[vmpaul]

In last nights CA Recall Debate, the topic was special interest money and its effect on political campaigns and somebody mentioned (Arianna, I think) that Maine was the only state that had passed legislation for publicly financed campaigns.

Does anybody know if that's true? If so, how long has it been in place and how effective is it?

[thunderous_funker]

Here ya go

You should also check out Instant Runoff Voting campaigns.

The good people at fairvote.org have lots to say on both subjects.

[vmpaul]

Thanks. I'll look into it.

[thunderous_funker]

IIRC, Massachusetts ran into problems with their last election because of public financing. Mostly due to the budget crunch, but 3rd party candidates got enough support to qualify for the matching public funds so they ran out quicker than they had planned. The courts ended up auctioning off state property to keep the election fund in the black.

It raised ire towards 3rd parties and some doubts about public financing.

Which raises important issues of what makes campaigns so expensive. Any attempts at public financing have to be backed with measures that reduce the costs of campaigns. That basically means granting every candidate equal free TV time and no more. TV is the number one cost. Since the airwaves are still the public trust, access for candidates should be equal (money doesn't get you more time) and free.

Anyone in Mass. back me up on this story? Or am I thinking of the wrong state? Or was it not the last election, but one before that?

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:

Which raises important issues of what makes campaigns so expensive. Any attempts at public financing have to be backed with measures that reduce the costs of campaigns. That basically means granting every candidate equal free TV time and no more. TV is the number one cost. Since the airwaves are still the public trust, access for candidates should be equal (money doesn't get you more time) and free.

Which means more lobbying from broadcasters and the media groups to protect their income against measures that limit their ability to charge campaigns exorbitant amounts.

Kind of chicken and egg situation, huh? Which comes first? Publicly financed campaigns or laws to limit expenses? And can it be done with money being thrown at politicians by the media groups?