ANNAPOLIS – When Sean Dobson examined Maryland’s tax laws, he saw 52 reasons why the state needs public campaign financing.
Tucked among the tax code’s articles and amendments are many deductions, exemptions and shelters that, in the mind of Dobson and his government reform group, Progressive Maryland, only benefit business and the wealthy. These benefits — which include a tax break on “environmentally sensitive” golf course land — total $421 million per year and are the result of campaigns funded, in part, by business and special interests, Dobson said.
“Closing these loopholes, all by itself, could very well solve half of the (state’s $1.2 billion) budget deficit,” he said. “We need to make sure that millionaires are paying their fair share of taxes. Campaign finance reform is the only long-term solution.”
The reform of choice for Progressive Maryland, Common Cause and others is public financing, which allots tax dollars to candidates who meet spending and donation guidelines. The theory, proponents said, is to level the playing field between incumbents and challengers, while giving more people — especially women and minorities — the chance to run competitive campaigns without a formidable fund-raising task.
Fund raising in Maryland grew more imposing this year, after gubernatorial candidates spent a record $19 million and some State House races cost more than $1 million.
But in Arizona and Maine, where public financing has been available since the 2000 elections, opinion of the system is mixed.
“In a lot of ways the measure that was passed . . . people were sold a bill of goods,” said Arizona Republican Party spokesman Brian Murray. Clean campaigns, as supporters refer to public financing, do not eliminate special interest influence, he said.
For a state Senate candidate to qualify for public financing in Maine, the candidate could raise up to $1,500 in seed money with a $100 contribution limit. That money could only be spent before the candidate qualified for public funds, and candidates are limited in how much they contribute to their own races.
Arizona allows political action committees to make seed donations, while Maine does not.
Maine candidates then must collect at least 150 $5 donations and be certified by the state elections board. Arizona legislative candidates must collect 200 $5 donations.
Maine caps spending — based on the average cost of a race during the previous two elections — but will provide twice its usual funding in matching dollars if an opponent exceeds the ceiling. Arizona similarly matches funds, and both states have public commissions to oversee elections.
Arizona allots $20,000 for Statehouse races, while Maine gives state Senate candidates $22,000 and House candidates $5,800 total for primary and general elections.
While the amounts raised are different, many of the same groups that did the fund-raising “heavy lifting,” such as unions, said Murray, still help candidates collect donations to qualify for public funds.
“The same people that got you the money,” he said, “are the same people that got you the money.”
Maine Senate Majority Leader Beverly Daggett, a Democratic clean candidate, also opened a PAC to run issue ads for other candidates, which she deemed a political necessity for her party to capture control of the state Legislature.
Traditional candidates, such as Arizona Republican gubernatorial candidate Matt Salmon, criticized the state for including fund-raising expenses when it provided matching funds for public candidates. The system, said GOP spokesman Murray, penalized traditional candidates.
Complaints have been raised, too, about delayed finance reports and the small amounts of money available to candidates.
How the state distributes matching funds has also been a problem, even for supporters of public financing.
Disputes arose in Arizona about when expenditures, the basis for matching public funds, become official — when the deal is signed or when the candidate cuts the payment check — said Barbara Lubin, executive director of the Clean Elections Institute.
Candidates, she said, also need 24-hour access to additional campaign funds — even on weekends — and the state needs to speed the resolution of complaints.
“There’s few tweaks in the law,” Lubin said. ” . . . I believe it’s worked very well. It’s gotten more people to run for office. Ultimately we’ve seen higher voter turnout.”
The system has proved popular with Arizona candidates, as 56 percent of House of Representatives candidates opted for public money this year. Eight of nine statewide office winners were publicly funded candidates, including Democratic Gov.-elect Janet Napolitano.
Nearly 80 percent of Arizona Latino candidates surveyed said they would not have run if there were no public funds, while the number of elected women increased 7 percent in Maine in 2000.
“What those numbers prove is that there is no question the system is working,” said Progressive Maryland’s Dobson. “The question is do we simply adopt it? We don’t have to reinvent the wheel. There’s a proven and successful model.”
Adopting public financing, though, would mean millions in additional state expenses when Maryland is facing potential billion-dollar shortfalls the next three years.
Arizona faces a similar deficit and Murray thought the money is better spent on schools and keeping prisoners in jail.
Arizona pays for its system with a dedicated surcharge on all civil fees, such as parking tickets, and a tax return check-off.
Dobson estimates public financing will cost Marylanders $1.50 per year and the cost might be offset by fewer tax breaks, and, therefore, higher revenues.
Sen. Paul Pinsky, D-Prince George’s, is a member of the state commission studying public financing. The committee, he said, has not reached a consensus on a plan and is not yet ready to release a report.
“We’re finding now that we really haven’t completed our task,” said Pinsky, who does not expect any legislation when the General Assembly convenes in January.
Supporters say it is only a matter of time before a bill is introduced.
“I think it’s a good likelihood,” said Delegate Elizabeth Bobo, D-Howard. “I don’t have any doubt in my mind that the average person would fare better under public financing.”
