From its inception in 1999 and until December 2004, the Foundation was committed to the issue of campaign finance reform, particularly the pursuit of public financing of elections.

In the United States, special interest groups and their financial clout strongly influence and sometimes determine the outcome of important policy debates and votes. This was evident in the U.S. Senate's rejection of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 1999 and its refusal to increase Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards in 2002. The issue of money in politics is also visible in local and state decision-making. In order to re-establish a democratic, truly representational system in which decisions are made based on the long-term interests of the country and its citizens – and not on money – we believe the current campaign financing system must be overhauled.

Historically, we have been committed to the efforts of Public Campaign, an organization whose ultimate goal is federal campaign finance reform. Its approach is to focus initially on reforms at the state level. We agree with its thinking that, if enough states adopt campaign finance reform initiatives and laws, elected officials at the national level would face enormous political pressure to legislate real reform.

Clean Money Campaign Reform Summary
The following is from Public Campaign:
"Clean Money Campaign Reform provides qualifying candidates who agree to limit their spending and reject contributions from private sources with a set amount of public funds to run for office… While elements of the plan vary according to local circumstances, in general, participating candidates receive Clean Money for the primary and general elections and they qualify by raising a high number of small (e.g., $5) qualifying contributions from voters in their districts or states.

"Clean Money Campaign Reform is not an attempt to patch up the current system, but instead is designed as an alternative to it. By ending politicians’ reliance on special interest money and offering in its place a limited but competitive amount of money from a Clean Money fund, Clean Money Campaign Reform provides an alternative way for candidates to finance their campaigns."

Clean Money Campaign Reform is a package of measures that:

Back to top

---

Policy Efforts

California Public Financing Initiative Feasibility Study
Since the Kirsch Foundation's inception in 1999, we have been committed to federal and state efforts to reform and/or adopt campaign finance reform laws and initiatives. We believe our representational system of democracy is at significant risk if political decisions are made based on campaign contributions rather than the long-term interests of the country and its citizens.

Due to that belief, our limited, but ongoing, commitment to fund or provide public policy resources to organizations working to reform the campaign finance system, and at the urging of our Founder and Chairman of the Board, Steve Kirsch, the Foundation launched a 16-week feasibility study in the summer of 2002. Its aim was to evaluate a potential California "public financing of elections" initiative.

In September 2002, the Foundation completed its feasibility study evaluating the potential for a "public financing of elections" initiative in California. Read our Final Report.

California Initiative and Legislative Activities
We supported Proposition 89 on the November 2006 ballot, which failed on a 25.5% (YES) to 74.5% (NO) vote. Prop. 89 would have created a level and fair playing field for California elections and reduced the influence of lobbyists and special interests in the state. The initiative covered all statewide constitutional offices and state legislative offices, and was based on a model in place in Arizona, Maine and elsewhere. To learn more about publicly financed campaigns, visit Public Campaign.

Historical California Efforts
During the 2005-06 legislative session, the Kirsch Foundation supported AB 583, the California Clean Money and Fair Elections Act, authored by Assemblymember Loni Hancock (D-14th District). The legislation – previously known as AB 2949 (see below) – passed through the State Assembly (47-26) but never got out of the Senate. The bill would have provided public funding to candidates who could show a broad base of public support by raising a qualifying number of signatures and $5 contributions and agreed to forgo all other private funds. Clean Money candidates would have received matching funds — for total funding up to as much as six times the base funding amount — to help counter attacks by independent expenditures and excess spending by privately funded candidates. For more on this and prior legislation, go to the California Clean Money Campaign.

In 2004, the Kirsch Foundation supported AB 2949 (Hancock) because it was consistent with the Foundation's goal of pursuing public financing of elections at the federal and statewide level. The bill would have created a ballot initiative to provide Clean Money campaign financing to all statewide and legislative races in California. Candidates would have needed to raise a set number of $5 contributions to qualify for public financing. Additional funds would have been disbursed in the event of independent expenditures or a non-participating opponent raising more money than a participating candidate. Third parties would have been able to qualify for funds, but at a lower rate than major parties. AB 2949 passed the Assembly Elections Committee but died in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

In 2003, political commentator Arianna Huffington filed papers in California to introduce a public financing of elections, or "Clean Money," initiative. The measure would have provided public funding for campaigns for major-party, minor-party or independent candidates for state offices who could prove a strong base of support. Candidates who opted into the system and qualified for public funds then would have agreed to limit their spending and reject contributions from private sources. Campaigns would have been funded through a severance tax on oil extracted from the ground. Huffington and proponents needed to secure 600,000 valid signatures in order to quality for the California ballot in 2004. The signature gathering was abandoned in favor of a legislative approach through AB 2949.

Back to top

---

Historical Grants

In the initial years of the Foundation's existence, we focused on providing grants to organizations working to reform the U.S. campaign financing system. A final grant will be made to Public Campaign early in 2005 in order to enable it to transition smoothly to other funding sources.

Back to top

---

State-by-State Progress Through December 2005

Over the past few years, Public Campaign and state coalitions, working closely together, have had significant success in passing state-appropriate versions of Clean Money Campaign Reform. What follows is detailed information about key states where Clean Elections reforms have been attempted, adopted, and implemented:

• Arizona: In November 1998, Arizona voters passed the Arizona Clean Elections Act, which provides full public funding for statewide and legislative candidates who meet a threshold requirement to raise a certain number of $5 contributions from voters. The public funds come from a variety of sources, including a tax check-off, voluntary contributions and a surcharge on civil and criminal penalties.
  
• Connecticut: In December 2005, the Connecticut state legislature passed sweeping campaign finance reform laws, including public financing of all state races, banning contributions from lobbyists and state contractors, and ending campaign advertisement booklets. If signed by the Governor, the changes take effect on December 31, 2006. The bill calls for funding the new system each year with approximately $17 million worth of unclaimed property such as forgotten pay checks and bank accounts that now automatically flow into the state's general fund.
  
• Maine: In November 1996, voters in Maine approved a ballot initiative, the Maine Clean Election Act, establishing a system of public financing and voluntary spending limits for all state offices. Candidates who raise a threshold number of small contributions from registered voters in their district and agree not to raise any more private money qualify for a fixed amount of public financing for their campaign.
  
• Massachusetts: In November 1998, Massachusetts overwhelmingly (67%) passed a "clean elections" public financing law that provided the option of full public financing for the campaigns of qualified candidates of statewide offices as well as the state Senate and House of Representatives. Ballot initiatives in the state, however, cannot include funding for any program and the legislature refused to fund the system. In 2003 the law was repealed. In its place is a much weaker partial public financing law for six statewide offices that provides matching funds for contributions of up to $250 for qualified candidates who agree to specific limited expenditures for their campaigns.
  
• New Mexico: In 2003 New Mexico passed a public financing law for candidates vying for a seat on the Public Regulation Commission, which is responsible for oversight of state public utilities. Similar to the full-public finance laws in Arizona and Maine, candidates who raise a threshold amount of small donations may receive full public funding for their campaigns if they agree not to accept additional private donations. The system is funded by a surcharge on the companies regulated by the commission. Public funding will be made available to candidates for the 2006 elections.
  
• North Carolina: In 2002 North Carolina passed a public financing law for judicial candidates went into effect in 2004. The law is designed to provide full public financing for candidates of the State Court of Appeals and Supreme Court, provided they raise "seed money" from at least 350 contributors between $10 and $500 each. The grants provided to qualified candidates are funded by a tax check-off and $50 voluntary contributions from lawyers when they pay their privilege license tax.
  
  

More than 15 states provide public financing directly to candidates, but the laws differ as to how funding is provided and to which candidates. In most cases, the goal is the same: to provide individuals with the ability to run for elected office without huge personal or special interest war chests and to eliminate the undue influence of special interest groups on important public policy decisions.

Back to top

---

Federal Legislation