Menus Subscribe Search

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

August 20 • 4:00 PM

Why Can’t Conservatives See the Benefits of Affordable Child Care?

Private programs might do a better job of watching our kids than state-run programs, but they’re not accessible to everyone.


August 20 • 2:00 PM

Oil and Gas Companies Are Illegally Using Diesel Fuel in Hundreds of Fracking Operations

An analysis by an environmental group finds hundreds of cases in which drillers used diesel fuel without obtaining permits and sometimes altered records disclosing they had done so.


August 20 • 12:00 PM

The Mystery of Britain’s Alien Big Cats

In a nation where the biggest carnivorous predator is a badger, why are there so many reported sightings of large cats?


August 20 • 10:00 AM

Death Row in Arizona: Where Human Experimentation Is the Rule, Not the Exception

Recent reports show that chemical roulette is the state’s M.O.


August 20 • 9:51 AM

Diversity Is in the Eye of the Beholder

Perception of group diversity depends on the race of the observer and the extent to which they worry about discrimination.


August 20 • 8:40 AM

Psychopathic or Just Antisocial? A Key Brain Difference Tells the Tale

Though psychopaths and antisocial people may seem similar, what occurs in their brains isn’t.


August 20 • 8:00 AM

What the Cost of Raising a Child in America Tells Us About Income Inequality

You’ll spend nearly a quarter of a million dollars to raise a kid in the United States, or about five times the annual median income.


August 20 • 6:00 AM

In Praise of ‘American Greed’

While it remains semi-hidden on CNBC and can’t claim the car chases of Cops, American Greed—now with eight seasons in the books—has proven itself a worthy endeavor.


August 20 • 4:00 AM

Of Course I Behaved Like a Jerk, I Was Just Watching ‘Jersey Shore’

Researchers find watching certain types of reality TV can make viewers more aggressive.


August 20 • 2:00 AM

Concluding Remarks About Housing Affordability and Supply Restricitions

Demand, not supply, plays the dominant role in explaining the housing affordability crisis. The wages are just too damn low.


August 19 • 4:00 PM

Can Lawmakers Only Make Laws That Corporations Allow?

There’s a telling detail in a recent story about efforts to close loopholes in corporate tax laws.




August 19 • 12:00 PM

How ‘Contagion’ Became Contagious

Do ideas and emotions really spread like a virus?


August 19 • 10:00 AM

Child Refugees: The New Barbarians

The disturbing rhetoric around the recent rise in child refugees into the United States from Central America may be shaping popular opinion on upcoming immigration reform.


August 19 • 8:00 AM

Making Police Departments More Diverse Isn’t Enough

Local police departments should reflect the communities they serve, but fixing that alone won’t curb unnecessary violence.


August 19 • 7:15 AM

Common Knowledge Makes Us More Cooperative

People are more inclined to take mutually beneficial risks if they know what others know.


August 19 • 6:00 AM

Seeking a Healthy Public School Lunch? Good Luck

Mystery meat will always win.


August 19 • 4:00 AM

The Positive Effects of Sports-Themed Video Games

New research finds sports-themed video games actually encourage some kids to get onto the field.


August 19 • 1:00 AM

DIY Diagnosis: How an Extreme Athlete Uncovered Her Genetic Flaw

When Kim Goodsell discovered that she had two extremely rare genetic diseases, she taught herself genetics to help find out why.



August 18 • 3:30 PM

Mister Rogers’ Heart-Healthy Neighborhood

Researchers find living in a friendly, cohesive neighborhood lowers seniors’ chances of having a heart attack.


August 18 • 2:00 PM

Wealth or Good Parenting?

Framing the privileges of the rich.


August 18 • 12:00 PM

How Much Did the Stigma of Mental Illness Harm Robin Williams?

Addiction treatment routinely fails people with mental illnesses, while mental health care often ignores addiction. And everywhere, stigma is rife. Can a tragic death prompt a more intelligent approach?


August 18 • 10:00 AM

Punished for Being Poor: The Problem With Using Big Data in the Justice System

Correctional departments use data-driven analyses because they’re easier and cheaper than individual assessments. But at what cost?


Follow us


Diversity Is in the Eye of the Beholder

Perception of group diversity depends on the race of the observer and the extent to which they worry about discrimination.

Psychopathic or Just Antisocial? A Key Brain Difference Tells the Tale

Though psychopaths and antisocial people may seem similar, what occurs in their brains isn’t.

Common Knowledge Makes Us More Cooperative

People are more inclined to take mutually beneficial risks if they know what others know.

How a Shift in Human Head Shape Changed Everything

When did homo sapiens become a more sophisticated species? Not until our skulls underwent "feminization."

Journalists Can Get PTSD Without Leaving Their Desks

Dealing with violent content takes a heavy toll on some reporters.

The Big One

One in two full-time American fast-food workers' families are enrolled in public assistance programs, at a cost of $7 billion per year. July/August 2014 fast-food-big-one
Subscribe Now

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