Clean Money Elections

This is my true dream for Memphis, Shelby County, Tennessee, and the Nation. Clean money elections. I've done some research into this and I believe it would be the best thing to happen to Memphis. I know those with power and influence would hate it but it would bring truely a new day to this city. If you want to know if a politican really cares about the public good, ask him or her about publicly financed elections. Here's the basic idea.

Increase in money in elections

2004 Indiana governor race: 2 candidates spent $28 mil
2004 Missouri governor race: 3 candidates spent $25.5 mil up from $19 mil in 2000

2004 Indiana statehouse seat: 2 candidates spent $1 mil each

Point of clean elections:
• Increase voter choice by encouraging more candidates to run for office
• Increase electoral competition by having fewer uncontested races
• Reduce the influence of special interest groups and thereby enhance citizens’ confidence in government
• Curb increase in the cost of campaigns
• Increase voter participation and turnout

Places where public financed elections occur
• Maine-state and local elections
• Arizona-state and local, corporation commission
• North Carolina-state and supreme and appeals court
• California-local in Oakland, San Francisco, LA and three more large cites. Considering public financing for state level.
• New York City-local 4-to-1 system of matching contributions
• Portland, Oregon-local
• Austin, TX-local
• New Mexico-State Public Regulation Commission and trying to get Judicial elections
• Vermont-state and local

Places considering public financed elections
• Connecticut-state level
• Maryland-state level
• New Jersey-state level experiments in 2 districts
• West Virginia-state level
• Hawaii
• Minnesota
• Montana

Systems
Arizona: After the public voted in Arizona to support public elections, taxpayers now can choose to donate $ 5 of their tax return to a fund set up to finance candidates. More than 650,000 people in Arizona gave more than $ 3.2 million to help start the fund. The state's general revenue fund also chipped in, and Arizona ended up spending about $ 12 million to finance candidates.
Not every political candidate in Arizona has to use public money - people still can host fundraisers and take private donations if they choose not to participate in the state's system.
Candidates who want to use public financing first collect $ 5 donations and signatures from a specified number of people. Auditors check the signatures to make sure they aren't forged, Martinez said.
If candidates collect enough donations and signatures, they agree to not take any more public donations and use state funding determined by what position or seat they are after.

Connecticut: Qualifying candidates who agree to spending limits would be eligible for public money -- $3 million in the case of a candidate for governor, $150,000 for a state Senate race and $30,000 for a House campaign.

Maryland: Candidates for the state Senate or House could qualify for public funding by collecting $5 from 282 registered voters in that district. Candidates also would have to raise an additional $10,000 on their own and trade in the money in exchange for using the public money.
A Senate candidate then would receive $50,000 from the state for a contested primary and $50,000 for a contested general election. House candidates would receive $40,000 for a contested primary in a three-member district (slightly less for smaller districts) and $40,000 for a contested general election.
Candidates whose opponents opt out of the publicly funded system would be eligible for more public money if the opponents raise more than a certain amount.
Legislative analysts estimate the system would cost about $5 million a year.

New Jersey: To qualify, candidates must raise $20,000 from people in their district, including 1,000 contributions of $5 and at least 500 donations of $30.
Candidates will be able to collect 75 percent of the average amount spent in that district during the previous election, up to a total of $100,000.
The state will give candidates an extra $50,000 if an opponent uses private money to finance an election.

Results
California: Voter turnout is up, less money has been spent on campaigns and public trust has grown.

In both Maine and Arizona, the number of legislative candidates who chose to use public financing for their campaigns increased greatly from 2000 to 2002. In perspective, 59 percent of Maine’s and 36 percent of Arizona’s current legislators successfully ran as publicly financed candidates in the 2002 election. Also, in Arizona’s 2002 election, publicly financed candidates won seven of the nine available seats in races for statewide offices, including Governor. All four successful candidates for the corporation commission were publicly financed. There has also been an increase in minority and women candidates.
By 2005 in Maine, 83% of State Senate and 77% of the State House ran clean money campaigns. Overall increase of 12% in primary candidates.

Opposition
Attacks on reform measures have been waged in legislatures, courts and on the ballot. In Maine, the state legislature attempts to de-fund the public campaign funding program nearly every legislative session, while public campaign funding laws in Arizona face organized efforts to rollback reform by mounting court challenges and repealing the laws. Most recently, the voter-approved Clean Elections law in Massachusetts was repealed by a secret vote of the legislature in June 2003.