How states are leading in the fight against big money in campaigns

In his State of the Union address in 1907, President Teddy Roosevelt made a daring call for action around the need for publicly financed political parties in response to years of political corruption. He proposed that Congress provide an “appropriation for the proper and legitimate expenses of each of the great national parties” and ensure that no party receiving public funds accept more than a fixed amount from any individual donor. 

For over a century since his presidency, the reform movement has largely focused its attention on Congress, where efforts to secure publicly funded campaigns have narrowly failed despite the massive increase in political spending in U.S. elections. This spending ramped up precipitously after the Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. FEC decision in 2010 unleashed a flood of secret money into our elections.

Luckily, states and municipalities aren’t waiting for Congress to lead on limiting big money in politics. The New York Legislature is the most recent one to adopt a statewide publicly funded small-donor matching system that makes it possible for people of average means to run for office. So far over 300 candidates have opted into this system, with robust participation across party lines. The statewide system is modeled on the New York City system, which has been successfully funding campaigns for two decades. In 2021, New York City’s program played a significant role in helping elect the city’s most demographically representative council: Women’s representation doubled to 61 percent, and people of color’s representation increased from 51 percent to 67 percent, with 97 percent of those elected recipients of public financing. 

Additionally, Arizona, Connecticut and Maine have adopted various forms of publicly funded statewide campaigns that have been operating successfully for years. This year, state legislatures in Hawaii, Minnesota, Washington and New Hampshire all introduced bills that would bring small-donor systems to their states. These bills are the result of organized movements, and would be transformative if passed and signed into law. 

It’s not just the states that are moving toward transformational reform. Cities and localities are part of this movement as well. 

Last year, the Evanston City Council overwhelmingly passed a small donor matching system ordinance, the first of its kind in Illinois. Candidates for mayor will be able to receive campaign resources matched at a 9-to-1 ratio for donations of up to $150 from citizens who reside in Evanston. The result is that small donations are amplified almost by an order of magnitude, which not only gives significant power to the donor but allows a candidate to focus on interacting with individual constituents, not on raising large amounts of money from wealthy donors. 

Evanston’s successful adoption of a matching funds system in 2023 follows on the heels of a voucher-based system in Seattle adopted in 2015, as well as a small donor matching system in Washington, DC in 2018, a full grants system in Portland, Maine in 2022 and a Democracy Dollars program passed overwhelmingly in Oakland in 2022. 

Counties have been adopting small-donor systems as well. In Maryland, Montgomery County, passed a small donor match system in 2014, Howard County in 2017 and Anne Arundel County in 2023.

All in all, 14 states and more than 20 localities provide the option for candidates to take advantage of systems designed to make it possible for people of average means to run for office, keep out the corrupting influence of large individual and corporate donations, and allow for candidates and elected officials to spend time speaking with constituents in ways that go beyond just asking for money.

This latter point is illustrated passionately and eloquently by former Maine state Sen. Chloe Maxmin, who confirmed that the public financing system in Maine gave her the time to talk to every single constituent in her district, and those very real and very human one-on-one interactions made all the difference in securing her election. 

States and localities are replete with stories of candidates who opted into systems where contributions are matched or where vouchers or grants are given, and the impact these programs had on their communities. Seattle, for example, saw a 10 percent increase in turnout in 2019 compared to previous elections without the program. 

Teddy Roosevelt knew in 1907 that what he proposed would take some time for people to understand. In 2024, it’s clear that people all over the country do understand. And while states, cities and municipalities are heeding his words, we must continue our advocacy for comprehensive reform at the federal level. When enough states act, and enough cities and municipalities embrace change, Congress will have no choice but to heed his words as well.     

Matt Keller is the senior advisor to Democracy 21 and Christine Wood is co-director of the Declaration for American Democracy Coalition.