Menus Subscribe Search

Follow us


What Makes Us Politic

maine-state-house

Maine State House. (Photo: Albany NY/Wikimedia Commons)

What If We Just Got Rid of All the Money in Political Campaigns?

• January 21, 2014 • 10:00 AM

Maine State House. (Photo: Albany NY/Wikimedia Commons)

Three states have already put in place alternatives to standard fundraising practices, but what they’ve found might surprise you.

Is campaign money really a problem? People complain a great deal about the influence of big money over political candidates, how money is polarizing our politics and driving out people with good ideas but small wallets, and how donors are buying winners in elections. But it turns out there’s not much evidence to support these claims. Money, even lots of it, has only very modest effects on elections, and sometimes it’s hard to discern any real effect at all.

But one thing that even defenders of the current campaign finance system will generally concede is that candidates and officeholders spend far too much of their time on fundraising. There’s an expectation that members of Congress spend about four hours per day doing fundraising activities. That’s a lot! It’s just considered part of the job today, but it crowds out other things that may be more valuable, such as legislating, meeting with constituents, talking to colleagues, and all the other components of lawmaking, not to mention spending time with family or just getting some sleep. And when you’re fundraising, chances are you’re spending your time talking with a very wealthy and powerful sample of Americans who are not at all representative of the rest of the country.

It’s hard to complain about increased voter-candidate interaction, increased voter participation, and a wider range of candidates in elections.

Concerned about a corrosive effect of money on lawmaking, several states—Connecticut, Maine, and Arizona—have created publicly financed systems for state legislative elections. The U.S. Supreme Court says you can’t just ban private spending in elections, but you can offer incentives. These states give candidates the equivalent of a typical election’s worth of money in exchange for them forgoing any private fundraising or spending.

How well does it work? Political scientist Michael Miller looks at this question in his new book Subsidizing Democracy. (Also check out his recent C-SPAN appearance on the topic.) Through interviews, election data analysis, and a survey of over 1,000 candidates, Miller finds that public financing has yielded some important benefits for these three states’ political systems.

For one thing, the candidates who are part of the public (or “clean”) campaign finance systems there tend, as expected, to have far more time on their hands. And they actually use that time to go out and meet with voters. So, less time in private fundraisers or on the phone in a tiny room, more time interacting with the people they hope to represent. Not bad.

Second, voters seem to be responding to all this extra attention from candidates by participating more. Miller finds that there is less ballot rolloff (people voting in the top-ballot races but ignoring the down-ballot ones) in contests where at least one candidate receives public funding.

Finally, Miller finds that public financing opens up elections to a broader array of candidates than would usually get to participate. Even if the winner of an election isn’t the biggest spender, you usually need a certain amount of money to mount a serious campaign. Public financing assures that more people can reach that threshold, infusing politics with new people and new ideas.

Now, it’s hard to complain about increased voter-candidate interaction, increased voter participation, and a wider range of candidates in elections. Taxpayers are asked to foot the bill for far stupider projects.

But most reforms have unintended consequences, and public financing is not exempt from this. Miller and I, along with Andrew Hall, have found some preliminary evidence that public financing contributes to partisan polarization. The method by which this occurs is not completely clear, but it appears that when we open up elections to a wider range of candidates, the candidates who take advantage of this tend to be more ideologically extreme than those who rise up through traditional financing schemes. Party donors don’t get to filter out candidates the way they normally do. My guess is that this outcome is not what most backers of public financing initially hoped for.

At any rate, this all remains an interesting area to consider. If we’re wondering what our political system would be like without all this money, we might just want to pay attention to the places that have already done that.

Seth Masket
Seth Masket is a political scientist at the University of Denver, specializing in political parties, state legislatures, campaigns and elections, and social networks. He is the author of No Middle Ground: How Informal Party Organizations Control Nominations and Polarize Legislatures (University of Michigan Press, 2009). Follow him on Twitter @smotus.

More From Seth Masket

A weekly roundup of the best of Pacific Standard and PSmag.com, delivered straight to your inbox.

Recent Posts

September 30 • 10:09 AM

Trust Is Waning, and Inequality May Be To Blame

Trust in others and confidence in institutions is declining, while economic inequality creeps up, a new study shows.


September 30 • 8:00 AM

The Psychology of Penmanship

Graphology: It’s all (probably) bunk.



September 30 • 6:00 AM

The Medium Is the Message, 50 Years Later

Five decades on, what can Marshall McLuhan’s Understanding Media tell us about today?


September 30 • 4:00 AM

Grad School’s Mental Health Problem

Navigating the emotional stress of doctoral programs in a down market.


September 29 • 1:21 PM

Conference Call: Free Will Conference


September 29 • 12:00 PM

How Copyright Law Protects Art From Criticism

A case for allowing the copyright on Gone With the Wind to expire.


September 29 • 10:00 AM

Should We Be Told Who Funds Political Attack Ads?

On the value of campaign finance disclosure.


September 29 • 8:00 AM

Searching for a Man Named Penis

A quest to track down a real Penis proves difficult.


September 29 • 6:00 AM

Why Do So Many People Watch HGTV?

The same reason so many people watch NCIS or Law and Order: It’s all a procedural.


September 29 • 4:00 AM

The Link Between Depression and Terrorism

A new study from the United Kingdom finds a connection between depression and radicalization.


September 26 • 4:00 PM

Fast Track to a Spill?

Oil pipeline projects across America are speeding forward without environmental review.


September 26 • 2:00 PM

Why Liberals Love the Disease Theory of Addiction, by a Liberal Who Hates It

The disease model is convenient to liberals because it spares them having to say negative things about poor communities. But this conception of addiction harms the very people we wish to help.


September 26 • 1:21 PM

Race, Trust, and Split-Second Judgments


September 26 • 9:47 AM

Dopamine Might Be Behind Impulsive Behavior

A monkey study suggests the brain chemical makes what’s new and different more attractive.


September 26 • 8:00 AM

A Letter Becomes a Book Becomes a Play

Sarah Ruhl’s Dear Elizabeth: A Play in Letters From Elizabeth Bishop to Robert Lowell and Back Again takes 900 pages of correspondence between the two poets and turns them into an on-stage performance.


September 26 • 7:00 AM

Sonic Hedgehog, DICER, and the Problem With Naming Genes

Wait, why is there a Pokemon gene?


September 26 • 6:00 AM

Sounds Like the Blues

At a music-licensing firm, any situation can become nostalgic, romantic, or adventurous, given the right background sounds.


September 26 • 5:00 AM

The Dark Side of Empathy

New research finds the much-lauded feeling of identification with another person’s emotions can lead to unwarranted aggressive behavior.



September 25 • 4:00 PM

Forging a New Path: Working to Build the Perfect Wildlife Corridor

When it comes to designing wildlife corridors, our most brilliant analytical minds are still no match for Mother Nature. But we’re getting there.


September 25 • 2:00 PM

Fashion as a Inescapable Institution

Like it or not, fashion is an institution because we can no longer feasibly make our own clothes.


September 25 • 12:00 PM

The Fake Birth Mothers Who Bilk Couples Out of Their Cash by Promising Future Babies

Another group that’s especially vulnerable to scams and fraud is that made up of those who are desperate to adopt a child.


September 25 • 10:03 AM

The Way We QuickType


September 25 • 10:00 AM

There’s a Name for Why You Feel Obligated to Upgrade All of Your Furniture to Match

And it’s called the Diderot effect.


Follow us


Trust Is Waning, and Inequality May Be To Blame

Trust in others and confidence in institutions is declining, while economic inequality creeps up, a new study shows.

Dopamine Might Be Behind Impulsive Behavior

A monkey study suggests the brain chemical makes what's new and different more attractive.

School Counselors Do More Than You’d Think

Adding just one counselor to a school has an enormous impact on discipline and test scores, according to a new study.

How a Second Language Trains Your Brain for Math

Second languages strengthen the brain's executive control circuits, with benefits beyond words.

Would You Rather Go Blind or Lose Your Mind?

Americans consistently fear blindness, but how they compare it to other ailments varies across racial lines.

The Big One

One company, Amazon, controls 67 percent of the e-book market in the United States—down from 90 percent five years ago. September/October 2014 new-big-one-5

Copyright © 2014 by Pacific Standard and The Miller-McCune Center for Research, Media, and Public Policy. All Rights Reserved.