The Telescoping Effects of Public Campaign Funding: Evaluating the Impact of Clean Elections in Arizona, Maine, and New Jersey

Supporters of public campaign funding say it democratizes the election process; detractors say it fails to meet its intended goals and, in fact, has unexpected negative results. Examining data from Arizona and Maine, which have full public funding, and from New Jersey's “Clean Election” pilot program, has enabled us to determine empirically if critics are correct. We conclude that neither advocates of Clean Elections nor its detractors are completely accurate. Rather, public campaign funding enhances trends that already existed where it was implemented without sparking new ones.

Related Articles

Werfel. 2008. “A Modern Paradigm for Campaign Finance: Economic Markets and Lessons from History.”

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2012.00353.x/abstract

Reid and Moog. 2011. “Voter Information, Voter Participation, and the North Carolina Judicial Election Reforms: The Views of the Voters.”

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2012.00353.x/abstract

Partidarios del financiamiento público de las campañas sostienen que democratiza el proceso electoral; los detractores sostienen que no cumple con sus metas previstas y que de hecho, tiene resultados negativos inesperados. Al examinar datos de Arizona y Maine, que cuentan con financiamiento público total, y del programa piloto de New Jersey “Elecciones Limpias,” nos ha permitido determinar empíricamente si los críticos están en lo correcto. Concluimos que ni los defensores de Elecciones Limpias ni sus detractores son completamente acertados. Más bien, el financiamiento público de las campañas mejora tendencias ya existentes donde es implementado, sin crear otras nuevas.