Campaign Finance Reform

Proposed reforms in 2023

What is Campaign Finance Reform?

Campaign finance reform is an umbrella term for proposals to reform the laws about the funds raised and money spent on electoral campaigns, including candidates, parties, initiatives and referendums. The goal is to increase transparency and limit the role of big money in politics, through policies that shine a light on dark money, provide public dollars to replace private funding for campaigns, and ban certain foreign entities from spending in our elections.

After the US Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United opened the floodgates for dark money to flow through independent expenditure committees, passing reforms at the state level may be the next best option for regulating dark money and strengthening campaign finance laws.

Why are we tracking it?

The high cost of running elections keeps politicians fundraising year-round. Election reformers work on proposals that change the way money flows through campaigns because those laws can have a substantial impact on who runs and ultimately represents voters, while rooting out big money and corruption in politics.

The network of laws and regulations that cover campaign finance is massive. To fully encapsulate the laws introduced in that category is beyond the scope of this project. This report focuses on a few discrete reforms within the larger campaign finance umbrella, including various models of public campaign financing, dark money disclosure, and an emerging reform that bans foreign-influenced corporations from spending in our elections.

Categories and definitions:

  • FIC ban: A law that prohibits foreign-influenced business entities from making contributions or expenditures for election purposes. Definitions may vary, but generally, foreign-influenced business entity refers to a publicly-traded corporation that is at least partially owned by a foreign citizen, foreign corporation, or foreign government.
  • Public campaign finance: A law that establishes a publicly-funded program for qualifying candidates for public office to receive public dollars. The method or model by which that money is distributed may vary, but common models include lump-sum payments, public matching programs, or a voucher-based program.
    • Lump Sum: provides public funding for campaigns by giving lump sums of public dollars to qualifying candidates for public office. To qualify, candidates must meet a set of requirements for participation that can range widely between jurisdictions, but often include rules such as adhering to certain contribution limits, not taking large private donations, and demonstrating broad voter support through signatures or small-dollar donations.
    • Public match: a type of public campaign finance program where small-dollar donations to qualifying or participating candidates are matched with public dollars.
    • Democracy dollars (also know as democracy vouchers): a system of public campaign financing where voters are issued vouchers that they can donate to political candidates who, in turn, redeem them for public campaign funds.
  • Dark money disclosure: A law that increases or creates new disclosure requirements for independent expenditures or political actions committees. Requirements can vary, but they often concern independent expenditures and coordinated expenditures, require transfer records for independent expenditures, and higher reporting requirements for independent expenditures. Sometimes, it includes disclosure of original contributors on independent expenditures for public communications or disclosure of the top 3 contributors to noncandidate committees that make only independent expenditures.
  • Local public campaign financing programs: Establishes a public campaign financing program for county or municipal elections or offices.

Fast stats:

Total proposals:

42

Total states:

15

States with the most proposals:

NY (8) and MN (7)

Proposals passed:

5

Vetoes:

1

Proposals passing only one chamber:

7

Bipartisan proposals

3

Additional Analysis:

This year, the most popular proposal across all campaign finance reform categories tracked was foreign-influenced corporation bans, with 16 bills on the topic proposed in 8 states. Across the public campaign financing category, the most-introduced model was lump sum public financing (7), followed by small-dollar public matching programs (4), and democracy dollars (1). Of the 45 bills introduced, only 5 passed and 1 was vetoed – two dark money/independent expenditure disclosure bills (NJ and ME), two bills about local public campaign financing (MD and NY), and two FIC bans (MN HF 3 and ME LD 1610, which was vetoed). Let’s break down some of the stories behind the numbers.

  • ➤ Campaign Finance Reform by the numbers:

    • 16 bills on FIC bans were introduced in 8 states (HI, MA, ME, MN, NY, PA, VA, WA). 14 bills were introduced by Democrats, and 2 had bipartisan sponsorship. 
      • 13 of the Democrat-sponsored bills and 1 of the bipartisan bills were introduced in states with democratic trifectas
      • 2 bills were introduced in states with divided governments 
        • PA’s SB 11 introduced by Democrats in a divided state with a Democrat-controlled House and Governor and a Republican Senate
        • VA’s SB 1648 with bipartisan sponsorship in a Democrat-controlled Senate and Republican-controlled House and Governor
      • 3 bills passed at least one house
      • Two bills were passed by legislatures, one in Minnesota as part of the Democracy for the People Act Package (HF 3) and one in Maine (LD 1610) championed by the Protect Maine Elections campaign. However, the Maine bill was vetoed by the Governor, and the Legislature failed to override her veto. The bill will now be Question 2 on the Maine statewide ballot in November 2023. 
    • There were 11 Public campaign finance bills introduced in 6 states (HI, IL, NC, NY, WA, WV), 6 had Democratic sponsorship, and one had Republican sponsors. None passed, and only one passed one house. 
      • 9 of those bills were introduced by Democrats in Democratic trifectas, and only NY’s SB 7564 advanced past one house.
      • 1 bill (NC’s HB 362) was sponsored by 24 Democrats in a divided state where Republicans control the Legislature and a Democrat is Governor
      • 1 bill (SB 280) had Republican sponsorship in the Republican trifecta state of West Virginia
      • The tracked bills were about three main models of public campaign financing 
        • There were 4 bills proposing lump sum public funds, one for all state and county offices (HI HB 967) and three for Supreme Court and Court of Appeals (IL SB 2360, NC HB 362, and WV SB 280. It’s worth noting that the North Carolina bill proposed bringing back a repealed program that was in effect between 2009 and 2013. 
        • There were 6 bills about public matching programs; 3 bills proposed new public matching programs for IL and MA, and 3 in NY (SB 7564 and AB 7760) proposing amendments to the existing statewide program. Illinois’ proposals would’ve included the state legislature and statewide executive offices, and the rest covered just the state legislative offices. 
        • There was one bill, WA HB 1755 on bringing a Democracy Dollars program statewide.
      • There were two bills in this category, from New York (SB 7564 and AB 7760), that proposed changes to certain thresholds and procedures for an existing public matching system. Neither passed. 
    • There were 6 bills introduced in 5 states (HI, IL, ME, NC, NJ) about dark money disclosure, 5 with democratic sponsorship and 1 with bipartisan sponsorship. Two bills passed: ME’s SB 1630 and NJ’s SB 2866.
      • 5 of the bills were introduced in democratic trifectas, 4 were introduced by Democrats and one had bipartisan sponsors
      • 1 bill was introduced by Democrats in a divided North Carolina where Republicans control the Legislature and a Democrat is Governor
      • The two main dark money reforms we tracked are disclosure of some IE contributions (either over a certain amount or pertaining to specific kind of expenditure) or original source disclosure, where all IE contributions and transfer records must be maintained and reported. 
        • Bills requiring disclosure of certain or some IE contributions: NJ SB 2866, HI SB 997, ME SB 1630 (specifically for individuals paying for campaign texts), NC SB 306, NJ SB 2866
        • Bills requiring original source disclosure: ME SB 1590, IL HB 3804
    • There were 7 bills introduced in 2 Democratic trifecta states to either start or amend local programs for public campaign financing. 4 of those bills had democratic sponsorship, and 3 were committee bills which have bipartisan membership. One passed, and one passed one house, both from the state of Maryland. 
      • A pair of bills in CA would’ve permitted candidates for local office to accept public funds if a local program was established.
      • The other 5 bills pertained to local public campaign finance programs in Maryland, and the only one to pass extended equal campaign funds for the student member of the Prince George’s County Board of Education, which already has a public campaign finance program. 
    • There was one study bill filed, for the evaluation of and potential implementation of a public campaign financing program. It was introduced by a Democrat in a Democratic trifecta state, and did not pass or receive a hearing.

In New York, lawmakers attempted to change the existing public campaign finance system, which provides small donors with matching donations of up to $250 in public funds. New York’s S 7564 would allow donations up to $6,000 in the Assembly, $10,000 in the Senate, and $18,000 for statewide offices to be matched by public funds. This was met with widespread criticism, with advocates saying this change would defeat the purpose of the system. Ultimately, the Governor did not sign the bill. There were also proposals for public funding programs introduced in Hawaii, Massachusetts, and Illinois, and proposals related to local public campaign financing programs in New York, California, and Maryland. A bill (HB 1755) introduced in Washington would have followed the lead of Seattle’s program by creating a democracy dollars program for state legislative elections. However, it failed to receive a hearing. 

Maine’s LD 1610 was passed by the legislature this year, which would ban foreign government-influenced corporations from spending in the state’s elections. Since 2020, foreign government-influenced corporations have spent more than $100 million dollars in Maine elections.31 Most of this was spent by corporations with ownership in Canada and Spain, who own the two major power companies in Maine, in an attempt to fight a ballot question brought by voters to establish a non-profit public power company. Ballot initiatives go through a unique process in Maine where, when voters submit enough signatures to qualify, the proposal is first presented to the legislature. If the proposal is not adopted without change, or if it’s vetoed by the Governor, it is placed on the ballot before voters.32 Lawmakers passed the citizens’ proposal, but Gov. Janet Mills vetoed the legislation, so the question was set to appear on the November 2023 ballot. The people of Maine voted to approve the measure on November 7,33 making it the second state to ban political spending by foreign-influenced corporations this year.

This is part of a broader trend to ban foreign influence in our elections; we identified 16 bills filed in 8 states this year to ban foreign-influenced corporations from spending in our elections. In Washington and New York, FIC bans passed in one house. Minnesota alone introduced 7 of those bills, and an FIC ban was included and passed in a broader slate of pro-democracy reforms (HF 3) passed by the We Choose Us MN grassroots campaign. This package initially included democracy dollars, but those provisions did not make it into the final version. 

New Jersey’s “Election Transparency Act,” (S 2866) which is an omnibus campaign finance and ethics reform bill that passed despite many concerns flagged by election reformers. The bill doubles campaign contribution limits, requires some dark money groups to disclose large donors if they spend over $7,500, all while gutting the leadership structure of the state’s ​​Election Law Enforcement Commission and shortening the time for completing investigations into impropriety from 10 years to 2 years. It also quashes existing investigations for acts that occurred outside the new two-year window between 2013 and 2021, including an estimated 80 percent of the agency’s other open investigations, officials have said.34 Meanwhile in North Carolina, election reformers on the ground formed a coalition around the Fix Our Democracy bill (HB 362), which proposed a slate of campaign finance and transparency reforms like true source disclosure (over $6K for PACs or $1K for individuals), increased transparency for digital and other political ads, a record of digital political ads kept, and established a NC Public Campaign Fund which would provide lump sum public financing to candidates for judicial races at the Supreme Court and Appellate Court levels (bringing back a program that was launched in 2009 but repealed in 2013). 

After the US Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United opened the floodgates for dark money to flow through independent expenditure committees, passing reforms at the state level may be the next best option for regulating dark money and strengthening campaign finance laws. Historically, legislative progress in this category has been difficult because politicians rarely want to change the system they’re winning under. Despite that fact, our analysis shows there’s still legislative interest and energy behind reforming the campaign finance system.  

  • ➤ Full list of Campaign Finance Reform bills we tracked

    Download the full list (PDF)

    State Bill Number Category sub-category Final Disposition Last Action # of sponsors partisanship
    HI SB 997 Campaign Finance Dark money disclosure did not pass Introduced 2 D
    IL HB 3804 Campaign Finance Dark money disclosure did not pass Introduced 1 D
    ME SB 1590 Campaign Finance Dark money disclosure did not pass Introduced 2 R/D
    ME SB 1630 Campaign Finance Dark money disclosure passed Signed into law 1 D
    NJ SB 2866 Campaign Finance Dark money disclosure passed Signed into law 2 D
    NC SB 306 Campaign Finance Dark money disclosure + PCF did not pass Introduced 16 D
    WA HB 1755 Campaign Finance PCF democracy dollars did not pass Introduced 9 D
    HI SB 1179 Campaign Finance FIC contribution ban did not pass Passed one chamber 7 D
    MA SB 430 Campaign Finance FIC contribution ban did not pass Introduced 1 D
    MA HB 722 Campaign Finance FIC contribution ban did not pass Introduced 4 D
    ME LD 1610 Campaign Finance FIC contribution ban vetoed Referred to the ballot n/a
    MN HF 3 Campaign Finance FIC contribution ban passed Signed into law 35 D
    MN SF 3 Campaign Finance FIC contribution ban did not pass Introduced 5 D
    MN SB 1546 Campaign Finance FIC contribution ban did not pass Introduced 3 D
    MN HB 1723 Campaign Finance FIC contribution ban did not pass Introduced 3 D
    MN HB 1270 Campaign Finance FIC contribution ban did not pass Introduced 5 D
    MN SB 288 Campaign Finance FIC contribution ban did not pass Introduced 5 R/D
    MN HB 117 Campaign Finance FIC contribution ban did not pass Introduced 10 D
    NY S 371 Campaign Finance FIC contribution ban did not pass Passed one chamber 11 D
    NY A 2633 Campaign Finance FIC contribution ban did not pass Introduced 17 D
    PA SB 11 Campaign Finance FIC contribution ban did not pass Introduced 12 D
    VA SB 1648 Campaign Finance FIC contribution ban did not pass Introduced 5 R/D
    WA SB 5284 Campaign Finance FIC contribution ban did not pass Passed one chamber 8 D
    HI HB 967 Campaign Finance PCF lump sum did not pass Introduced 20 D
    IL SB 2360 Campaign Finance PCF lump sum did not pass Introduced 1 D
    NC HB 362 Campaign Finance PCF lump sum did not pass Introduced 24 D
    NY SB 7564 Campaign Finance PCF process change did not pass Passed one chamber 1 D
    NY AB 7760 Campaign Finance PCF process change did not pass Introduced 1 D
    WV SB 280 Campaign Finance PCF lump sum did not pass Introduced 2 R
    CA AB 270 Campaign Finance PCF for local elections did not pass Passed one chamber 4 D
    CA SB 24 Campaign Finance PCF for local elections did not pass Passed one chamber 11 D
    MD SB 951 Campaign Finance PCF for local elections did not pass Passed one chamber cmte bill
    MD HB 1079 Campaign Finance PCF for local elections passed Signed into law cmte bill
    MD HB 213 Campaign Finance PCF for local elections did not pass Introduced 16 D
    MD HB 176 Campaign Finance PCF for local elections did not pass Introduced 15 D
    MD HB 1093 Campaign Finance PCF for local elections did not pass Introduced cmte bill
    IL HB 2630 Campaign Finance PCF public match did not pass Introduced 2 D
    IL HB 2349 Campaign Finance PCF public match did not pass Introduced 2 D
    MA S 414 Campaign Finance PCF public match did not pass Introduced 1 D
    NY AB 3292 Campaign Finance PCF public match did not pass Introduced 11 D
    OR SB 500 Campaign Finance Study bill did not pass Introduced 1 D

Footnotes

31 Protect Maine Elections, Learn more about YES on 2

32 The Maine Secretary of State Bureau of Corporations, Elections, and Commissions, Citizen Initiative Application Packet.

33 Portland Press Herald, 2023 live statewide and local election results

34 Tracey Tulley, The New York Times, Gov. Murphy Signs Law Decried as a ‘Frontal Assault’ on Good Government.

[chatbot]