July 28, 2004

Lawmakers balk at election law price

A West Virginia legislative interim committee studying campaign finance reform Tuesday reviewed Maine’s law for publicly financed elections — but balked at the price tag.

Maine’s Clean Election Act seems to be a success — private campaign contributions for state elections have dropped from $3 million in 1998 to $834,000 in 2002, according to one study.

However, a key source for funding the campaigns is a $2 million annual appropriation from the state — something committee members said West Virginia can’t afford.

“I know, sitting on Finance Committee, that taking $2 million from the budget is near-impossible,” said Sen. Karen Facemyer, R-Jackson.

West Virginia’s cost to underwrite publicly financed campaigns based on the Maine model would likely be much higher than $2 million, Delegate John Doyle, D-Jefferson, said.

West Virginia’s population is about one-third larger than Maine, he noted. Also, Maine Statehouse candidates run in comparatively geographically compact single-member districts, which likely reduces campaign costs, he said.

“I think we should think of our own numbers as being much higher than this,” he said.

Other funding sources for the Maine law include a $3 check-off on state income tax returns, and qualifying contributions candidates must raise to participate.

Despite the potential costs to the state, Doyle said he wasn’t ready to dismiss publicly financed campaigns as unaffordable.

“It is in the interest of the public that we have fair elections,” he said.

Under the Maine law, candidates have to raise sufficient qualifying contributions in $5 increments to participate. House candidates must raise at least $250; Senate candidates, at least $750.

Qualifying candidates then receive a lump sum of funds based on average campaign spending by candidates for the same office in the previous election.

In 2002, that sum ranged from $622 for House candidates in uncontested primary races to $17,528 for Senate candidates in contested general election campaigns.

Candidates can also receive additional funds if an opposing candidate’s spending tops the amount of the public subsidy, or if an outside group has independent campaign expenditures against the candidate.

Critics of public financing of campaigns contend that the process favors Democrats and third-party candidates, and amounts to taxpayers subsidizing often-negative campaign ads.

“That argument holds no water whatsoever,” Doyle said.

Committee members plan to review a just-passed New Jersey law that permits public financing of campaigns in six delegate districts, as a pilot project.

To contact staff writer Phil Kabler, use e-mail or call 348-1220.