HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.brennan/stoprefm0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
BRENNAN
CENTER
FOR JUSTICE
at New York University School of Law
STATE OPTIONS FOR REFORM
By Brent Ferguson
Many who want to reduce the influence of big campaign
money on politicians are frustrated by damaging Supreme
Court decisions and astonishing inaction by Congress
and the Federal Election Commission. It's natural to be
discouraged by rulings like Citizens United, which held that
corporations and unions may spend as much as they want
on advertisements supporting politicians. But giving up is
the wrong choice. States and cities have shown in the last few
years that there are plenty of options that can give ordinary
voters a greater say in elections, ensure that elections are
transparent, and limit the influence of big money. States and
cities with these reforms have seen promising results, despite
the limits imposed by the Supreme Court.
Below is an overview of the most promising reforms, most of
which are already used in various states and cities. And all of
them are clearly permissible under current Supreme Court
jurisprudence.
Public Financig
The best way to fight back against the big spending that
dominates elections is public financing, which lets candidates
without wealthy supporters run competitively. Public
financing can come in various forms: public matching of
small contributions, vouchers allowing donors to give small
contributions, block grants for competitive candidates, or
rebates for those who make small contributions, to name
a few.
Small-donor matching
Small-donor matching systems in several major cities, such
as New York and Los Angeles, have demonstrated the power
of public financing. Under such programs, small donations
from individuals (usually under $200 or so) are matched
by public money. The most successful systems have a
multiple match, such as New York City, which provides
six dollars for every dollar of a donation of $175 or less.
Thus, a $175 donation is matched by $1,050 in public
money. Typically, matching systems require participating
candidates to agree to certain conditions, such as spending
ceilings or lower contribution limits.
Small-donor matching systems have shown that public
financing can transform elections. In New York City,
about 90 percent of candidates in the most recent election
participated in the program, thereby reach[ing] out
to their own constituents rather than focusing all their
attention on wealthy out-of-district donors. A 2012
study concluded that the system has increased the extent
to which participating candidates rely on small donors
financially. The program has also encouraged greater
donor diversity: contributors to city candidates are much
more racially and economically diverse than donors to
candidates for New York's state legislature, who are not
publicly-financed. New York City's law and rules are
good models for small donor matching systems.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.brennan/stoprefm0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)