1. Candidates of any party qualify for full public funding of their campaigns by gathering a predetermined number of signatures and small ($5-10) donations from residents in their districts. This insures the candidate has a genuine basis of popular support.

2. These qualified candidates must then agree to refuse any further private contributions and remain publicly funded through both the primary and general election, agreeing to the campaign spending limits established.

3. They must also agree not to self-fund their campaign.

4. The amount of public funding depends on size of the district and is determined by averaging the cost of such campaigns over the previous two to three election years.

5. In order to withstand constitutional challenge, this is a voluntary system and no candidate can be forced to run a clean publicly funded campaign.

6. If the non-clean privately-funded candidates significantly start outspending the publicly funded candidate and/or independent expenditure or issue ads are used to target the publicly funded candidate, additional public funding is given to the clean candidate to help offset this and discourage such tactics.

What is Clean Money Campaign Reform?

Clean Money Campaign Reform provides qualifying candidates who agree to limit their spending and reject contributions from private sources with a set amount of public funds to run for office. It is a model reform for both federal and state races and versions of it have already passed in two states: Maine and Vermont. While elements of the plan vary according to local circumstances, in general, participating candidates receive Clean Money for the primary and general elections and they qualify by raising a high number of small (e.g., $5) qualifying contributions from voters in their districts or states.

Clean Money Campaign Reform is not an attempt to patch up the current system, but instead is designed as an alternative to it. By ending politicians' reliance on special interest money and offering in its place a limited but competitive amount of money from a Clean Money fund Clean Money Campaign Reform provides an alternative way for candidates to finance their campaigns.

Is it constitutional?

Yes. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, public financing of election campaigns -- a key component of Clean Money Campaign Reform -- is constitutional as long as the system is voluntary. Candidates do not have to choose Clean Money. They can reject public funds and continue to finance their campaigns the "old-fashioned" way, by raising private money.

Why would candidates opt-in to a Clean Money system?

There are strong incentives for candidates to choose a Clean Money system. No elected official likes having to spend so much time raising money, year in and year out. No challenger looks forward to the task of trying to raise the huge sums of money being spent today. In fact, these obstacles discourage many good candidates from running for office. Moreover, what candidate or elected official enjoys the public perception, if not the reality, that they are compromised by their acceptance of large contributions from special interests?

Will candidates receive enough money to run a competitive campaign?

Yes. Candidates who choose Clean Money funding get the equivalent of what is being spent, on average, today. The actual dollar amounts are lower because the candidates no longer have certain expenses. Clean Money candidates do not have to spend any money on fundraising and, for federal elections, they receive free and discounted TV ads and mailings. Actually, Clean Money Campaign Reform helps hold down the overall cost of campaigns.

Won't Clean Money candidates still get outspent by wealthy, self-financed candidates who do not need to fundraise and can spend as much as they want candidates like Ross Perot or Michael Huffington or Steve Forbes?

No. Under Clean Money Campaign Reform, participating candidates get a dollar-for- dollar match, up to a set limit, if a non-participating opponent spends more than the basic public financing grant. This won't mean an unlimited amount of money in case their opponent is someone like Steve Forbes. But as recent history shows, there is a limit to how much buying of an election the public will tolerate.

Doesn't Clean Money Campaign Reform force candidates to participate and penalize them if they do not?

No. Candidates have a choice: they can run under a Clean Money system or the current system. If they choose private funding, they are not bound by any of the Clean Money provisions and can fundraise however they wish, although they must abide by the current laws on contribution limits and reporting. What Clean Money does is provide an alternative to the special-interest money system that serves both the candidates and the voting public. Candidates have another way to run for office and voters have a clearer choice at the voting booth and the assurance that their interests come first.

Won't Clean Money Campaign Reform force private money to go around the system?

Besides providing participating candidates with a set amount of public funding for their campaigns, it is important to think of Clean Money Campaign Reform as a package of reforms. First, it will close the soft money loophole. It will also provide additional public funds, up to a set limit, for Clean Money candidates who are targeted by independent expenditures that is, advertisements or other communications which expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate and are not made in coordination with any candidate. Clean Money candidates may also receive additional funds if they are targeted by unregulated issue ads ads that ostensibly promote legislative issues, not political candidates if they refer to specific candidates and appear just before elections.

Will these measures be 100 percent effective in preventing private money from getting around the system and influencing federal elections? Of course not. What a Clean Money system will do, with 100 percent effectiveness, is eliminate participating candidates' dependence on direct contributions from big money contributors.

How much will Clean Money Campaign Reform cost? And how will it be paid for?

The cost of Clean Money Campaign Reform to federal congressional elections would be approximately $1.3 billion per election cycle (with approximately $846 million going to House races and $472 million going toward Senate races). This amounts to about $6.50 for the average taxpayer per year. These estimates are based on generous assumptions regarding the cost of basic Clean Money grants to participating candidates for both the primary and general elections and the cost of additional funding to respond to independent expenditures and excess spending by privately financed candidates.

Revenue for a federal Clean Money Fund will come from a combination of the $5 qualifying contributions collected by participating candidates, voluntary contributions from citizens, and direct appropriations by Congress. This cost could be easily offset by the elimination of unnecessary subsidies, tax breaks and regulatory exemptions that big money contributors now get from Congress. In other words, Clean Money Campaign Reform is designed to be revenue neutral, with no new taxes required to pay for it.

However, this does not change the fact that the cost of providing Clean Money is borne by the public. The trade-off is that the public gets to buy back its government from the special interests that are the primary funders of our current system. Numerous public opinion polls indicate that a large majority of Americans believes such a trade-off is worthwhile.

Who would administer the Clean Elections fund?

While there could be a number of ways to administer the fund, in the model bill advanced by Public Campaign, the fund would be administered by an election commission consisting of five commissioners with no more than two from the same political party. This is to avoid the kind of partisan gridlock we see in the current Federal Election Commission (FEC), which has six commissioners three from each of the major parties. Under a model Clean Money system, commissioners would be appointed by the president (or governor) from a list provided by a nonpartisan, independent panel. A person would not be allowed to hold the office of commissioner if he or she had served within the previous five years as an official for any government organization or political committee required to file with the commission. Commissioners' terms would be limited and their powers and procedures expressly defined.

Does the public really support "taxpayer funding" of campaigns?

Poll after poll shows overwhelming support for a Clean Money system. Over two-thirds of the people polled favor public financing of campaigns if it means that candidates will limit their campaign spending and reject private, special-interest money to bankroll their run for office. The results of these polls are very clear: the more comprehensive the reform efforts, the more the public supports them as a way to clean up our elections.

Won't the public see Clean Money Campaign Reform as just another government spending program, or worse, a "welfare program" for politicians?

Clearly, the public distrusts politicians, and taxpayers are wary of new public expenditures. However, Clean Money Campaign Reform can save taxpayers money. The wealthy individuals and powerful corporations who supply most of the money for campaigns are the recipients of billions of dollars of unnecessary tax breaks, subsidies, and regulatory exemptions. By eliminating candidates' dependence on these big-money donors, Clean Money Campaign Reform will make it more likely that politicians will be able to say no to these kinds of costly give-aways. Modern campaigns are run on television, which is an increasingly expensive medium.

Can candidates afford TV time if they choose to rely on Clean Money funding?

Yes. Federal candidates who participate in the Clean Money system get a generous amount of free broadcast time. Furthermore, they are given ample public funds to purchase additional discounted broadcast time. In addition, Clean Money candidates for state office will receive enough funding to buy broadcast time (as state governments do not have the authority to regulate the airwaves).

Won't the same people as before run and win political office under Clean Money Campaign Reform?

Clean Money Campaign Reform encourages more competitive elections, especially because it provides funding for party primaries as well as for general election campaigns. It enables candidates with no personal wealth or access to big financial contributors to, in almost every instance, run for office with the same financial resources as candidates with close ties to big money. This kind of level playing field is not possible under the current system.

Won't Clean Money Campaign Reform enable "fringe candidates" to run for office with public money?

While the public has a right to support whomever it wants, the qualifying requirements are stiff enough to deter fringe candidates with little or no public support from getting Clean Money. Some form of public financing already exists in 22 states and a number of municipalities. Where these systems are in place, the fears about public money spurring many fringe candidacies have proven to be unfounded.

Won't a Clean Money system open the ballot to so many people that there may not be enough money in the Clean Money fund?

One of the goals of Clean Money Campaign Reform is to open up the system to as many people as possible and to establish a financially-level playing field. But, the qualifying requirements are meant to be stiff enough so that anybody considering a run for office will think long and hard about the seriousness of their efforts before embarking on a campaign. It is therefore unlikely that "too many" candidates will qualify for Clean Money funds. Moreover, the required number of qualifying contributions can always be raised if experience shows that it was set too low.

What about the person who says, "I cannot give time to help a candidate. Why shouldn't I be allowed to give money?"

Under Clean Money Campaign Reform, people can still give money. During the pre- primary period, they can give a $5 qualifying contribution and up to $100 in seed money to help their favorite candidate qualify for Clean Money. Of course, citizens will always be able to make a financial contribution to a political party.

It is important to note here that contributing money to political campaigns is not one of the principal ways most people currently participate in the political process. Ninety-six percent of the American people make no significant political contributions at all, although 14 percent still check-off on their tax returns a voluntary contribution to presidential races. Most of the money contributed by individuals in congressional races, for example, comes from a tiny sliver less than one percent of the population.

Doesn't Clean Money Campaign Reform violate the First Amendment by suppressing political speech?

The last thing that this reform is about is suppressing anyone's speech. It's a voluntary system designed to give a voice to those candidates who do not have personal fortunes or access to special-interest contributions. Our political debate not to mention our democracy can only be strengthened and diversified by this expansion of the political franchise. We're not silencing anyone; we're adding new voices and more balance to a discussion that today is dominated by wealthy special interests.

What's wrong with a system of matching funds for primary elections, like the presidential system?

The 1996 presidential primaries, like the ones before it, made it abundantly clear that providing matching money neither eliminates the money chase nor candidates' obligation to the special interests who give most of the money. Under a matching fund system, raising special-interest money still determines who is the viable candidate. Clean Money Campaign Reform, on the other hand, eliminates candidates' need for special-interest money.
Opinion polls show that the public has little enthusiasm for throwing good money after bad, which is how they see it when candidates raise special-interest money and then are rewarded with additional taxpayer dollars. By contrast, support is very high for full public financing for candidates who reject private money and agree to spending limits.

Won't Clean Money Campaign Reform undermine the strength of and need for political parties?

Under a Clean Money system, political parties can and should remain active in the nomination and endorsement of candidates; identifying, researching and developing the party's positions on issues; and carrying out non-candidate-specific voter registration and get-out-the vote drives and other "party building activities." Clean Money reform allows political parties to play a vital role within the political process as long as they do not serve as a conduit through which special-interest campaign contributors can gain influence over elected officials.

Where does Clean Money Campaign Reform fit in with all of the other approaches to campaign finance reform that have been introduced in Congress?

Like the current system, some of the bills before Congress are "more loophole than law," in President Johnson's famous words. Partial solutions that do not attack the root problem of special-interest money and influence could simply allow members of Congress to claim they've taken action and attempt to bury the issue. However, incremental steps that do not conflict with a comprehensive solution, such as increased disclosure or a soft money ban are worth taking (as long as they are not accompanied, as has been suggested by some, by increases in hard money limits).

Will Congress ever pass a proposal like this?

Leadership on Clean Money Campaign Reform will not come from Washington. But history has shown us that many significant democratic reforms did not happen overnight, but came about as a result of years of movement-building in the states. The abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, child labor laws, the 40-hour work week all came about through strong, steady grassroots activity.

The new wave of campaign finance reform is happening outside the Beltway through grassroots efforts in the states, endorsements by citizens groups and newspaper editorial support. Maine and Vermont have already made Clean Money the law and Massachusetts has already qualified for a 1998 ballot initiative. Several states are working toward Clean Money ballot initiatives in 1998 as well, while others are mobilizing legislative Clean Money efforts.

Newspapers from around the country have editorialized in support of Clean Money, including USA Today, The Boston Globe, The St. Louis Post Dispatch, The Minneapolis Star Tribune, The Seattle Times, The Milwaukee Sentinel Journal and Long Island's Newsday. Citizens' groups like the League of Women Voters, Common Cause, United We Stand as well as a range of labor, environmental and civic organizations -- have formed state-wide coalitions and are working on behalf of Clean Money Campaign Reform across the country.