Small donors and public funding are powering 75% of the candidates running for state legislature in Connecticut this year. It's the first year of the state's new Citizens' Elections Program, and that's a fantastic start. The New York Times took note of this exciting progress today:
The big story about public financing of campaigns nationally has been Barack Obama's decision to opt out of the national system. But what's unfolding in Connecticut may end up being far more influential.
What's unfolding? Three-quarters of the candidates are not relying on wealthy donors and special interest money to run for office. They're raising small contributions, and those contributions are amplified by public funds to give them enough to run a competitive race -- which means elected officials who aren't accountable to wealthy campaign donors but to regular voters and small donors.
Connecticut's initial success is remarkable; the Times acknowledges, "Connecticut's initial experience has exceeded the expectations of even its most enthusiastic supporters." Yet the media have been largely missing or distorting this demand for reform around the country.
The New York Times itself, earlier this week, seemed to indicate that public financing was nearly dead because Barack Obama had opted out of the outdated presidential public financing system. The LA Times piled on, claiming that "Republicans and many Democrats are skeptical of public funding schemes," even though the claim is false: both Republican and Democratic voters support public funding systems by super-majority margins.
Wall Street executives and other wealthy interests funded congressional campaigns for years, and the financial mess today is testament to what happens when big money invades the halls of Washington.
Buried in the skeptical LA Times story is this nugget:
Obama signed a pledge to the group Common Cause in which he vowed to push for "full public funding for qualified candidates who agree to spending limits and to stop accepting private contributions."
Just this past week, no doubt motivated in part by the success in Connecticut, two congressional hopefuls -- incumbent Rep. Chris Shays (R-CT) and challenger Jim Himes (D) --
could only agree on one thing:During that rare light moment, they agreed that public financing needs to be adopted for congressional campaigns to prevent the proliferation of lobbyists, political action committees and special interests who this year are making Connecticut's tight 4th District race one of the most-expensive in the country.
And candidates like Art House are seeing a new brand of politics in Connecticut:
"Would I have run if we didn't have public financing? I don't know -- maybe yes, maybe no," Mr. House said. "But I can certainly say public financing was definitely an inducement for me to take the plunge. You begin knowing that politics doesn't have to be a money game where you spend all your time on the phone dialing for dollars instead of meeting people, talking about issues and campaigning."
The front-running presidential candidate professed his support for major reform. Connecticut is showing how public financing reform can work, quickly, to change how candidates run a race and to amplify the voice of small donors. The power of the financial industry, buoyed by their millions in campaign contributions to Congress, has shown the American public that a political system awash in special interest cash is dangerous for the average person and for our economy.
We're ready for big reform like public financing. Connecticut and other states are leading the way and this will be a big push at the federal level in 2009.
