Local Public Financing Programs Make Elections More Local
When people write about public campaign financing programs, they
tend to focus on participation percentages and the size of the
campaign contributions. But what is most interesting about <a href="http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/mayors_race…; target="”_blank”">the
analysis done by the New Haven Independent</a> of campaign
contributions given to mayoral candidates participating and not
participating in the city's public financing program, the New Haven
Democracy Fund, is the difference with respect to contributions from
New Haven residents and from elsewhere.<br>
<br>
This analysis was done after the July 1 campaign finance report
filing deadline. <a href="http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/sept_campai…; target="”_blank”">An
article following the September 1 filing, without the graphs, went
up on the Independent's website yesterday</a>.<br>
<br>
This is the first competitive Democratic primary since the Democracy
Fund program began in 2007 (I was the Fund's administrator from 2007
to 2012). Three candidates participated in the Fund, and two did
not. The Fund double matches the first $25 of each New Haven
resident's aggregate campaign contribution to a candidate. This
means that when a New Haven resident makes a $25 contribution, the
candidate gets $75 (assuming the candidate qualifies for the
program, as all three participating candidates did).<br>
<br>
In the period ended July 1, the percentage of New Haven
contributions to the participating candidates was, respectively (in
order of the total amount of contributions to each candidate), 79%,
95%, 93%. The percentages for the non-participating candidates was
28% and 29%.<br>
<br>
This does not just reflect percentages. The leading participating
candidate received 865 local contributions as opposed to 140 and 98
by the two non-participating candidate. In fact, the participating
candidate had more contributions than the leading non-participating
candidate in her own zip code.<br>
<br>
In the July-August period, the leading participating candidate
received another 302 contributions from locals (83% of his total),
while the non-participating candidates received, respectively,
another 287 (41%) and 66 (25%).<br>
<br>
What this means is that a public financing program that matches only
the contributions of local residents makes an election much more
local, at least to the extent candidates participate. Local
residents are encouraged to get involved by making small
contributions that matter, and big contributors from out of town,
often contractors, developers, and others who seek special benefits
from the winning candidate, can't give enough to matter, because the
amount they can contribute is limited (37% of what they can
contribute to a non-participating candidate).<br>
<br>
It's too bad that two of the three most likely candidates to win
chose not to participate in the Democracy Fund. If one of the two
non-participating candidates does win, it will be seen as thanks to
out-of-towners, contractors, unions, and PACs. This, plus the size of the
contributions from these non-residents, would likely undermine the new mayor's
legitimacy.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---