Clean Elections

Overview

Nov 07 2008

As an alternative to raising large sums of campaign cash to fund increasingly expensive campaigns, states can create a publicly-funded clean elections system for candidates who choose to forgo private donations. Strong arguments are available to progressives pursuing this reform. Publicly-funded elections free elected officials from the constant need to fundraise, and allow them to focus on public service, while reducing the ability of private donors to buy influence with officeholders. Public financing also encourages new people without independent wealth to pursue elected office, increases competition by reducing the disparity in spending between candidates, and reduces the cost of campaigns as candidates accept voluntary spending limits.

From the Dispatch

Connecticut Defends Clean Elections Financing Program

Aug 19 2010

Overriding a veto by their Governor, the Conneticut Legislature has strengthened its Citizen's Election system of public financing of elections that was first instituted in 2005. Responding to a bad decision by a federal appeals court, the Legislature has fixed the system and increased the public financing available to candidates.

Supreme Court 2009-2010: Pro-Corporate, But Continued Trend Towards Deferral to State Authority

Jun 29 2010

Yesterday, the Supreme Court ended its term with a bang with a ruling in McDonald v.

Update: Options for Reining in Corporate Election Cash in Wake of Citizens United Supreme Court Decision

Apr 08 2010

The Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission (FEC) decision earlier this year gave corporations the same First Amendment rights as citizens with regard to advocating for or against political candidates, unleashing a flood of new corporate cash into state races and a range of new state policy initiatives that aim to protect the integrity of their elections. In response, states are pursuing other reforms, such as requiring shareholder approval for corporations spending election cash, tighter public disclosure and attribution in ads, public financing of elections, and calling for a federal constitutional amendment to reverse the Citizens United decision.

States Act to Limit Judicial Ruling Allowing Corporations to Spend Directly to Elect or Defeat Candidates

Jan 28 2010

Portending a sharp increase in corporate political spending, the Supreme Court has ruled (Citizens United v. FEC) that corporations enjoy the same speech rights of citizens when it comes to advocating the election or defeating political candidates. Elected officials, including U.S. President Barack Obama, have denounced the ruling as striking at the heart of our democracy by putting corporations on an equal footing with real people when it comes to basic constitutional rights.

On the Ballot: Defeating TABOR, Defending Relationship Equality Laws & A Roundup of Other Ballot Issues

Oct 19 2009

Along with giving a roundup of the range of initiatives on the ballot in this off-year election, this Dispatch will give special focus to the campaigns against TABOR and defending relationship equality laws.

Judge Ruling in Favor of Big Contributor Ruled Illegal by U.S. Supreme Court

Jun 11 2009

When a coal company spent $3 million to help elect the Chief Justice of the West Virginia Supreme Court and that Chief Justice turned around and overturned a $50 million jury judgment against the company, many commentators thought it stunk of corruption and that the judge should have recused himself from the case.

Open Space for Campaign Reform Created by Former Illinois Governors' Woes

Mar 05 2009

With one former Governor in jail for racketeering and another removed and indicted for selling political appointments for large campaign donations, now might just be the time that Illinois finally reforms its government. The new governor, Pat Quinn, has formed the Illinois Reform Commission. The Commission is tasked with making recommendations within 100 days on how to reform the government and finally stemming the corruption for which the state has long been famous. The commission has already identified loose campaign finance regulations and the lack of transparency as the primary drivers of corruption in state government. Now they are traveling around the state to hear from experts and citizens on what they think needs to be done.

Judicial Elections Public Financing: Balancing Independent Courts and Voter Choice

Oct 27 2008

Once the sleepy backwater of electoral politics, judicial elections have recently become a battleground where right wing and corporate groups spend large sums to fill the courts with jurists who will support their interests. This is perhaps the most troubling example of money corrupting our politics, because instead of pay-to-play politics it gives us pay-to-win justice. The independence of the judiciary simply cannot be maintained in an environment where jurists are competing for votes in high-priced, bare-knuckle political brawls.

Corporate Influence on State Supreme Courts Show Need for Reform

May 22 2008

Over the past decade, elections for state high court seats have gone from sleepy, mildly partisan affairs to major political battles with huge campaign spending, millions in independent special interest advertising, and misleading and negative attacks in the forefront. TV advertising is now apart of virtually all (91%) contested state supreme court elections, up from about one in five elections in 2000. And in 2006 business groups were the source of more than 90% of those ads. Business groups are also the source of almost half of all campaign contributions in these races.

Washington House Passes Public Financing for Local Offices

Jan 31 2008

In the wake of a bitter 2004 Governor's election and state Supreme Court races that took in more money from third-party groups than any other high court campaign in the country, Washington State's House took the first step toward public financing by passing HB 1551. Introduced by Senator Joe McDermott, HB 1551 allows cities, counties, and other jurisdictions to provide local candidates with government financing. The bill only allows local taxes to be tapped for the public campaign accounts and the public funds cannot be used for campaigns for state offices or school boards.

You are viewing a resource page for

Clean Elections

Sub Issues

Core Analysis

Writing Reform: A Guide to Drafting State & Local Campaign Finance Laws

In The News

Resource Organizations

Sign up for the Stateside Dispatch, PSN’s twice-weekly roundup of the most important issues moving through the states, including what is happening in your state.

Find

Find

Primary links

Navigation

Clean Elections

Overview

From the Dispatch

Connecticut Defends Clean Elections Financing Program

Supreme Court 2009-2010: Pro-Corporate, But Continued Trend Towards Deferral to State Authority

Update: Options for Reining in Corporate Election Cash in Wake of Citizens United Supreme Court Decision

States Act to Limit Judicial Ruling Allowing Corporations to Spend Directly to Elect or Defeat Candidates

On the Ballot: Defeating TABOR, Defending Relationship Equality Laws & A Roundup of Other Ballot Issues

Judge Ruling in Favor of Big Contributor Ruled Illegal by U.S. Supreme Court

Open Space for Campaign Reform Created by Former Illinois Governors' Woes

Judicial Elections Public Financing: Balancing Independent Courts and Voter Choice

Corporate Influence on State Supreme Courts Show Need for Reform

Washington House Passes Public Financing for Local Offices

You are viewing a resource page for

Clean Elections

Sub Issues

Core Analysis

In The News

Resource Organizations

Most Read

Recently Discussed

PSN Wire

Find

Find

Primary links

Navigation

Clean Elections

From the Dispatch

You are viewing a resource page for

Sub Issues

Core Analysis

In The News

Resource Organizations

Share This Page

Most Read

Recently Discussed

PSN Wire