Public Election Funding: An Assessment of What We Would Like to Know

Abstract

The implementation and expansion of public funding programs around the U.S. over the past decade raised the possibility of major changes in the financing of campaigns at the state and local level. Advocates claimed that these programs increased electoral competition, reduced the influence of campaign contributors and lobbyists, and change the distribution of political power. While there was evidence of a modest increase in competitiveness (primarily through reducing the number of incumbents who ran uncontested), the longer term pattern has shown no significant change in incumbency reelection rates, margins of victory, or legislature demographics. Claims of major policy change have also been overstated. The Supreme Court’s rejection of spending triggers for additional grant awards (in Arizona Free Enterprise PAC v. Bennett) makes full public funding programs less attractive, since public funding candidates are less able to keep pace with high-spending opponents or independent expenditures. Future research should focus on how these programs affect how candidates and legislators engage with the public.