Frequently Asked Questions About Clean Elections
|
| The real cost of elections today |
Read our FAQs and contact us if you still need more information.
|
Candidates and Clean Elections |
General Questions |
|
How is it working in other states? |
How will it work in Alaska? |
|
Money, funding, costs |
Candidates and Clean Elections
Q. Does Clean Elections increase the number of candidates willing to run for public office?
A. Yes. For example, in Arizona the number of people willing to run for the state legislature has increased by about 20%, providing voters with greater choice.
Clean Elections also decreases the number of uncontested races (in which there is only one candidate running). In Maine, the number of uncontested races dropped from about 20% before Clean Elections was implemented to 2% in the last two elections. The number of incumbents without challengers also dropped from 17% to less than 1% in the same period.
Q. Does Clean Elections result in more independent or fringe candidates running for office?
A. It hasn't in Maine and Arizona, the two states with the longest experience with Clean Elections.
Q. How do incumbents fare under Clean Elections?
A. In 1998, before Arizona implemented Clean Elections, 95% of incumbents were reelected and incumbents raised nearly twice as much as their opponents. In 2002, only 74% won their primary races and, in almost all cases, they spent roughly the same as their opponents.
Q. What do candidates think of Clean Elections?
A. One measure is how many use this system. For example, in Maine, use of Clean Elections has grown from 62% of candidates in 2002 to 79% in 2004 to 81% in 2006. Overwhelmingly, candidates report they are happy with the system.
General Questions
Q. What are the advantages of this system?
A. Clean Elections levels the playing field, giving people from different backgrounds a fair shot at getting elected without owing favors to special interests and large campaign donors. Opportunities increase for non-traditional candidates who may not have access to special interest dollars and wealthy donors. Clean Elections allows for new faces, fresh voices, and a change from politics as usual.
Clean Elections will strengthen Alaskan's public confidence in government by eliminating the danger and perception of corruption caused by private financing of election campaigns. It frees elected officials from the incessant demands of fundraising, enabling them to spend more time working with and for their constituents.
Q. How does the Alaskan public feel about Clean Elections?
A. A poll conducted by the Craciun Research Group in March 2007 found that 70% of voters favor a Clean Elections system for Alaska. This overwhelming public support was expressed before both Veco Chairman, Bill Allen, and Veco Community & Government Affairs Vice President, Rick Smith, pled guilty to bribery and conspiracy charges filed by the FBI. In May 2007, both men accepted responsibility for making more than $400,000 in illegal payments and benefits to public officials or their families. We believe that now, more than ever, Alaskans understand and support the need for Clean Elections in Alaska.
Q. Can candidates be required to participate in Clean Elections?
A. No, Clean Elections laws must be voluntary to comply with Supreme Court rulings.
Q. How does Clean Elections effect voter turn-out?
A. In Arizona, it has had the impressive effect of increasing turn-out by 34% in years without a presidential race and by 7% in years with a presidential race. Voters like the new system and are participating in their democracy in greater and greater numbers.
How is it working in other states?
Q. Do other states have Clean Elections?
A. Clean Elections laws have been adopted 7 states, including Maine, Arizona, North Carolina, New Mexico, Vermont, New Jersey, and Connecticut. Maine and Arizona have the longest history with Clean Elections. Voters, along with candidates, in these two states enthusiastically support the system.
Q. Have any governors been elected using Clean Elections?
A. Yes, Governor Janet Napolitano of Arizona has been elected twice using this system.
Q. How has Clean Elections effected campaign contributions?
A. In Arizona, the number of contributors to gubernatorial elections has tripled. There has also been a significant change in the ethnic, economic and geographic diversity of contributors. Contributions from low to middle income zip codes increased significantly, while contributions from the wealthiest zip codes decreased. The allowable donation to a Clean Elections candidate is almost universally affordable.
How will it work in Alaska?
Q. Under Clean Elections, who is eligible to receive public funding?
A. To qualify for public financing, a candidate must agree to not accept any private contributions except a limited amount of startup or seed money, dispose of any previous surplus campaign money and agree to run their campaign within the state allocated amount. They also must collect the following numbers of $5 qualifying contributions from registered voters in their district to demonstrate they have a solid base of public support:
- 3,000 for a candidate for governor
- 1,500 for a candidate for lt. Governor
- 400 for a candidate for the state senate
- 200 for a candidate for state house
The $5 fee can be waived for low-income individuals.
Qualifying minor party candidates will receive full funding.
Qualifying candidates without a recognized party will receive up to 70% of total limit.
Q. How much public funding do Clean Elections candidates receive?
A. The amounts are based on what it has historically to run a viable campaign in Alaska. For primary elections, candidates would receive the following:
- governor - $250,000
- lieutenant governor - $150,000
- state senator - $24,000
- state representative - $16,000
For general elections:
- governor-lieutenant governor - $500,000
- state senator - $36,000
- state representative - $24,000
Q. What if someone running against a Clean Elections candidate spends far more?
A. Clean Elections candidates can receive up to three times the specified limit to match a non-participating opponent's spending dollar-for-dollar. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that Clean Elections candidates are not buried by non-participating opponent's spending and to provide an incentive for all candidates to participate in this system.
Q. Can political parties still give to their candidates?
A. Yes, parties can give an additional 10% to their candidates.
Q. Do unopposed candidates receive the same amount?
A. No, they only receive 25% of the primary and general election limits because their need for funding is far less.
Q. How will Alaska's Clean Elections system be funded?
A. Alaskans for Clean Elections proposes to raise funds from a 3 cents a barrel tax on oil.
Money, funding, costs
Q. How much seed money can a candidate collect?
A. The purpose of these funds is to enable candidates to collect the required number of qualifying contributions from voters in their district. Seed money contributions are limited to $100 or less and cannot exceed:
- $20,000 for a candidate for governor
- $10,000 for a candidate for lieutenant governor
- $2,000 for a candidate for the state senate
- $1,000 for a candidate for the state house
Q. Does Clean Elections really equalize funding for candidates?
A. Yes. In 1998, 79% of the candidates in Arizona with the largest war chests won. In 2002, after implementation of Clean Elections, this was true for only 2%. In just four years, Arizona politics changed dramatically, with a 77% reduction in the number of races determined by money.
Q. How much private money is currently raised by candidates in Alaska?
A. The Alaska Public Offices Commission reports that more than $17 million was raised by candidates for state (not local or federal office) in Alaska in 2006. In many cases, candidates received large donations despite having no opponents - a strong indication that large donors want to hold undue influence over candidates and elected officials.
Q. How much will it cost to implement Clean Elections in Alaska?
A. The cost depends on the number of candidates who participate in the system. It could cost six million dollars a year if participation is widespread, as expected.
The cost, however, may be offset by reductions in appropriations for pet projects proposed by special interests and policy changes stemming from Clean Elections. For example, several past and current lawmakers were recently indicted for accepting money in exchange for supporting a controversial oil tax. Some legislators believe that without the influence of special interest money, the tax would have been higher, bringing Alaska a billion dollars more each year in revenue.
It's also important to keep in mind that even if Clean Elections were to cost six million dollars annually, this amount is less than half of a percent of a percent of the state's current budget.