living examples that it can and does work.
In Maine, for
example, more than 90 percent of the candidates now participate.
In the early 1990s, Seattle
and King County were leaders in the area of clean
elections. Both the city and county had a matching funds program designed to
bring a more diverse set of candidates into the process and counter the large
sums required to run for office. In 1992 voters passed initiative 134, which
brought with it sweeping campaign finance changes. Unfortunately, buried in the
initiative was a ban on the use of any public funds for a campaign for public
office. This one section, buried deep in a fairly lengthy initiative killed the
young SeattleKing County
matching programs.
